2000 Net Neutrality Complaints Filled

Brendan Sasso [pictured] reports to the National Journal that " In just the first month that net-neutrality regulations have been in effect, consumers have filed about 2,000 complaints to the Federal Communications Commission against Comcast, AT&T, and other Internet service providers, according to records obtained by National Journal.

And the depth of consumer outrage over unreliable Internet service and high prices is undeniable. .. Many consumers complained about data caps .. a consumer stopped watching Netflix and Hulu because of the "ridiculous" data caps

The FCC estimated the total number of informal complaints filed in the first month of the new regulations and provided copies of 50 of those complaints to National Journal as an initial response to a request submitted under the Freedom of Information Act. Public comments on proceedings and formal complaints are available on the FCC's website, but the agency does not routinely make informal consumer complaints available".

See "Thousands Beg FCC for Net Neutrality Crackdown" - here.

Sprint's Congestion Management "relies on the radio scheduling software provided by Sprint’s hardware vendors"

Back in April '14, Sprint said that "To more fairly allocate network resources in times of congestion, customers falling within the top 5% of data users may be prioritized below other customers" (see "Sprint's Reasonable Network Management Practices - Fairness, Limit top 5%, Video Optimization" - here). 

It turns out that now, with the FCC' New Net Neutrality rules becoming effective, this is no longer necessary! (or fines like AT&T $100M [here] may cause more damage) - and now the Sprint congestion management "relies on Sprint’s hardware vendors".  

Lance Whitney reports to CNET that "Sprint has stopped its data-throttling policy now that new Net neutrality rules are in place, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

.. Sprint acknowledged the halt to its data throttling in a statement sent to CNET:

'For less than a year, Sprint used a network management practice that applied only at the level of individual congested cell sites, and only for as long as congestion existed. At such sites, we temporarily allocated resources away from the top 5 percent of heaviest users and to the 95 percent of users with normal usage, to try to allocate the effects of congestion more fairly. Once congestion at the site passed, the limitation automatically ended. Upon review, and to ensure that our practices are consistent with the FCC's net neutrality rules, we determined that the network management technique was not needed to ensure a quality experience for the majority of customers'".

Sprint's updated "Open Internet Information" page (here) says: "Sprint employs a holistic approach to managing congestion on its data network. Sprint’s first goal is to avoid congestion altogether by directing traffic to the best available spectrum resources and cell sites. Sprint also attempts to avoid congestion by managing tonnage on its network. Finally, when congestion does occur, meaning that the demand on a particular sector temporarily exceeds the ability of that sector to meet the demand, Sprint relies on the radio scheduling software provided by Sprint’s hardware vendors to allocate resources to user" 

See "Sprint stops data throttling in wake of new Net neutrality rules" - here.

AT&T: Net Neutrality Rules "are subject to modification"

So, the FCC's "Separating Fact from Fiction" statement saying that "The Order doesn't reduce broadband investment"  (see FCC's Net Neutrality: No Price Regulation; Won’t Reduce Investments - here) was correct, at least for AT&T - but probably because of other reasons.

Matthew J. Belvedere reports to CNBC that "AT&T chief Randall Stephenson [pictured] said Monday the new FCC net-neutrality rules will be changed by the courts or Congress. Under this operating principle, he said the company is moving forward with $18 billion of broadband investments.

"We have seen the way the rules came out, ... and as we read those rules we do believe they are subject to modification by the courts" or by Congress, Stephenson said on CNBC's "Squawk Box" 

Related posts:

• ISPs Sue FCC Against New Net Neutrality - here
• FCC: "No blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization"  - here

"So we've said we're going to invest around $18 billion this year. That will allow us to deploy a wireless broadband solution to 13 million homes around the U.S.," he said. "That compares to about $22 billion last year."

If you don't see the video below, try here

See "Why net rules no longer an investment barrier: AT&T" - here.

