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

Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 110 posts

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#71

Post by yellowapple »

anindyabd wrote: post #3

I'm not sure how much competition Wikipedia has as a free online encyclopedia. Also, Wikipedia is a non-profit, and doesn't really make more money by having more people use the site. It's strange to claim that Wikipedia is being anti-competitive. Personally, I think Wikipedia Zero is a great program. The article also says: > The reason that the Chinese, Russian and Cuban governments fear an open Internet more than an…

> I'm not sure how much competition Wikipedia has as a free online encyclopedia.

I'm sure TVTropers resent that remark ;)

> Also, Wikipedia is a non-profit, and doesn't really make more money by having more people use the site.

Sure it does. You can't possibly tell me that you haven't noticed all the popups begging for money every year around the holidays. The more eyes on the site - and therefore the more eyes on those donation boxes - the more potential donations, and therefore the more money.

Being a non-profit doesn't mean there isn't competition involved.

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#72

Post by jakejake »

freehunter wrote: post #41

I agree that data should be data and having companies pay (or otherwise sign up to be exempted) should be considered anti-competitive in such a regulated industry. But that belief won't stop me from using the exemption until the minute the FCC requires otherwise. My carrier (T-Mobile) exempts streaming music services. It doesn't charge for the exemption and any music service can sign up for it, but it's still against…

I don't have a problem with different types of content being treated differently. It's still a fair playing field for all providers of streaming music. I've always thought that carriers should be allowed to prioritize content based on it's type in order to keep their networks running optimally. The problem for me is when specific companies can be prioritized over others.

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#73

Post by Terr_ »

greggyb wrote: post #58
marcosdumay wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean that the people most vocal against the government deciding what they can read are also the most vocal against a corporation deciding what they can read? You are right, those two are not easily separable.

Zero-rating is not the same as censorship. A corporation cannot prevent any individual from taking an action that individual wants to. A government can, if not make impossible, make very costly that same reading. I would much rather have to pay extra for the internet, than trust any government, to benevolently regulate access to the internet. If the government regulates my access, then a corporation much larger than…

> Zero-rating is not the same as censorship.

And "firearms" are not the same as "murder"... but in both cases that tool can be used to accomplish that objective.

"Welcome to MonopolyNet, subscriber! Please enjoy complimentary uncapped access to our millions of pre-approved* sites!"

"* Unapproved sites are available for a low low fee of $99/day, and may include sites with objectionable material or controversial content."

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#74

Post by yellowapple »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #4
SixSigma wrote: post #2

My mobile contract in the UK is $20 per month for 1000Gb on 4G with tethering permitted, 5000 voice minutes to the same carrier, 2000 voice minutes to any other carrier and 5000 text messages. It is not just the Zero Rating that is evil.

I'm paying $50/month in the states on T-Mobile for unlimited text/voice and 2.5GB of data, no tethering permitted. EDIT: Yes, I still tether, I stated it for completeness. You can get around the tethering nag by using SSL or VPN when tethered.

There's a tethering nag? I'm not paying for tethering either, but I'm still able to do it without T-Mobile yelling at me (as I've had to do several times due to network issues with my ISP).

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#76

Post by dllthomas »

yellowapple wrote: post #70
spost wrote: post #8

The article calls out AT&T and Sprint for their programs, thought I'd mention that T-Mobile has something similar going on with their Music Freedom program: http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/free-music-streaming.html

The difference is that (in theory at least) there's no discrimination for or against specific music streaming services. This is unlike the zero-rating described in the article, where specific social networks (and one specific encyclopedia) are unfairly prioritized over others. If AT&T were to, say, exempt all social networking sites or all encyclopedic wikis or something to that effect, then I wouldn't be nearly as o…

Well, it still privileges music over other things, but I agree it's less egregious.

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#77

Post by wvenable »

notwedtm wrote: post #38

In the article the comparison of everyone sharing the same road infrastructure is given. Why is the analogy not carried over to public transportation? There are plenty of people who are willing to pay a much lower cost per trip by riding public transportation instead of driving (or even owning) a car. Nobody is claiming that the bus system is anti-competitive to car manufacturers. In fact, the author even states that…

The comparison doesn't make sense. There are no fees to drive on the road so my car and the bus are on equal terms. Even if there was a fee, and riding on a bus makes me exempt, that's still not a close analogy.

A better analogy is a situation where there are competing private bus companies, there's a road fee per user (paid by the user), and the city exempts users of its preferred bus company. In that situation, all other private bus companies are at a huge competitive disadvantage because their users are still required to pay the fee.

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#78

Post by Kai_ »

dllthomas wrote: post #76
yellowapple wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that (in theory at least) there's no discrimination for or against specific music streaming services. This is unlike the zero-rating described in the article, where specific social networks (and one specific encyclopedia) are unfairly prioritized over others. If AT&T were to, say, exempt all social networking sites or all encyclopedic wikis or something to that effect, then I wouldn't be nearly as o…

Well, it still privileges music over other things, but I agree it's less egregious.

I don't really see what the (less egregious) problem is here.

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#79

Post by colechristensen »

chimeracoder wrote: post #61
mwsherman wrote: post #50

This article seems to equate two things – that which is true today, and that which the writer imagines for the future. The future is not fact. The fact of zero rating is that it is beneficial to consumers, and progressive – the poorer one is, the more zero-rating is likely to help. That is factual, observable, measurable. The speculation is a slippery-slope argument, and not factual. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but…

> Zero-rating is free shipping. I don’t know of anyone that considers free shipping anti-competitive, though one could make the same argument. That's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be USPS[0] providing certain shippers with free shipping, and not others[1]. Imagine the disastrous effects this would have on small sellers, who would certainly not have the means to negotiate these rates with USPS, whereas a large…

It seems more akin to USPS providing discounted rates for books in Media Mail and Library Mail (the T-Mobile way of discounting any streaming service without charge, at least)

As long as traffic priorities are applied to _classes_ of traffic which don't directly benefit a provider's service over competitors, I don't have a problem with it and don't think it violates the spirit of what network neutrality is supposed to be about.

It's also important that it's a positive benefit, not a restriction.

Re: Exempting popular apps from data charges is anti-competitive

#80

Post by greggyb »

Terr_ wrote: post #73
greggyb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero-rating is not the same as censorship. A corporation cannot prevent any individual from taking an action that individual wants to. A government can, if not make impossible, make very costly that same reading. I would much rather have to pay extra for the internet, than trust any government, to benevolently regulate access to the internet. If the government regulates my access, then a corporation much larger than…

> Zero-rating is not the same as censorship. And "firearms" are not the same as "murder"... but in both cases that tool can be used to accomplish that objective. "Welcome to MonopolyNet, subscriber! Please enjoy complimentary uncapped access to our millions of pre-approved* sites!" "* Unapproved sites are available for a low low fee of $99/day, and may include sites with objectionable material or controversial conten…

Please show your work on how you get from the facts of the matter, those being: 1) There is more than one mobile provider 2) Multiple of these providers are independently considering implementing zero-rating 3) Zero-rating is providing a service for free (no matter how limited) 4) Companies only give things away for free when they are seeking to maintain or increase their customer base

To the conclusion that we see a monopoly in mobile providers.

Post reply on HN