A few weeks ago, as it seemed more and more likely that FCC chairman Ajit Pai would successfully dismantle US net neutrality rules, California Congressional representative Ro Khanna tweeted an alarming-looking screenshot from Portuguese mobile carrier Meo. “In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages,” he wrote.
Since October 26th, this message has been retweeted over 58,000 times, and liked over 46,000 times. As Techdirt pointed out, it looks remarkably similar to a satirical chart showing internet services split into cable-style bundles, a graphic that’s been used to drive home the importance of net neutrality for years. But it’s also seriously misleading — in a way that misses a more important and subtle point about net neutrality.
The plan Khanna tweeted is called “Smart Net,” and as he correctly notes, it offers monthly subscription packages with names like Messaging, Social, and Video. Each of the five categories includes several big-name apps, including Netflix, FaceTime, Spotify, and Google Drive.
But based on Meo’s website, this doesn’t look like buying cable channels for the internet. It’s an add-on to general-purpose mobile subscriptions, which let you access any service — including the ones above. The idea is apparently that if you’re into apps like Snapchat and Facebook (or... LinkedIn, I guess), you pay around $8 a month to specifically get more “Social” data, so you can use your regular allotment for everything else. It looks a lot like the “Vodafone Pass” service in the UK, where subscribers can pay for unlimited access to a similar stable of services.
Techdirt explains this nuance, as does Quartz. But Khanna’s original tweet — the pithy statement that’s getting passed around context-free on social media — doesn’t. It implies that Meo is blocking or limiting certain “packages” unless you pay for them, the way that you can’t watch HBO without the right cable plan. His office didn’t immediately respond to an email asking for clarification.
“Portugal doesn’t have net neutrality, so it ended up with a dystopian cable-style internet” is also a bad argument for other reasons. For one thing, Portugal is part of the EU, which published widely praised net neutrality rules last year. More importantly, Meo’s plan doesn’t sound radically different from what telecoms are doing elsewhere. It seems philosophically similar to zero-rating, where carriers offer “free” data for apps like Netflix. Meo actually offers straightforward zero-rating for its own storage and entertainment apps, which provides them an even greater potential advantage.
Zero-rating and subscription packages both theoretically encourage mobile subscribers to favor established apps and services over up-and-coming competitors. In fact, you could argue that zero-rating and similar “sponsored data” plans are more insidious, because subscriptions at least make users consider whether they want to pay more for a better experience on certain apps. With zero-rating, they can just slip into using whichever default services offer unlimited data.
And you don’t have to look at Portugal, or a Trumpian future, to see zero-rating in action. General EU regulations call to examine cases on an individual basis, rather than banning the practice altogether, and so do the United States’ current (strong) net neutrality rules. AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile all offer it in some fashion right now — including T-Mobile’s Binge On, which isn’t that far from a free version of Meo’s video channel.
I’m not saying that these app packages sound good. Besides the competition problems I outlined above, they open the door for carriers to limit generic data pools, pressuring subscribers to buy extra subscriptions. But I haven’t seen a convincing argument that they’re a unique consequence of Portugal flouting EU net neutrality rules, nor something that seems unfathomable under the existing American system. Journalist Julian Sanchez argued that a US carrier could legally use Meo’s entire model right now. The biggest roadblock to US carriers adopting them is probably more public opinion than the FCC.
If there’s a lesson here, it’s that net neutrality isn’t just about writing rules, but about making sure that agencies will meaningfully enforce the spirit of them. The FCC, for example, determined in January that AT&T and Verizon’s zero-rating plans did violate net neutrality rules, though T-Mobile’s didn’t. But the report came out less than two weeks before former chairman Tom Wheeler stepped down, and Pai’s FCC has been predictably uninterested in following up with consequences.
Splashy headlines about Portugal’s supposed net-neutrality-free hellscape turn a complex debate over an imperfect policy to a good-versus-evil battle over flipping a single legal switch. The Trump administration has made it tough to have nuanced conversations, and so has Pai, whose proposed “light touch” rules are generally awful and paradoxically restrictive. But it’s better to try than to get lost in alarmist half-truths.
Comments
Thanks for setting the record straight Adi! This one going around the web was really starting to bother me.
It’s still consumer hostile. But it’s on the same level as zero rating. I would prefer to do without all of that. But if we’re going to be angry about things, lets be angry about the right things.
By BrightSilence on 11.22.17 6:22pm
Yes. If we are going to be angry about something, we need to be angry about the right thing.
Under the BHO FCC plan someone like me that lives out in flyby country where I pay full price for what is advertised as a 14 MBPS data speed plan but almost never see faster than 4 MBPS and when NetFlix time hits I get less than 1 MBPS so I get angry.
