Subscribe
Phillip “At Least They Are Transparent About Robbing You” Dampier
The unassailable truth is that if there is a right way for a company to treat its customers and a wrong way, AT&T will always choose the wrong way. It’s the primary reason I refuse to do business with them.
The company’s recent decision to block Apple FaceTime for customers who refuse to be herded to one of AT&T’s new Mobile Share plans is another shot across the bow of Net Neutrality, which declares customers should be able to use the applications and services of their choosing — particularly on networks where they pay for those choices.
Principal #1 of Net Neutrality: Companies should not be playing favorites with applications or services by blocking or restricting those a provider does not favor.
AT&T’s response: ‘Whatever.’
The predictable outrage of customers should have come as no surprise to AT&T, but somehow it did.
The company picked testy senior vice president for regulatory affairs Bob Quinn to mount a rapid defense against the pitchfork-and-torch-yielding throngs on AT&T’s Public Policy Blog. That was their second mistake.
Quinn, who spent last December valiantly defending AT&T against its too-precious CupcakeGate mini-scandal, conjured up this pretzel-twisted logic tap dance to explain away its latest boorish behavior:
Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.
AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement. Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary. There is no transparency issue here.
Nor is there a blocking issue. The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones. Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps. Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services. AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps. But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”) Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.
A company lecturing its customers for daring to question its decisions is always a good way to enhance those warm and fuzzy feelings people have about America’s least-liked wireless phone company. Quinn first scolds customers and consumer groups about their “knee jerk reaction,” for being upset about the issue. Then he declares they have “rushed to judgment,” using a turn of phrase not heard since O.J. Simpson’s defense team pounded it to death, and look where that ultimately got us.
The crux of AT&T’s argument is they get a free pass to “block and herd” because Apple FaceTime was pre-installed on customer phones. Therefore, since AT&T didn’t block you from downloading an app you already had, it cannot possibly be a Net Neutrality violation. Because as we all know, Net Neutrality is only about download blocking.
At least AT&T is keeping their promise to be transparent. They have, indeed, fully informed you they are mugging you while in the process of mugging you. Full disclosure… matters.
Somehow, I missed the “preinstalled does not count” section in the Federal Communications Commission’s December 2010 order to providers telling them to preserve the free and open Internet. So I spent last night with this legalese page-turner (194 pages to be exact) to refresh my memory.
Nope, it isn’t in there. You can read it for yourself from the link above.
So it isn’t me. It is them, making up the rules as they go, again.
Quinn graciously offers customers one concession: AT&T will allow you to use Apple FaceTime over your own home Wi-Fi network. Gosh thanks!
For customers addicted to FaceTime, AT&T’s solution is an expensive plan change. An average customer currently paying $70 for 450-barely used voice minutes and 3GB of data will find FaceTime off-limits on AT&T’s network unless they “upgrade” to AT&T’s $95 Mobile Share plan, which gets you only 1GB of data, but endless voice minutes you don’t want and unlimited texting you don’t need.
Result: Pay $25 more a month and get your data allowance slashed by 2/3rds. That’s a deal — AT&T-style.
But it is one some customers are through taking. Nalin Kuachusri:
The new FaceTime restrictions will usher in the end of my 12+ year relationship with AT&T. I’m tired of the consistent manipulation of plans and features to extract more and more money for services I don’t need. For example: there used to be several text-message options (200, 1000, 1500, unlimited) so I could choose and pay for the one that fit my usage best. Then there was the option to move from unlimited data to 2GB/month to save $5. That was great for me and fit my usage. Then I was forced to move back to $30/month if I wanted to add tethering where I’ll get an extra GB that I’ll never use. Finally, after 12 years as a customer with an account in good standing, I was not allowed to unlock my phone for my 10-day trip to Europe so I could get a local SIM. I couldn’t be happier to give you one final $200 payment as an early-termination fee so I can move to Verizon.
Unfortunately for Kuachusri, the bosses at Verizon Wireless are likely slapping themselves silly because they did not come up with the idea first.
Other stories of interest:
- Tell the FCC: AT&T is Working Your Last Nerve Blocking FaceTime
- AT&T: No More Subsidized Tablets and We’re Restricting Your Use of FaceTime
- Bulldozing Wireless Net Neutrality: Carriers Want “Toll-Free” Data for Their Partners
- AT&T Sticks It to Google, Blocking Play Store Movies on Its 3G/4G Wireless Network
- Verizon Wireless & Google Announce Open Platform Strategic Alliance, AT&T Reverses Course on Blocking Voice Over IP
Philip: Have you read the actual wireless NN rules? Here is the “no blocking” NN rule for wireless carriers:
“A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.”
The prohibition is on blocking access to legitimate website, and on apps that compete with a carrier’s voice or video service. AT&T is not blocking access to any websites, nor does it offer a competing voice or video service.
So tell me where exactly is the NN violation in what AT&T is doing? And please, nothing about NN “principals”. The FCC can enforce its NN *rules* but it cannot enforce vague “principals” which are nothing more than someone’s opinion of what THEY think NN *should* be.
A customer can use FaceTime to video-call someone overseas and deny AT&T the revenue they would earn from international long distance. A customer can use FaceTime to communicate with someone they would normally text and cost AT&T texting revenue. A customer can use the service, in fact, to call anyone running it domestically and avoid burning through their voice minutes by video chatting instead.
Let’s be honest here. AT&T earns revenue from data consumption regardless of what service a customer uses to do it. By denying customers without unlimited voice/texting plans access to the FaceTime app over AT&T’s mobile network, it is forcing those customers to potentially call or text those customers instead, or install a competing app that AT&T has not blocked. Even more importantly, it is placing psychological incentives to push customers towards a plan that cannot possibly harm AT&T’s bottom line, because:
1) Voice and text services are unlimited;
2) The data allowance on the Mobile Share plan is in fact more stingy (at a higher out the door price) than the current plan most customers are on.
I have no doubt if AT&T could find a way to block the app from Wi-Fi, it would probably do that too. This is all about incentives to get customers to switch to plans that will cost them more and deliver less of the services most customers who choose minute and text buckets actually want.
I still don’t see a violation of the rule I quoted.
AT&T doesn’t offer a video-calling app so by definition it cannot favor an app it doesn’t offer. If AT&T were blocking a straight-VoIP app that competes directly with AT&T’s voice service, that would be a violation of the NN rule. But AT&T is doing neither of those things. You may not like what AT&T is doing, but fortunately the FCC isn’t in the business of enforcing customer likes and dislikes. All the FCC can do is enforce the rules as written.
I predict this will go nowhere but ultimately only the FCC can decide that.
It doesn’t have to be a video calling app, the issue here is mobile communication. They are restricting an app that competes with their mobile communication, whether it be voice, text, or video. But, if you really want to stick to your argument about video-calling, they are restricting Facetime, a built in app from Apple, but not restricting any of the video calling apps available from the App store. So they are restricting an app provided by Apple that is integrated very well in to the iOS, and on the phone out of the box, but no others, so they are in fact restricting competing services.
This is fully against the meaning and concept of net neutrality, however weak the FCC’s requirements and action due, in large part, to AT&T’s(et. al.) contributions to politicians.
I predict AT&T customers will simply find a way around this and use someone else’s app, leave AT&T when their contract is up, or eventually see AT&T back down because of fiery customer outrage.
I agree that the FCC will not exactly be moving at warp speed to deal with this.
Phillip: you’re probably right about AT&T customers. Voting with their will will certainly get AT&T’s attention.
This is a mere rumor….. Wide-spread.