[giarc]

>AT&T and Verizon allow their own video services (DirecTV and Go90, respectively) to stream on their mobile networks without counting against customers' data caps, while charging other video providers for the same data cap exemptions.

Isn't that the anti definition of net neutrality?

[levelist_com]

No worries. It is my understanding, that as of last Friday the FCC will no longer enforce Net Neutrality rules.

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Trumps-New-FCC-Boss-Halt...

https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-mignon-clyburn-ajit-pa...

so... problem solved? s/

[chimeracoder]

> Isn't that the anti definition of net neutrality?

Yes, zero-rating is a direct affront to net neutrality: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/zero-rating-what-it-is...

But I don't think that we're going to see many successes in net neutrality at the federal level anytime soon - the fight really has to be carried out at the state level.

[gcb0]

...and still absolutely nobody think about moving companies. We already have number portability.

[criley2]

...Moving companies?

Tmobile, Verizon, AT&T and Sprint uses 0 rating.

That's the entirety of the American wireless infrastructure.

It is literally impossible to use 4g wireless communication in America without patronizing directly or indirectly a 0 rating neutrality violator.

[dragonwriter]

Yes, it certainly seems to violate the Open Internet Order. The FCC is stopping enforcing the order because the new FCC leadership intends to rescind the order and opposes the order's goals and mechanisms. Net neutrality is dead.

[lisivka]

I see no violation of the net neutrality. LAN traffic is completely free. Wired traffic is cheaper than wireless. Local traffic is cheaper at AWS than WAN traffic. CDN traffic is cheaper than hoster traffic. And so on.

Price is part of the market competition.

[mbrumlow]

I don't think you understand this at all.

Yes, different modes of transportation cost more. The problem is charging different services a different rate on that mode of transportation.

Sure, a wireless network can cost more, and people can pay more. What net neutrality is about protection from being charged more for bits coming from a competitor. This protection is both good for the customer and the market competition. Without it in fact you can't have market competition. All you will end up with his monopolies. I personally think it is high time that internet access be regulated as a utility and decoped from any secondary media businesses.

A wireless customer is paying for wireless access and should not have any bill charge difference for the bandwidth they paid for regardless of the backend source.

The best analogy I can come up with is this. There are 2 major stores in your town that sale widgets.

Company A owns a single widget store. Company B owns a single widget store and a toll road.

This toll road is the ONLY way to get to company A's and company B's widget store. This is mostly due to lobbying and unfair protracted company B takes part in to ensure that there are no other roads. The problem is that company B stops and ask each driver where they are going when they enter the toll road. They charge one price to cars who are going to company B's widget store and a higher price to cars going to company A's widget store. Both drivers will be on the toll road for the same time as its only a small strip of road, but still the only road.

You do see the problem right?

[lisivka]

Yep, I see the problem. I just telling that it is not a FCC role to fight monopolies.

As long as traffic coming in and out at same rate for every provider, FCC should relax and watch.

Moreover, I know information theory, so I see no problem at all for hacker like me. I will just use uuencode/uudecode.

[ars]

> Isn't that the anti definition of net neutrality?

No because it's their own service. The definition would be for someone else's service.

Let's pretend this is comcast and they are sending cable TV over the same wire as internet data. (Which they do.) Does that violate Net Neutrality?

If not (and I think most people would say not), what's the difference?

The bare fact that you can argue if there is or isn't a difference already tells you this isn't a clear Net Neutrality case.

[giarc]

I think you're incorrect, but happy to hear arguments against.

The phrase I quoted says that the big companies allow you to use their service free of any caps, but if you want to use a 3rd parites same service you are going to be capped. Therefore it's not neutral. The 3rd parties can pay to have cap removed, which puts it into the non-neutral territory.

[mwsherman]

In this narrow case, I believe there may be a claim that those bits are not “Internet” service. They are private network traffic, within their respective networks.

[WorldMaker]

They are still TCP/IP and/or UDP/IP packets running over the "internet protocol". At what point do you draw the fences between "private network" and the rest of the internet?