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

61–67 of 67 posts

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

#61

Post by wpietri »

lake99 wrote: post #37
bko wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free-market principles aren't a religious goal. They're tools we use to design markets. And we do that to achieve some real-world end, like better resource allocation, more stable social structures, or smarter, healthier citizens.

In this case, if we're writing net neutrality rule, it's easy enough to exempt charity cases like you describe.

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

#62

Post by wpietri »

icebraining wrote: post #60
wpietri wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

I don't think we should ban other media, and I don't know why you think I'm obliged to defend that straw man.

New mediums come along rarely. It behooves us to be very careful in how we adopt them. That's especially true for the Internet, which I think is more powerful and likely to be more lasting than its historical competitors.

When television came along, there was enormous hope for its power. But its commercial structure, at least in the US, left it to become "the idiot box". For people who would like to pay a lot of money to constrain people to listen to their messages, TV still exists.

it's possible that Internet-- won't reduce prevent getting people proper Internet service, but when making major societal decisions, I think we deserve a higher standard than the possibility of not fucking things up for the next few hundred years.

I do note that in the US internet market, the reason most people's ISP is their old telco or cable company is that poor regulation let the old oligopoly players rebuild their oligopolies for a new medium through undercutting real competition. That now looks impossible to dislodge, which is why we need net neutrality regulation in the first place. So it seems plausible to me that letting quick hits of easy money determine who gets to see what on the Internet could establish long-term patterns that permanently undermine net neutrality.

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

#63

Post by icebraining »

wpietri wrote: post #62
icebraining wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

I don't think we should ban other media, and I don't know why you think I'm obliged to defend that straw man. New mediums come along rarely. It behooves us to be very careful in how we adopt them. That's especially true for the Internet, which I think is more powerful and likely to be more lasting than its historical competitors. When television came along, there was enormous hope for its power. But its commercial st…

it's possible that Internet-- won't reduce prevent getting people proper Internet service, but when making major societal decisions, I think we deserve a higher standard than the possibility of not fucking things up for the next few hundred years.

You never have more than the possibility of not fucking things up. When you're arguing against allowing people from subscribing to a service, I think they deserve a better standard than "I know better than you what is good for you".

As I've pointed out, there have been many mediums of communication, that have been installed for many years before the Internet appeared, yet they didn't stop it from taking hold rather rapidly. I don't see why you shouldn't have to explain why you think this time is different, besides "well, it might be!"

I do note that in the US internet market, the reason most people's ISP is their old telco or cable company is that poor regulation let the old oligopoly players rebuild their oligopolies for a new medium through undercutting real competition. That now looks impossible to dislodge, which is why we need net neutrality regulation in the first place. So it seems plausible to me that letting quick hits of easy money determine who gets to see what on the Internet could establish long-term patterns that permanently undermine net neutrality.

"Let" is not the right word. Regulation in the US was designed to build and sustain those oligopoly players. I see no reason to assume that "easy money" alone will provoke the same effect; the ISPs in my country all have plenty of money, and many offer zero rating or the equivalent, and yet we still have an healthy market.

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

#64

Post by wpietri »

icebraining wrote: post #63
wpietri wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we should ban other media, and I don't know why you think I'm obliged to defend that straw man. New mediums come along rarely. It behooves us to be very careful in how we adopt them. That's especially true for the Internet, which I think is more powerful and likely to be more lasting than its historical competitors. When television came along, there was enormous hope for its power. But its commercial st…

it's possible that Internet-- won't reduce prevent getting people proper Internet service, but when making major societal decisions, I think we deserve a higher standard than the possibility of not fucking things up for the next few hundred years. You never have more than the possibility of not fucking things up. When you're arguing against allowing people from subscribing to a service, I think they deserve a better…

> When you're arguing against allowing people from subscribing to a service, I think they deserve a better standard than "I know better than you what is good for you".

Ok. You keep on thinking that. That is very nearly the basis of regulation, so I don't see a lot of future in this discussion. Sometimes rational individual choices have negative systemic effects, so I think it's reasonable to say, "We know better than you what is good for all of us."

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

#66

Post by cxon »

The original post

http://www.airtel.in/about-bharti/media-centre/bharti-airtel...

and their clarification on the Airtel Zero

http://www.airtel.in/about-bharti/media-centre/bharti-airtel...

I feel Zero rating can be a boon or a death knell for small startups based on Airtel decide to charge per GB of data. I don't think it about restricting certain sites, its about giving the option to peoples to be able to access certain services without having to recharge. I am not sure if Airtel have a sinister design behind this at the moment.... Its more of wait and watch, keep your fingers crossed.

Post reply on HN