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

Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#41

Post by chimeracoder »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40

This is kind of at the peripheries of net neutrality. I don't recall any proposed "net neutrality" related regulations -- whether the 2010 Open Internet Order, the NPRM from earlier this year, or any of the concrete alternatives proposed -- that would have prohibited zero-rating on mobile networks that have data volume charges. This isn't even the same thing as paid prioritization (which the recent NPRM may still hav…

> 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.

Well, that's because this wasn't a threat (in the US) until relatively recently, unlike paid prioritization and/or throttling. That doesn't mean that zero-rating doesn't violate the same principles as paid prioritization does. If you take a look at the doomsday scenario that Fred Wilson outlines in "VC Pitches In A Year Or Two"[0], the situation could just as easily apply to a zero-rated world.

You can think of zero-rating as "slow lanes", the speed on the slow lane is set to zero. (In a way, zero-rating is actually worse than paid prioritization, because it achieves the same end result, but placing a more consumer-friendly facade on the same rotten interior.)

> This is kind of at the peripheries of net neutrality. I don't recall any proposed "net neutrality" related regulations -- whether the 2010 Open Internet Order, the NPRM from earlier this year, or any of the concrete alternatives proposed -- that would have prohibited zero-rating on mobile networks that have data volume charges.

I also don't recall any large-scale[1] efforts to impose zero-rating on mobile consumers until the last year or so, which is why net neutrality legislation hasn't focused on it. In general, legislation around consumer protections tends to be reactive rather than proactive, and net neutrality has definitely followed this pattern.

[0] http://avc.com/2014/01/vc-pitches-in-a-year-or-two/

[1] (Yes, they existed in some cases, but they were very limited and relatively obscure.)

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#42

Post by chimeracoder »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #13
mrbabbage wrote: post #3

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…

> But what I would like to see, since this is effectively a utility, is for that "free streaming" to be available on an equal opportunity basis: And T-Mobile seems to be doing exactly that by allowing customers to vote on what services to include.

That's not an equal-opportunity basis, as consumers can't (or won't) vote for a company that doesn't exist yet.

This raises the barrier to entry for startups even further, because now they have to get enough brand recognition to beat out established competitors in this vote just to reach some segment of the market[0].

As if the barriers to entry for startups disrupting music distribution aren't already high enough! :)

[0] T-mobile has a small market share, but what if Verizon did it? Remember that there are only four non-virtual carriers in the US, so if just one of the two big guys (Verizon and AT&T) does it, it'll dramatically tilt the odds away from startups even more.

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#43

Post by wpietri »

icebraining wrote: post #11
ianlevesque wrote: post #8

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…

How is this critique useful?

I've never seen a net neutrality advocate be opposed to competition. I also don't know a single net neutrality advocate who was in favor of letting the wide variety of early ISPs decay into the sad monopolistic situation we have now.

All they're saying is that given that we no longer have an effective marketplace to reign in in the oligopoly in place, we need regulation to limit the harm. They are basically saying we should extend our approach to the phone network to the broadband network.

Why is it also their job to fix the conditions in the US that led to this? Net neutrality regulations are relatively simple: if the FCC (or possibly Congress) makes it happen, it will be pretty straightforward. But the lack of competition in the US broadband market can't be fixed with small regulation changes. It requires a wholesale reexamination of current economic dogma, deep changes in our approach to business regulation at multiple levels of government, and probably changing entirely the way we fund elections.

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#44

Post by srinivasan »

r00fus wrote: post #36
srinivasan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While I appreciate your thoughtful response, all of your points evade my questions. 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 r…

I didn't say anything that could be construed as an apologist argument for the cable industry, or even the wireless industry. You can only accuse me of being a T-mobile apologist - and what they are doing hugely benefits me, considering my limited budget. And I'm not alone.

  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.
1) I argued that zero-rating music services isn't as anti-competitive as it's made it out to be. Since 27 services (many of which I hadn't heard of) made it onto the list, it can't be that hard for a newcomer to get onto the list.