[Infonetics]: Gradual Transition to NFV-Based DPI; Allot and Sandvine Lead the Market

A new report by Shira Levine, research director for service enablement and subscriber intelligence, Infonetics Research, forecasts that the "..market for deep packet inspection (DPI) solutions deployed as a virtual network function (VNF) will grow at a 66 percent compound annual growth rate from 2014 to 2019

.. we are seeing trial activity and limited commercial deployments. Operators are likely to deploy virtualized DPI incrementally, leveraging it to support separate lines of business such as M2M and MVNO, and gradually expanding those engagements over time as they become more confident about the technology”

Related posts on the DPI vendors NFV activity: Sandvine, Procera, Allot  Qosmos,

Other highlights:

• The FCC has released its net neutrality rules in the US, but the issue is far from resolved and court challenges are underway; regulations in Western Europe are under reevaluation as well and the topic is rearing its head in emerging markets
   
• The focus of the deep packet inspection market is shifting toward use cases such as video optimization, granular charging, network security and content connectivity
   
• In machine-to-machine (M2M) applications, DPI technology is being used to enable better identification of traffic generated by connected devices and mitigate its impact on the network
   
• Sandvine and Allot are neck-and-neck in the race for the DPI market share lead, followed by Cisco and Procera

See "Virtualized Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to Grow at 66 Percent CAGR Through 2019" - here.

Saisei Helps SPs Conform to Net Neutrality

DPI vendors are offering fairness-based traffic shaping solutions for more than 15 years now (such as Fair Use Management by Allot, Fair Use Policy by Sandvine and "Procera Networks and Openet Partnership Delivers Advanced Fair Usage to APAC" - here).

These solution support throughput of  hundreds of Gbps in an appliance or using a virtual s/w deployment (Sandvine, Procera, Allot), but one should never skip a good marketing opportunity - such as the anticipated (US-centric) new Net Neutrality rules.

And indeed - Saisei announced "Net-Neutrality-in-a-Virtual-Box, a simplified version of its powerful FlowCommand™ Network Performance Enforcement (NPE) software, that is specifically targeted at solving the network issues relating to the pending fair Internet usage mandate stemming from recent US FCC recommendations as well as growing enterprise network congestion.

Saisei’s Net-Neutrality-in-a-Virtual-Box comes preconfigured with Saisei’s unique “Host Equalization” enabled on start up. Using Host Equalization in-line, the Saisei solution automatically identifies, monitors and controls every single flow on a critical broadband link – up to millions of concurrent data, voice and video sessions – in real time without any impact on network performance.

Host Equalization gives every host – user – on a link exactly the same percentage of the available bandwidth that every other user has, regardless of what application(s) they may be running. Aggressive applications, including peer-to-peer apps like BitTorrent, high volumes of YouTube traffic or file transfers, that used to grab huge percentages of link bandwidth and crash other users, will now get the same percentage of a link’s bandwidth as every other user on the network.

Net-Neutrality-in-a-Virtual-Box can be deployed either as a VM under Hypervisor – VMware or KVM – control or, for customers preferring a traditional hardware solution, on Saisei-certified bare-metal x86 server cores as a bump-in-the-wire on routed IP links. Currently, links up to 10G are supported, with higher bandwidth solutions now under development".

See "Net-Neutrality-in-a-Virtual-BoxTM from Saisei Instantly Enforces Equal Access for all Broadband Network Users at the Click of a Button Regardless of Network Load" - here.

ISPs Sue FCC Against New Net Neutrality

Brendan Sasso [pictured] reports to the NationalJournal that "Telecom companies filed a pair of lawsuits Monday in an attempt to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's new net neutrality rules. The suits are expected to be the opening shots in a long legal war against the controversial regulations .. The suits claim the rules are outside the FCC's authority, violate administrative law, and infringe on the companies' constitutional rights:

• USTelecom, which represents AT&T, Verizon, and other companies, filed its lawsuit [see below] in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  See also: "USTelecom Files Protective Petition for Review" - here - "USTelecom strongly supports open Internet rules, but disagrees with the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to reclassify broadband Internet providers as common carriers in the order adopted March 12".
   
