31–40 of 87 posts
The authors didn't address the point that all the current use cases for zero rating are on wireless, not on traditional broadband. The Google-Verizon proposal from 2010 had this "wireless exclusion". I was opposed to it in principle, but now as a T-mobile customer I really love the fact that Spotify doesn't count to my usage limits. I can completely see how zero rating could benefit the developing world and even the…
This really sounds like trying to add one wrong to another to try to make a right.
This really confuses issues too; metered access to a network isn't quite the same thing as non-neutral access where some content gets much better latency and bandwidth.
Cutting off access to all sources of content at a given data cap does in fact meet the definition of neutral: No Netflix for you, and no Usenet, no Skype, no IRC, no git, no ssh, ...
Data caps in fact hurt the high-bandwidth premium services that easily bust data caps, whose purveyors support non-neutrality.
What is the threat model to net neutrality for cases when there is no exchange of payments?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely right. However, the probability that meaningful competition will break through the enormous barriers to entry that Comcast, et al have erected before they manage to irreparably damage one of the few remaining growth industries in the US (tech) is near zero.
Sorry to pick on you, but the responses of net neutrality advocates vis-à-vis competition sound like the standard strategy of the Foreign Office when dealing with crisis from Yes, Prime Minister . "maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do", it's a natural monopoly. "maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now", they already have a stronghold. http://www.imdb.com/tit…
I do have a horse in this race, my employer just struck a very non-neutral deal with a wireless carrier: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/more-music-freedom.htm
This is super interesting! Thanks for sharing. I believe this is a good illustration of how most net neutrality advocacy is misguided. The (very real) problem net neutrality advocates are trying to solve isn't paid prioritization; rather, it's a lack of meaningful competition in the "last-mile" broadband market, and this market failure produces aberrant scenarios like NBC Comcast shaking down its competitors (eg Netf…
To me, the thing that I don't want to see is some web sites being throttled (or blocked!) on broadband. Considering most (wired) broadband is bandwidth-limited at this point, varying that bandwidth limit based on what site I'm talking with just feels wrong, and I'd love to see the practice banned, because as you mention, a lot of users have no choice in what broadband they can subscribe to. Wireless broadband is almo…
Perhaps a solution would be to classify types of services, and then make ANY company in that service eligible for the cap-free streaming. So, if you're a startup in the music streaming space, you are automatically included along with all the others. Then the telcos could provide packages of free services without harming innovation and competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wondering why you don't see an issue with zero-rating - it's essentially making an unlevel playing field, with the big players like Facebook/Spotify buying an anticompetitive moat against any new entrants. I don't see how zero-rating is going to help network congestion either - won't zero-rated Spotify for my neighbors causes my calls to drop or my maps to not update? Is zero-rating some bandwidth somehow magically e…
You brought up three issues: (i) Anti-competitiveness in music streaming (ii) Anti-competitiveness in social networks (in developing regions) (iii) Effect of zero-rated services on congestion (i) http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/music-freedom-list.html This is a large enough list that I wouldn't worry about anti-competitiveness. It is still them vs. everyone else, but looking at the list right now, the barriers to entry…
Especially your (iii) which makes a pretty invalid assumption about paid traffic all paying the same rates. Do you know this is true for current paid traffic? I would bet it's entirely not true. Even if it is, paid traffic being prioritized over free traffic is essentially reinforcing the internet slow-lane.
Nothing of what you said replies to the difficulties in competing against Facebook or other internet giants when they're paying to prevent competition from newcomers.
Sorry, but you sound like a telecom/cable apologist.
This is super interesting! Thanks for sharing. I believe this is a good illustration of how most net neutrality advocacy is misguided. The (very real) problem net neutrality advocates are trying to solve isn't paid prioritization; rather, it's a lack of meaningful competition in the "last-mile" broadband market, and this market failure produces aberrant scenarios like NBC Comcast shaking down its competitors (eg Netf…
Well, duh, net neutrality has been an issue for nearly a decade, and paid prioritization is a much more recent focus of discussion. Paid prioritization can be a manifestation of the problem net neutrality is designed to address, but its never been the main issue.
> rather, it's a lack of meaningful competition in the "last-mile" broadband market
No, that's not the problem that net neutrality is trying to solve. That's a constraint on the solution space, given that there isn't a magic "make meaningful competition appear and remain" wand that can be waved. Certainly, there are reasons to suspect that if wishing for such competition would make it so, that would also go some way to solving the problems net neutrality seeks to address, but since that rests on a counterfactual assumption, its not really all that significant to dealing with real-world issues.
This is super interesting! Thanks for sharing. I believe this is a good illustration of how most net neutrality advocacy is misguided. The (very real) problem net neutrality advocates are trying to solve isn't paid prioritization; rather, it's a lack of meaningful competition in the "last-mile" broadband market, and this market failure produces aberrant scenarios like NBC Comcast shaking down its competitors (eg Netf…
> The (very real) problem net neutrality advocates are trying to solve isn't paid prioritization Well, duh, net neutrality has been an issue for nearly a decade, and paid prioritization is a much more recent focus of discussion. Paid prioritization can be a manifestation of the problem net neutrality is designed to address, but its never been the main issue. > rather, it's a lack of meaningful competition in the "las…
If we'd have had a few chances, this would be a solved problem by now. Now we have to fight to the death for every single attempt.
This isn't even the same thing as paid prioritization (which the recent NPRM may still have allowed, within some bounds), where edge providers are given a choice to pay the ISP or have packets get lower delivery priority -- the ability of the customer to connect and the quality of service provided on the connection isn't affected by the payment, the customer gets exactly the service they would get connecting to an edge provider that hadn't made a deal with the access provider. The only difference is that the customer doesn't have to pay for the data consumption (which essentially is equivalent to the edge provider reimbursing the consumer for the data cost, except presumably the costs are lower commensurate with the simplicity of a direct edge provider to access provider payment route.)
So, while certainly this kind of thing might raise concerns related to net neutrality, its not what the focus of the net neutrality debate and regulatory effort has been.