2) Facebook Zero is a developing world issue. I said earlier that I don't have the experience to comment on developing-world issues, but let me take a stab at it now (this is sort of long): if you lived in a part of Africa that had no electricity but had cellphone reception (this is quite common), there's a good chance you would rather have Facebook and Wikipedia for free on your phone, as opposed to having a level playing field among all services yet being able to afford none of them. (Of course Facebook isn't being purely benevolent in offering this for free - they want to increase their MAUs and ad revenue, and get a hold on the market. Which is why I said I don't necessarily agree with that they're doing. BUT, you can see how the argument has its merits.

Yes, this makes it hard for another social network to gain usage share in that market. Duh. It would be hard if you were a startup from SoMa, and it would be equally hard (but much more soul-crushing) if you were a startup from the same region and can't get what Facebook does from the local wireless carriers.

What do customers in such markets want? The bottom 90% of customers in such a market will almost certainly want Facebook and Wikipedia for free.

3) As for congestion: I just wanted to pose the Spotify Premium vs Maps question to you. No wireless company ever mentioned "reducing congestion" as the reason for their zero-rating policies (it doesn't make sense anyway), so the subject of congestion is out of place here, and your questions about congestion are completely irrelevant here. That part of my response was very poorly worded now that I read it.

  paid traffic being prioritized over free traffic is essentially reinforcing the internet slow-lane.
Not quite. The important difference is that it's paid for by the consumer, not by the content provider. Even today, those who pay more for a better internet package get their traffic prioritized over those who pay less and everyone's fine with this. See, for example, Google Fiber's slower free tier in Kansas City.

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#45

Post by MarkMc »

mrbabbage wrote: post #3

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…

It's also complicated by the fact that competition in mobile broadband is much stronger than in cable broadband. Personally I would like to see net neutrality limited to cable broadband.

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#46

Post by Zigurd »

mrbabbage wrote: post #3

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…

"Misguided" would be a mischaracterization. I doubt anyone advocating for imposing net neutrality on providers would pass up a chance for more competition. However, without that competition, a net neutrality rule is one part of what it takes to keep the US internet a good environment for innovation.

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#47

Post by rayiner »

mrbabbage wrote: post #3

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…

Even in a competitive market, Comcast wants to, and can, vertically integrate with NBC then punish its competitors for the same reason Apple wants to vertically integrate content/software/hardware and push out anyone that competes with any part of that stack. There's a huge, technical, advantage to having the content company also own the network: pushing caching nodes to the edges of the network, consolidating redundant data flows on the backbone, taking advantage of multicast, etc. It's not all that different to the advantages of vertically integrating iTunes/iOS/Apple Ax-based hardware.

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#48

Post by sparkzilla »

pulgrot wrote: post #30
guelo wrote: post #16

This is a bullshit stance by Wikipedia. If when Wikipedia started there had been some popular ad supported encyclopedia that received preferential ISP treatment Wikipedia would not exist today. Maybe it makes sense for the established internet companies to oppose net neutrality because they're the ones that would get packaged up by the ISPs. But it's bad for everyone else.

Does the end result of more people having free access to the information wikipedia provides, justify the zero rating/preferential treatment by ISPs of the site?

No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information.

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#49

Post by sparkzilla »

pulgrot wrote: post #30
guelo wrote: post #16

This is a bullshit stance by Wikipedia. If when Wikipedia started there had been some popular ad supported encyclopedia that received preferential ISP treatment Wikipedia would not exist today. Maybe it makes sense for the established internet companies to oppose net neutrality because they're the ones that would get packaged up by the ISPs. But it's bad for everyone else.

Does the end result of more people having free access to the information wikipedia provides, justify the zero rating/preferential treatment by ISPs of the site?

No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information.

Re: Wikipedia’s ‘complicated’ relationship with net neutrality

#50

Post by sparkzilla »

snowwrestler wrote: post #2

Wikipedians take it on faith that their website is better, more useful, more ethical, more informative, etc., than other websites. Thus they are able to believe that it is right that their website should receive special (non-neutral) treatment from ISPs. The problem is, most website operators feel this way. I'm sure Google's executives believe that everyone would be better off if they had more access to Google; and F…

As someone making a Wikipedia competitor I could not agree more.
Post reply on HN