I don’t use Netflix or ANY HD STREAMING VIDEO service but I am paying the same price as the data hogs that do and the BHO FCC thought that the solution was for me and everyone else to pay higher prices so the Wireless ISP’s could build out their systems to subsidize the data hogs.
THAT IS WHAT ANGERS ME!!
I really do hope that we end up with a system where the wireless ISP’s are REQUIRED to provide the service they advertise and they are allowed to charge the data hogs extra to finance the capital investment in equipment needed to make sure they can provide that advertised service.
By blankballot on 11.22.17 8:46pm
They try to charge large users through tiered packages (i.e. 100GB vs 500GB per month, as well as 25mbps vs 500mbps, etc). But I think the issue you have is neither data limit nor speed, but bandwidth. Perhaps the carriers will think about building yet another tier to price up by bandwidth.
Or they could start charging by metering instead, like electric and water are generally done. That would be very interesting.
By urname on 11.22.17 10:13pm
I’m not entirely against different monetizations schemes for ISPs.
You can charge by speed – but you need to guarantee those speeds at least 95% of the time. And any usage limits should be reasonable by modern standards (e.g., 4K streaming shouldn’t trip your limit).
You can charge by usage – but you need to guarantee maximum available speeds at all times.
There absolutely shouldn’t be any mix’n’match of these two models. Speed and Usage payments will scale exponentially, as greater speeds encourage greater usage.
By vonbaronhans on 11.27.17 12:26pm
So let me get this straight; you think people who actually use 5mbps (a typical HD signal from netflix is 5mbs) should get charged even more because they’re using the internet in a way that’s different to you? Are you supporting the idea of being sold a 14mbps line by a company like comcast and then being billed extra if you actually try and use 1/3rd of the allotted speed you’ve already paid for?
It shouldn’t matter what you do with your 14mbps as it’s what you’ve agreed to pay for, so theoretically you should be able to stream that speed night and day up to any cap you have for the month. If you’re getting slower speeds than what you’re paying for, why don’t you get angry at the frankly appalling service you’re being provided by the company who is gouging you? Shouldn’t they take their profits and invest in better infrastructure so they can actually provide their paying customers with the speeds they’ve been sold?? Nope, in your mind, people should just pay more money to the same company because you don’t stream movies. Absolutely ridiculous…
By Pete.Roe on 11.22.17 11:02pm
…and I wonder how that could even be put into practice with VPNs.
By Marion Emory on 11.23.17 12:53am
It’s also just a basic misunderstanding of how this all works, which I think is the real barrier towards having true "net neutrality".
I would really want an article explaining how the internet in the US works now: bandwidth, speeds, what is feasible, what is not. And what the real dangers are to it. I know some of it, and I think I am pretty knowledgeable, but as posters here and elsewhere are showing, I think there is little understanding of how it all works, and corporations are happy to "explain" it to folks.
By lucas park on 11.27.17 9:57pm
I’ll repeat my point too…
You are wrong on every single aspect of your comment. So you want broadband, but people shouldn’t use it? Some watching Netflix slows down the whole network?
You want to pay for internet access, THEN pay more to use it? The American ISPs have somehow managed to convince you that they are poor, abused people, who work tirelessly to cram more data through little pipes than can fit – this is also wrong. You know all that expensive maintenance and network upgrade work? That’s what you pay for every month!
In other parts of the world, we actually use our broadband freely, with heavy data loads, without problems or extra charges. I have 100 Mb through cable lines, stream everything I and the kids watch and listen to, download and upload (legal!) stuff – with no problems or extra charges. Why? Because internet lines are a utility that ISPs can rent at reasonable prices – and therefore every person in my country has at least 4 or 5 ISPs to chose from. And while the ISPs generally do OK, they don’t become super rich, because they all have good customer service, and all are available everywhere, therefore they really only compete on price and speed.
All this is about is that the already rich, monopoly-like ISP giants such as Comcast want to charge more while doing less.
By Mha71 on 11.23.17 7:14am
Zero-rating is dangerous, consumer-hostile, and completely contrary to net neutrality. Being angry at zero-rating is the right thing.
By Rodalpho on 11.24.17 3:21pm
It’s quite simple. If net neutrality rules allow zero-rating, the rules don’t deserve the name and need to be reworked.
By Daniel! on 11.22.17 7:48pm
Yes. The only meaningful sense of "net neutrality" is that ISPs are not allowed to differentiate the service they provide based on who their customer is communicating with, period.
If your ISP offers a zero-rated package for Facebook, that means they charge less to access Facebook than other sites. The fact that they also offer a "neutral" service simply means you have the option to choose to pay more overall. Even if you don’t use Facebook, every time you send an email, you’re leaving money on the table by not sending it through Facebook instead.