• Alamo Broadband, a small Texas-based wireless Internet provider, filed its suit in the U.S. appeals court based in New Orleans.

See "Internet Providers Sue to Kill Net Neutrality" - here.

FCC's Net Neutrality: No Price Regulation; Won’t Reduce Investments

The FCC has released the full text of the new Net Neutrality order, a 400 pages document (here) - and a press release that is "Separating Fact from Fiction".

"The Order uses every tool in the Commission’s toolbox to make sure the Internet stays fair, fast and open for all Americans, while ensuring investment and innovation can flourish. We encourage the public to read the Order, which reflects the input of millions of Americans and allows everyone to separate myths from fact, such as: [Partial list]

• Myth: The FCC plans to set broadband rates and regulate retail prices in response to consumer complaints.
• Fact: The Order doesn’t regulate retail broadband rates.
   
• Myth: This will increase consumers’ broadband bills and/or raise taxes. 
• Fact: The Order doesn’t impose new taxes or fees or otherwise increase prices.
   
• Myth: This is a plan to regulate the Internet and let the government take over the Internet.
• Fact: The Order doesn’t regulate Internet content, applications or services or how the Internet operates, its routing or its addressing.
   
• Myth: This proposal means the FCC will get to decide which service plan you can choose.
• Fact: The Order doesn’t limit consumers’ choices or ban broadband data plans.
   
• Myth: This will stifle innovation in new areas of Internet connectivity like connected cars or tele-health.
• Fact: The Order doesn’t regulate the class of IP-based services that do not connect to the public Internet.
   
• Myth: This will lead to slower broadband speeds and reduced investment in broadband deployment.
• Fact: The Order doesn’t reduce broadband investment or slow broadband speeds.
   
• Myth: The new transparency rules add up to a new form of regulation.
• Fact: Clear disclosure requirements benefit both consumers and industry".
   

See "FCC Open Internet Order - Separating Fact From Fiction" - here.

ABI: Net Neutrality - a Risk for Telecom Vendors - Mainly in Fixed Networks

A recent report by Eric Abbruzzese, Research Analyst and Sam Rosen [pictured], Director, ABI Research, finds that "..Regulations on net neutrality have been at the center of attention recently throughout the world.Balancing the interests of businesses, governments, and consumers has been a challenge for all involved. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with Chairman Tom Wheeler, is especially struggling to resolve a moderate proposal with President Obama’s public pro-neutrality stance [see "FCC: 'No blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization'" - here]

The uncertain possibilities of neutrality regulation have impacted operators such as AT&T and Verizon, and vendors such as Cisco in the wireline broadband space, forcing a shift in priorities until regulations are finalized [see also "Attn: DPI Vendors - US Net Neutrality Vote on February" - here]

While the United States has the independent FCC at the head of neutrality decisions, groups in Europe and Canada are also facing difficult neutrality changes, with the European Council and the European Union (EU) parliament, as well as the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) leading decisions for the these regions. 

Carefully planning investments, and balancing wireline and wireless portfolios, will prove necessary for companies to continue to see success during this wireline-focused regulatory restructuring period .. Operators or carriers that have a heavy focus on wireline, such as CenturyLink or Cisco, may find it difficult to see growth with some regulatory outcomes, while companies with a more balanced portfolio, including Verizon, AT&T, and Ericsson will simply steer resources to the highest return markets". 

See "FCC Discussions on Net Neutrality Hampering Investment in Wireline Broadband, Steering Investment to Wireless" - here.

Broadband Minimal Speed is ...

