Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#31

Post by bko »

wpietri wrote: post #18

I'm always disappointed when deregulation advocates don't seem to understand how markets work. Free markets are great when you have a large number of relatively equal agents interacting freely. E.g., the classic farmer's market, or the stock trading pits of old. But the more you drift from those conditions, the less effective they are. Here, with large, rich players paying for access to poor, mostly-uneducated indivi…

I don't think having a large number of relatively equal agents interacting freely is ever realistic. There will always be those at an advantage and they should choose what he pursue based on their abilities. Kind of like very tall people with an athletic disposition should consider playing basketball. On the surface it is unfair to those under 6 feet tall but the NBA, being a market, is most concerned with attracting the talent that should be playing basketball rather than providing a level playing field to those who aspire to play.

In that sense, the market isn't about providing fairness to all players but for allocating talent and abilities.

In regards to exploiting the poor, I think that sort of mind-set often results in a dangerous kind paternalism. Protecting the poor is an excuse used for all sort of policies that often keep the poor down (cigarette taxes, drug policy, etc).

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#32

Post by Tarang »

jacquesm wrote: post #30
arihant wrote: post #17

Okay, this has nothing to do with supporting the poor as the comments here are suggesting, and as Airtel is trying to paint it. Poor can avail month-long 1GB data at $3 in India. All major providers have a plan that makes Facebook, Whatzapp, Google, Twitter, Instagram free for $0.5 a month. We already have plans for the poor, this is not it. This plan is the following - if you take Airtel Zero, you cannot access any…

One of the participants will sooner or later set up a proxy.

The participants have to pay for the data instead of their clients. A proxy would effectively cost them.

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#33

Post by CoryG89 »

icebraining wrote: post #28
wpietri wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that you no longer have access to information that they don't want you to see. For example, they won't be able to see you explaining that for Facebook and Google, users are the products.

Doesn't the same happen in TV, radio, newspapers, etc? I understand why the Internet is different (and better, imho), but that doesn't mean we should ban other mediums. Just don't call this service Internet access.

I actually think this is one of the better ideas/solutions to this problem I have yet seen in this thread. If you don't label this service as access to "the internet" then there should be little concern as far as net neutrality goes. As long as it is made clear to customers that they are not getting the full internet, and instead are paying only for access to a handful of services then I dont think this should be considered a violation of net neutrality.

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#34

Post by denzil_correa »

The telcos and the government are trying to spin this as affordable Internet for the poor. Essentially, it does break net neutrality [0].

> At first glance it may appear that all traffic is handled equally in this charging model, but the fact is that once you have used your quota, the traffic that is exempted will be allowed to continue, while all other traffic will be throttled or blocked. This is clearly a case of discrimination between different types of traffic.

Now, if this is so altruistic and for benefit of all - I would make three "requests" from the telecoms.

1. Telcos should not prevent ANY app/website or any other service from being registered on the zero rating platform.

2. Telcos should post every detail of their financial deal with zero rating partners public. Essentially, I would like to know if a zero rating partner is paying for this affordability or are these costs passed on to the consumer in secret.

I am sure since this is for the good of everyone, telcos would have no problem agreeing to these two reasonable requests.

[0] http://eng.nkom.no/topical-issues/news/net-neutrality-and-ch...

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#35

Post by denzil_correa »

danieltillett wrote: post #2

I am not sure why businesses paying the data charges of their customers is a violation of net neutrality? It might be anti-competitive and an abuse of market power, but unless the traffic was prioritized over other traffic how is this a violation of net neutrality?

> I am not sure why businesses paying the data charges of their customers

This is a HUGE assumption. I would go out on a limb to say that that's what is happening. Consider this - an telecom firm named "UnfAir Tel" and e-commerce firm called "Glitch Kart" enter into a zero rating deal. Now, Glitch Kart is asked to pay UnfAir Tel some money to be called a Zero partner. Glitch Kart passes on these costs to the consumer (on every product) - minute costs like 20c per product. So consumers now pay to keep Glitch Kart accessible without Internet AND UnfAirTel for providing NO extra service.

> It might be anti-competitive and an abuse of market power, but unless the traffic was prioritized over other traffic how is this a violation of net neutrality?

I think the Norwegian Communications Authority explains this best.

> At first glance it may appear that all traffic is handled equally in this charging model, but the fact is that once you have used your quota, the traffic that is exempted will be allowed to continue, while all other traffic will be throttled or blocked. This is clearly a case of discrimination between different types of traffic.

http://eng.nkom.no/topical-issues/news/net-neutrality-and-ch...

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#36

Post by Kiro »

> by saying that banning zero rating is to deny poor people access.

I may be naive but I kind of agree. I also think zero rating sounds great in theory. The alternative is that people cannot access at all? Can you post some arguments of why it is bad? Net neutrality doesn't tell me anything. Why would I as a consumer care about that?

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#37

Post by lake99 »

bko wrote: post #31
wpietri wrote: post #18

I'm always disappointed when deregulation advocates don't seem to understand how markets work. Free markets are great when you have a large number of relatively equal agents interacting freely. E.g., the classic farmer's market, or the stock trading pits of old. But the more you drift from those conditions, the less effective they are. Here, with large, rich players paying for access to poor, mostly-uneducated indivi…

I don't think having a large number of relatively equal agents interacting freely is ever realistic. There will always be those at an advantage and they should choose what he pursue based on their abilities. Kind of like very tall people with an athletic disposition should consider playing basketball. On the surface it is unfair to those under 6 feet tall but the NBA, being a market, is most concerned with attracting…

Not only that, it takes away an avenue for companies with large coffers from doing charity. For example, Google might want to make all of Khan Academy available via 'zero bandwidth' to Indian customers, by footing the bills themselves. Forcing customers to pay for the bandwidth (when someone else is willing to pay) goes against free-market principles.

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#38

Post by mobiplayer »

Tarang wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the participants will sooner or later set up a proxy.

The participants have to pay for the data instead of their clients. A proxy would effectively cost them.

And it could be a good investment in exchange of proxying all your customer's traffic. That's probably the wet dream of some C level executives.

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#39

Post by Grue3 »

arihant wrote: post #17

Okay, this has nothing to do with supporting the poor as the comments here are suggesting, and as Airtel is trying to paint it. Poor can avail month-long 1GB data at $3 in India. All major providers have a plan that makes Facebook, Whatzapp, Google, Twitter, Instagram free for $0.5 a month. We already have plans for the poor, this is not it. This plan is the following - if you take Airtel Zero, you cannot access any…

The difference is marginal. With $0.5/$3 plan, if the person is poor, they can't afford to go to expensive websites, so they're still locked to the cheap websites. It's still a "net neutrality" situation and the two plans have the same effect in practice. The only solution is to make the entire Internet free for everyone, which is, of course, not happening.

Re: Ask HN: What do you guys think of zero rating?

#40

Post by drpgq »

arihant wrote: post #17

Okay, this has nothing to do with supporting the poor as the comments here are suggesting, and as Airtel is trying to paint it. Poor can avail month-long 1GB data at $3 in India. All major providers have a plan that makes Facebook, Whatzapp, Google, Twitter, Instagram free for $0.5 a month. We already have plans for the poor, this is not it. This plan is the following - if you take Airtel Zero, you cannot access any…

Wow $3 for a GB of data? I'm paying more than three times as much in Canada and that's considered a good deal.
Post reply on HN