This article is basically nit-picking over a distinction without a difference. All the potential harms of abandoning net neutrality can be accomplished through "zero-rating", and if it is allowed, then ISPs and big content providers have every incentive to make that happen.
By bobtato on 11.23.17 8:11pm
Fortunately up here in Canada, we’re on the right track. Recently, I lost my zero-rating for Spotify, which upset me, until I realized it’s because the CRTC deemed the practice unfair.
I’m now incredibly happy without unlimited streaming, knowing that I’ll be safe from this dystopian Internet-as-Cable future.
By charlesgedeon on 11.22.17 8:57pm
I wonder if it’d actually be so bad for carriers to become the dumb pipes they should be.
By urname on 11.22.17 10:16pm
pay attention to your "Unlimited" streaming. Many telcos throtle down speeds based on "fair usage policy".
By jpcarvalhinho on 11.23.17 9:54am
I use close to a terabyte, many times more than that, with both Bell and Videotron. If anything the speeds I get are consistently 10% higher than advertised. I can’t really complain about service here aside from the ridiculous rates they charge.
By NukedKaltak on 11.23.17 11:23am
You don’t even have to look at Europe for this kind of thing, most Australian ISPs have been offering this kind of plan break down for at least a decade I would guess.
Optus for example:
http://www.optus.com.au/shop/mobile/phone-plans
allow Optus Sport, National Geographic (within their proprietary app), Netflix and a handful of other streaming services and Google Play Music, iHeartRadio and Spotify to not count towards your monthly download limit.
Thanks to my VPN usage it doesn’t matter what streaming services I use, my data is counted exactly as is.
Other ISPs allow free streaming of similar services.
I actually nearly considered changing from Apple Music over to one of the other services before I got my VPN so that the data wouldn’t count towards my monthly bill, so you’re 100% correct about it encouraging people to favour particular brands/services over another.
By graha.me on 11.22.17 10:30pm
Totally disgusting prices. I pay 11€ for 600 messages, 600 minutes and unlimited data.
By Okaro on 11.24.17 1:48pm
This is the best article I’ve read about Net Neutrality on this site. Very honest and balanced. Keep up the good work Adi!
By theplatapi on 11.22.17 10:53pm
Net Neutrality sounds great and all, except it ignores the root problem.
The problem is that so few companies dominate the ISP market. It’s next to impossible for small businesses to enter the market, let alone compete, even if they can provide a better service.
We (in the U.S.) pay 3 times more than other nations for internet services. The reason they pay so much less, is because any small business with the equipment and knowledge to provide the service can easily enter the market. The reason they can easily enter the market, is because the physical internet—the actual cables and fiber—is owned by the public. The physical internet in the countries that pay the least is public property, just like the sidewalks, roads and parks.
If we keep arguing about bogus net neutrality or corporate censorship, we are all missing the point, and we are all losing. If the FCC just ‘enforces’ rules deemed ‘fair,’ only the lobbyists really have an effective influence. Sure, we could spend a lot of money monitoring and trying impossibly to make sure the corporations play fair, or we could actually solve the problem and abandon this system where every road is a toll road.
#BuyTheInternet
By Marion Emory on 11.23.17 12:27am
Hit the nail on the head. But they are two separate problems you have in the US, both as bad as each other, but together – man you are in trouble. Get ready to open up your wallets even wider.
By Mha71 on 11.23.17 7:18am
Thanks for clearing things up for those who misunderstood that screenshot.
I live in Belgium, where carriers have been offering "x GB of data + unlimited data for the social network you choose" deals for years. Vastly different from what this tweet suggests.
By thomasbdl on 11.23.17 1:41am
That is zero-rating, and that is also contrary to network neutrality. It should not be permitted.
By Rodalpho on 11.24.17 3:20pm
Haven’t you just explained why zero rating also runs contrary to net neutrality and should be stopped as well….
"Zero-rating and subscription packages both theoretically encourage mobile subscribers to favor established apps and services over up-and-coming competitors. In fact, you could argue that zero-rating and similar "sponsored data" plans are more insidious, because subscriptions at least make users consider whether they want to pay more for a better experience on certain apps. With zero-rating, they can just slip into using whichever default services offer unlimited data."
By Manfred Higgs on 11.23.17 1:52am
Exactly!
Zero rating is the same as limiting other services. Those services are limited to use within the artificially low data-cap.
Competitors starting up new video streaming services then are at an abbious disadvantage without negotiating a deal with the provider.
By rickythegeek on 11.23.17 2:17am
Exactly!
Zero rating is the same as limiting other services. Those services are limited to use within the artificially low data-cap.
Competitors starting up new video streaming services then are at an obvious disadvantage without negotiating a deal with the provider.
By rickythegeek on 11.23.17 2:17am