Since my early days in data communications, when we were thrilled to migrate to a 64 kbps IBM 3274 terminal controller, things have changed. for Example - defining what is "high Speed" (or Broadband) is now a complicated task, involving also political and business aspects, not just new technologies and changes frequently:

• Josh Taylor reports to ZDNet that "The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is proposing to raise the minimum speeds allowed for broadband from 4Mbps down, 1Mbps up to 25Mbps down, 3Mbps up .. According to a circulated fact sheet, the FCC is considering raising the definition to "reflect current consumer demands, deployment trends, and technological advances .. The draft report found that 53 percent of rural Americans lack access to the 25Mbps/3Mbps speeds, while across the entire US, 17 percent of -- or 55 million -- Americans lack access to those speeds. In urban areas, all but 8 percent of residents have access to 25Mbps, according to the draft report".
  
  

  

  Source: FCC Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2013
  
  

  See "FCC to define broadband as minimum 25Mbps" - here.
  
  
• Akamai's State of the Internet report (here) says "Since 2012 Akamai has classified broadband as:
   
• High broadband: Internet speeds greater than 10 Mbps when connecting to Akamai 
• Broadband: Internet speeds of 4 Mbps or greater when connecting to Akamai". 
• Akamai also defines "Beyond high broadband" (i.e. readiness to view 4K videos) as "4K adaptive bitrate streams generally require 10 – 20 Mbps of bandwidth". 

AT&T: The FCC is to Decide if our Network Management Program is “unfair”

Last November I reported that the "FTC Sues AT&T for Shaping Unlimited Subscribers" (here).

Jon Brodkin reports to ARS Techica on AT&T's response: "The Federal Trade Commission cannot prevent AT&T from throttling unlimited data customers because of AT&T’s status as a common carrier, the company claimed in a motion to dismiss [see below] an FTC lawsuit this week"

In addition, AT&T says that the FCC is already checking the same issue:

"The FTC seeks to litigate the very same issues in an inappropriate parallel proceeding. It asserts in this lawsuit that AT&T’s imposition of MBR was unfair and that its disclosures were inadequate. But whether AT&T’s network management program is “unfair” and whether its disclosures were “inadequate” are issues for the FCC to decide, and in fact the FCC is in the process of so deciding, just as Congress intended".

See "AT&T defends unlimited data throttling, says the FTC can’t stop it" - here.

FCC: "No blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization"

It seems now that next month's Net Neutrality FCC rules will not allow any traffic management intervention (except, most probably the traditional "reasonable network management" for congestion control).

Alina Selyukh and Malathi Nayak report to Reuters that "Comments by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas appeared to show he leaned toward regulating Internet service providers (ISPs) more strictly under Title II of the U.S. communications law, as Obama has suggested .. "We're going to propose rules that say that no blocking (is allowed), no throttling, no paid prioritization," Wheeler said [skip to 18:40' in the video below].

He said companies' behavior should be measured against a yardstick of whether it is "just and reasonable," referring to a standard often applied to public utility companies to make sure they do not hurt consumers or competition". 

See "FCC chief seen siding with Obama on net neutrality" - here.

Attn: DPI Vendors - US Net Neutrality Vote on February

Follow-up on my recent post "FCC Expected to Adopt Net Neutrality this Quarter; Google Supports Neutrality" (here):

Brian Fung [pictured] reports to the Washington Post that "Federal regulators looking to place restrictions on Internet providers will introduce and vote on new proposed net neutrality rules in February, Federal Communications Commission officials said Friday .. It's still unclear what rules Wheeler has in mind for Internet providers. Analysts and officials close to the agency say that momentum has been building recently for far more aggressive regulations than Wheeler had initially proposed".

For the DPI vendors, this is a major milestone. Back in November, Allot Communications said ".. We believe that once the FCC will get to a final resolution about [Net] neutrality it will open doors for large scale projects with our type of technology. We’re starting to see over the last few months, more interest coming from them. We are in direct touch with them, doing trials, but nothing yet that has materialized to a project". See "Allot: US Sales Waits for Net Neutrality " - here.

See "Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February" - here.

FCC Expected to Adopt Net Neutrality this Quarter; Google Supports Neutrality

Grant Gross [pictured] reports to NetworkWorld that "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will adopt net neutrality rules in early 2015, maybe as soon as February, several observers believe, but few people want to predict what those rules will look like .. It appears that the FCC will move forward with net neutrality rules in the first quarter of 2015.

