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

51–60 of 67 posts

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

#51

Post by icebraining »

arihant wrote: post #49
notahacker wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call $3 per gigabyte "peanuts" to someone buying the ~$30 extreme low-end Android phones, or indeed a much poorer person that possesses a battered second-hand feature phone with a Facebook app, which could at least theoretically be covered with this sort of program.

As I said before, we already have plans that give access to basic websites for $0.5 a month. Facebook-only access is like $0.1 a month. But with these plans, I can still access the rest of the web if I choose to, I just have to pay. $0.5 is what a poor person pays for lunch on job site, just to put the price in perspective. I'm not arguing the free part, I'm arguing the fact that as soon as you opt-in for the new Zer…

If they want e-governance and healthcare information, why did they subscribe to a service that didn't have them? Is there any argument that justifies this besides "they're too stupid to know better"?

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

#52

Post by rdsubhas »

drpgq wrote: post #40
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.

You pay the rest in Time, basically. The $3 internet is so slow that you'll spend an eternity waiting for any page (other than google's homepage) to load. Its for the most basic of internet messaging and email. Youtube? Forget about it.

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

#53

Post by blumkvist »

icebraining wrote: post #50
blumkvist wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow such a beautiful world you live in. Unicorns, honest people, fairness and shit... Please, wake up.

I'm genuinely curious; did you intend this post to have any real effect? That nathan_f77 will read it and suddenly realize the errors in his/her ways?

I don't think about it much to be honest. I guess I believe the cynics should speak up instead of just idling. Kind of like a duty. Maybe it will make somebody think. Perhaps not him, but someone else.

I'm still very young though...

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

#54

Post by Someone1234 »

arihant wrote: post #44
Grue3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a scheme for people struggling for food. Airtel Zero is only for companies offering Android and iPhone apps. If a person can afford a $120 phone at minimum, they can pay $3 a month. The "poor" is a marketing stunt here. In no way will this scheme make internet accessible for the next half billion in India.

> $120 phone at minimum

Uhh, no. I've paid $50 for this (non-contract):

http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_blade-3391.php

And that was new and in 2010. There are tons of amazing phones well below $70, in particular in "developing" markets (like India) where they get some exclusive low end phones that are a bargain for the spec.

If you go look on Airtel's website right now, go mobile offers, buy now, then uncheck the filter at the top and organise Low->High.

They have a 4.5" Android Quad Core, Lollipop phone for $87. If you can live with KitKat then they start at $31.95. If you want a "nice" Kitkat phone then $65.65 will buy you one.

So, yeah, $120 is nowhere ballpark near the minimum. The minimum in the literal sense is $10 and the minimum with Android is $28.81. And that's just buying directly from Airtel, new.

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

#55

Post by vishnuharidas »

ge0rg wrote: post #24
vishnuharidas wrote: post #20

There are two points here. 1. Zero rating is good for customers. If Flipkart offers zero rating app, then other competitors like Amazon, Ebay, Snapdeal etc. too are forced to improve their service over Flipkart, or provide Zero Rating for them also. (But from a Business perspective, this can be bad). 2. Net Neutrality is a different thing. But here the telecom operators are confusing people with NN and ZR, tricking t…

1. Zero rating is good for customers. This is probably more complicated. While large companies will have to follow suit and probably buy-in into the ZR deal of large telcos, startups and small buisnesess will essentially be cut off from (potential) customers. For a small company, it will become a huge challenge to enter such markets - both logistically and financially, so in the end there will be no more Internet for…

@ge0rg You said it right. In this blossom of startups, the ZR will be too heavy for startups to handle. Example is, if Uber has a ZR on Vodafone worldwide, then no other cabs startups are going to raise. ZR is a sure death-shot for startups and SMEs.

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

#56

Post by jheriko »

hobs wrote: post #15
jheriko wrote: post #6

> We need to force the tech majors to take a stand against this. Why exactly? The crux of this argument seems to be "having more money makes you better able to compete" This falls out of free market capitalism. Its not going to go away without regulation, and it seems like doing so will disadvantage swathes of poor people for questionable benefits. I do see the argument, but I think its quite far out of touch with re…

More like "Having more money means you can sandbag your competitors, since you own the verticals and give away your service to encourage usage of your walled garden until your competitors fade into nothingness." In regards to the swathes of poor people, we can use a similar situation (though hyperbolic) to compare, and that is nestle giving out free formula to breastfeeding mothers in poor countries, and that couldnt…

It should be regulated. I'm just not sure why tech majors should take this up for us... its not in their interest, or in the interest of their customers.

Regardless as to motive, nothing will change to the people who benefit from this...

I'm not sure what competition it will be stifling either. We seem to be assuming that this is already a fairly balanced industry without gigantic monopolies - which is just untrue.

I can see the philosophical argument, I just can't be in favour of it when all we want at the core is to do is hold something back that has benefit.

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

#57

Post by ensignavenger »

If the carriers are calling this scheme 'Internet' or using that word (or concept) to market this, then it is fraud. If they are instead calling it 'Airtel Zero' access, then they are fundamentally offering access to a different thing from the Internet, and thus it would not be a 'net' neutrality issue. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck- if not, then it shouldn't be advertised as such :)

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

#58

Post by wpietri »

CoryG89 wrote: post #33
icebraining wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

I am flabbergasted that you're just going to define the problem away. But it certainly is easier. You can solve all net neutrality problems just by labeling things as other things.

For the rest of us, though, that doesn't work so well, because there are societal purposes to getting people access to the Internet. Democracy requires an informed citizenry, and there is no better tool for that than the Internet. Reducing multigenerational poverty similarly benefits from reducing the digital divide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide

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

#59

Post by wpietri »

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…

> I don't think having a large number of relatively equal agents interacting freely is ever realistic.

By which logic, free-market approaches are also never realistic.

> On the surface it is unfair to those under 6 feet tall but the NBA, being a market [...]

Your example doesn't make much sense to me. The actual market involved is the labor market, which does indeed have a large number of relatively equal agents interacting freely. Known labor market failures occur when that's not the case. (E.g., company towns, employer collusion.) But when it does work well, it both provides a kind of fairness and also acts as a reasonably good way to allocate talents and abilities.

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

#60

Post by icebraining »

wpietri wrote: post #58
CoryG89 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

I am flabbergasted that you're just going to define the problem away. But it certainly is easier. You can solve all net neutrality problems just by labeling things as other things. For the rest of us, though, that doesn't work so well, because there are societal purposes to getting people access to the Internet. Democracy requires an informed citizenry, and there is no better tool for that than the Internet. Reducing…

Why don't you try engaging the argument? I think we all agree that Internet access is important - I certainly do - but that does mean we should ban all other mediums? If not, what makes this one different?

That we should give people access to the Internet is a red herring here. The existence of this cellphone plan doesn't preclude us from doing so

Insteadof being outraged that this company dared to violate NN, why don't we try to understand why would people choose this instead of Internet access? If it's due to cost, then maybe the solution should be to provide more affordable Internet access, so that they don't feel the need to join this plan.

Post reply on HN