.. There's no consensus about the direction the FCC should take, however. Congressional Republicans, large broadband providers and a significant number of people filing comments with the agency have urged commissioners to back away from reclassifying broadband as a regulated public utility, like Obama and other strong net neutrality advocates have called for.

.. So where does this leave the FCC? Chairman Tom Wheeler said recently he has no set timeline for moving forward on net neutrality rules. The FCC should act quickly, but also make sure any rules it creates will stand up to potential court challenges, he told reporters in early December". 

See "Experts: FCC will adopt net neutrality rules in early 2015" - here.

In other news - Google position on Net Neutrality.

M-LAB Blames Transit Carriers for ISPs Service Performance Degradation

A new report by M-Lab concludes that "we observed sustained performance degradation experienced by customers of Access ISPs AT&T, Comcast, Centurylink, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon when their traffic passed over interconnections with Transit ISPs Cogent Communications, Level 3 Communications, and XO Communications.

In a large number of cases we observed similar patterns of performance degradation whenever and wherever specific pairs of Access/Transit ISPs interconnected. From this we conclude that ISP interconnection has a substantial impact on consumer internet performance -- sometimes a severely negative impact -- and that business relationships between ISPs, and not major technical problems, are at the root of the problems we observed.

Observed performance degradation was nearly always diurnal, such that performance for access ISP customers was significantly worse during peak use hours, defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as the hours between 7pm and 11pm local time. This allows us to conclude that congestion and under-provisioning were causal factors in the observed degradation symptoms. 

It is important to note that while we can infer that performance degradation is interconnection-related, we do not have the contractual details and histories of individual interconnection agreements. As such, we cannot conclude whether parties apart from the two we identify are also involved (e.g. in the case that an Access ISP shares an interconnection point with another, etc.). We leave this non-technical question open for further study by others and focus here on the impact of what we can observe on consumer performance through measurement".

See "ISP Interconnection and its Impact on Consumer Internet Performance" - here.

Global Pressure on Net Neutrality

The endless delays in making the Net Neutrality laws in different, generated a new coalition - the "Global Net Neutrality Coalition". With 37 organizations from 19 countries, the coalition defines that "Net neutrality requires that the Internet be maintained as an open platform, on which network providers treat all content, applications and services equally, without discrimination". 

"This global coalition could not have come together at a more critical moment. In the U.S., net neutrality has finally become a kitchen-table topic, following President Obama’s breakthrough statement in which he called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass bold rules
protecting the open internet [see "What's Next for Net Neutrality?" - here] . Meanwhile, the European Union could soon pass landmark net neutrality legislation, with the Telecoms Single Market [here] proposal currently sitting with the Council of the European Union"

Members of the Global Net Neutrality Coalition:

Access (Global), Acceso Libre (Venezuela), ACUI (Colombia), Article 19 (Global), Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication (Bangladesh), Bits of Freedom (Netherlands), CC Meta (France), CELE (Argentina), Date Roads Foundation (US), Derechos Digitales (Chile), Digitale Gesselschaft (Germany), Digital Rights Foundation (Pakistan), EDRi (Europe), Electronic Frontier Foundation (Global), Free Press (US), Fundación vía Libre (Argentina), Internet Policy Observatory (Pakistan), Initiative für Netzfreiheit (Europe), Internet Ecosystem Alliance (Switzerland), IT for Change (India), Jinbonet (Korea), Just Net Coalition (Global), KiCTAnet (Kenya), La Quadrature du Net (France), Network Neutrality User Forum of Korea (Korea), OpenMedia International (Global), Paradigm Initiative (Nigeria), PEN International (Global), Public Knowledge (US), Open Technology Institute (US), Social Media Exchange (MENA), Software Freedom Law Center (US), Venezuela Inteligente (Venezuela), Web We Want (Global), Witness (Global).

See "Global coalition launches international net neutrality website" - here.

T-Mobile US: Speed Tests Look too Good ?

It turns our that T-Mobile spent some efforts in service management facilities to detect when a customer accesses speed tests sites, so a speed limit (for customers exceeding their data plan cap) could be temporary removed, and "non-accurate" performance information would be shown!

The Federal Communications Commission announced that T-Mobile US has ".. agreed to take steps to ensure that customers who run mobile speed tests on the carrier’s network will receive accurate information about the speed of their broadband Internet connection, even when they are subject to speed reductions pursuant to their data plans.

[Related post - "T-Mobile to Shape Misusage Over LTE" - here]

T-Mobile offers several data plans that feature a designated allotment of high-speed data. After a customer uses the monthly high-speed data allotment, that customer will receive data at a reduced speed limited to either 128 kbps or 64 kbps, depending on the customer’s data plan, for the remainder of the monthly billing cycle [here]. 

These speed reductions are specified in T-Mobile’s agreements with customers,and T-Mobile customers do not receive overage charges for exceeding their data caps. In June, T-Mobile began exempting the use of certain speed test applications, which allow consumers to measure the speed of their Internet connection, from customers’ monthly high-speed data allotments.

OOKLA's SpeedTest Report - mobile carriers, US, November 2014 data

Currently, customers who have their speeds reduced after exceeding their monthly high-speed data cap cannot easily understand the results of exempted speed tests. When these customers run speed tests that T-Mobile has exempted from data caps, they receive information about T-Mobile’s full network speed,and not the actual reduced speed available to these customers at that time. 

The FCC was concerned thatthis could cause confusion for consumers and prevent them from obtaining information relevant to their use of T-Mobile services. The FCC and T-Mobile have agreed that T-Mobile will begin implementing the agreement immediately and will fully implement it within 60 days.

See "T-Mobile To Improve Disclosures for Consumers Using Mobile Speed Tests"- here.

What's Next for Net Neutrality?

FCC Chairman
Tom Wheeler

It is a mess. While the DPI market waits for the Net Neutrality rules, whatever they would be, (see "Allot: US Sales Waits for Net Neutrality" - here) it seems that the FCC decision will be delayed.

The 2nd generation of the FCC Net Neutrality rules should have provided the clearness for "Fast Lanes" (see "FCC: The New Net Neutrality is 'Hybrid'" - here), making the DPI vendors happy (or not - see "Sandvine to the FCC: Internet Fast Lanes are not Needed" - here).

However, a recent statement by President Obama tries to change all that bringing back the ideas of free and open internet with no limitation or traffic blocking (see "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules" - here). At least the president is consistent, as he said the same things almost 5 years ago (see "Network Neutrality – A Presidential Introduction" - here)

So what's next ? for sure - a delay in the FCC, and slowdown in networks investments by the major carries (see "AT&T to pause fiber spending on net neutrality uncertainty" -here). Will the FCC go with the president's position? the following headlines will probably confuse you:

• Dana Liebelson and Ryan Grim report to Huffingtonpost - "FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Tells Silicon Valley He's Open To Obama Net Neutrality Plan" (here): " Chairman Tom Wheeler told a gathering of business representatives and public interest groups that he was taking the president's comments under advisement and that he would need the groups' support in the coming fight over net neutrality, according to multiple sources in the meeting"

• Steve Dent reports to Engadget - "FCC Chairman says he may ignore Obama on net neutrality" (here): "FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has told web giants Google, Yahoo and others that he won't cave to pressure from the White House, declaring "I am an independent agency."".

I welcome comments from people understanding US politics. 

FCC: The New Net Neutrality is "Hybrid"

 
After years of failing to established a consumer oriented Net Neutrality, the FCC has a new scheme, recognizing that an Internet connection has two, non-equal, sides - the consumer and the content provider.

Edward Wtatt reports to the New York Times that "The proposal is part of a hybrid solution that has gained favor among theF.C.C. staff over the last two months. Like other possible solutions, it seeks to reestablish the F.C.C.’s authority to enforce net neutrality, the general concept that no Internet traffic should be discriminated against unfairly.

But unlike policies previously considered, which treated the entire Internet ecosystem as a single universe, the hybrid proposal would establish a divide between “wholesale” and “retail” transactions.

• The retail portion, the transaction that sends data through the Internet service provider to the consumer and which allows the consumer to access any legal content on the Internet, would receive a lighter regulatory touch.
   
• .. the hybrid approach would apply Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to the connection between Internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, and content providers. For the purpose of agreeing to transport content from a company like Netflix through its network, an I.S.P. would be treated as a “common carrier,” subject to stricter regulation.In that instance, an I.S.P., as a common carrier, could not give an unfair advantage to one content provider over another. Paid prioritization , where a content provider pays for a fast lane to consumers, would be restricted unless it could be proved to be just and reasonable"

See "F.C.C. Considering Hybrid Regulatory Approach to Net Neutrality" - here.

The FCC Fines Marriott for Disabling Guests' Private Wi-Fi Networks

Marriott Gaylord Opryland Resort
& Convention Center

Marriott hotels tend to get in trouble with its traffic management practices. Back in 2012, they used their Wi-Fi service to insert ads into guests sessions (see "Marriott Uses DPI to Insert Ads to its Guests" - here and "Marriott (on DPI Ad Insertion): ".. we didn't know .. everybody does it.. it is disabled now"" - here).

Now, according to the FCC, they jammed the use of personal hot-spots so customers will have to use Marriott's (expensive) service instead. This time they will pay.

The FCC announced that "Marriott International, Inc. and its subsidiary, Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., will pay $600,000 to resolve a Federal Communications Commission investigation into whether Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, in violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act.

The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s investigation revealed that Marriott employees had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent individuals from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks, while at the same time charging consumers, small businesses, and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network".

"Consumers who purchase cellular data plans should be able to use them without fear that their personal Internet connection will be blocked by their hotel or conference center,” said Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc. “It is unacceptable for any hotel to intentionally disable personal hotspots while also charging consumers and small businesses high fees to use the hotel’s own Wi-Fi network. This practice puts consumers in the untenable position of either paying twice for the same service or forgoing Internet access altogether,” he added".

See "Marriott to Pay $600K to Resolve WiFi-Blocking Investigation" - here.

FCC Expands Traffic Management Policies Questioning to all MNOs

Alina Selyukh and Marina Lopes report to Reuters that "The top U.S. communications regulator on Friday said he is asking all large U.S. wireless carriers to explain how they decide when to slow download speeds for some customers, after questioning Verizon Wireless about such a plan"

This follows the letter sent earlier to Verizon (See "The FCC "Deeply Troubled" by Verizon's LTE Optimization" - here) following the MNO's decision to expand its "optimization" policy to LTE and limit unlimited users in congested locations (see "Verizon Expands "Optimization" to LTE Subs to Fight Cell Congestion" - here).

Verizon's response to FCC worries was (here, by TheRegister) that it is the right thing to do and everybody does that (try to claim that in a trial):  "The Commission Has Recognized the Reasonableness of this Form of Network Management .. Such Practices Are Widely Used Throughout the Industry and Have Been Widely Accepted [we are] Managing our 4G LTE to Ensure the Best Wireless Experience [and] With network optimization, our customers continue to be free to go where they want on the Internet and to use the applications, services and devices of their choice"

So ... if everybody does it, need to ask them as well.

Back to Reuters report - "AT&T Inc representatives did not immediately comment. A Sprint Corp spokeswoman said her company "goes to great lengths to be transparent about its network management practices," and will respond to Wheeler's letter as appropriate. "Our network practices are consistent with the Commission’s rules on the open Internet, are innovative and are good for consumers and competition," a T-Mobile US spokeswoman said." 

 

See "After Verizon, U.S. FCC quizzing other carriers on data management" - here.