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

81–90 of 110 posts

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

#81

Post by ksk »

sliverstorm wrote: post #9
seattlegal wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's anti-competitive to app devs, not other wireless providers. Classic "pull the ladder up behind me" behavior.

I'm expressly talking about the app devs. It might be truly anti-competitive "ladder-up-behind-you" if all app devs were forced to sponsor client-side traffic. Think of taxi tokens- a fixed barrier to entry. But even then, to be an anti-competitive barrier to entry it must also be high . The cost of a postage stamp on your government paperwork is a barrier to entry, but it is not anti-competitive.

To me, its similar to a supermarket only allowing already-popular brands to be on their shelves. From their POV I guess it makes sense, but if you're out there selling a new brand of peanut butter, you can either start your own supermarket, or target the mom-pop stores and hope for the best.

I think this kind of stuff is highly regressive. The Internet was this place where you succeeded on your own merit and not because you pay-to-win. A place where a tiny company like Google was able to sell their service because it was on the same playing field as lycos/yahoo/altavista. If accessing Google cost you money while lycos/yahoo/altavista were free, nobody would have ever tried Google. And without enough people searching and clicking on links there will never be enough seed data for a good ranking algorithm to work.

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

#82

Post by shkkmo »

byuu wrote: post #65

It's funny that when Netflix has to pay for preferential treatment, it's a bad thing ("my bill might go up!"); but when it's Spotify getting unlimited data, it's a good thing ("my bill might go down!"). You can't eat your cake and have it too.

I'm confused. Isn't the argument presented in the article that they are both anti-competitive (and hence "bad things")?

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

#83

Post by jlawer »

While I strongly agree in net-neutrality principles, there is the case that in these scenarios the data may not have the same costs to provide, and some may be cheap enough that it doesn't make sense to charge from.

In Australia at least general internet transit is orders of magnitude more expensive then a local peering connection. If the content provider is making the content cheaper then the general internet traffic, then it seems quite reasonable for that saving to be passed on to the customer.

While I love the abstraction that you simply pay a fixed rate per bit/byte, it doesn't accurately portray the connectivity situation at least in Australia, where international transit, and even inter-capital city transit can be a sizeable portion of any costs.

I pay rough costs of $2000 per month for a 100 Mbit / 5TB per month service to my rack in a DC, but I can pay $750 per month for a 10gbit service to a peering (IX) Internet Exchange in the same DC. If I was providing an ISP service I think it would be completely reasonable to not charge for traffic over the peering link as the data is nearly 300x cheaper, its quite possible it would be cheaper to simply not track the usage.

It does create a situation where competition is harder, where a content provider may need to deploy many POPs to ensure their content is available under a peering situation, however I don't see this is inherently anti-competitive.

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

#84

Post by bduerst »

jakejake wrote: post #72
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.

Bytes are bytes. Why should carriers be allowed to prioritize (or deprioritize) your data differently than other data?

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

#85

Post by Vendan »

mdasen wrote: post #69
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

Music Freedom is a little different, at least in theory. Theory is always cleaner than reality so let's start there. In theory, Music Freedom is a way to have all streaming music traffic not count toward your data cap. If that's the case, T-Mobile is discriminating based on the type of traffic, but not the origin of the traffic. Generally speaking, network management and traffic shaping aren't being fought against by…

Well, the flip side is, why does only music get this benefit? What if I didn't care if my 50mb download takes 10 times as long? Wouldn't it then fall under the same kind of "using dead time" thing?

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

#86

Post by mrtron »

khuey wrote: post #14
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIW, T-Mobile's tethering ban is fairly easy to circumvent.

Just change your browser agent (or at least that worked til Sept 2014)

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

#87

Post by ac29 »

Vendan wrote: post #85
mdasen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music Freedom is a little different, at least in theory. Theory is always cleaner than reality so let's start there. In theory, Music Freedom is a way to have all streaming music traffic not count toward your data cap. If that's the case, T-Mobile is discriminating based on the type of traffic, but not the origin of the traffic. Generally speaking, network management and traffic shaping aren't being fought against by…

Well, the flip side is, why does only music get this benefit? What if I didn't care if my 50mb download takes 10 times as long? Wouldn't it then fall under the same kind of "using dead time" thing?

All t-mobile plans that qualify for free music streaming are "unlimited" in that after you reach your data allotment it does just that -- cuts bandwidth by an order of magnitude. Its entirely possible that it works the same way as is suggested above.

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

#88

Post by ac29 »

yellowapple wrote: post #74
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I never saw it until I used over 1GB in a day (out of my total 5 per month).

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

#89

Post by byuu »

shkkmo wrote: post #82
byuu wrote: post #65

It's funny that when Netflix has to pay for preferential treatment, it's a bad thing ("my bill might go up!"); but when it's Spotify getting unlimited data, it's a good thing ("my bill might go down!"). You can't eat your cake and have it too.

I'm confused. Isn't the argument presented in the article that they are both anti-competitive (and hence "bad things")?

Yes, I agree with the article. I'm saying that people in general (even in this topic) seem to not mind the issue when it's personally advantageous to them. (if that weren't the case, the article would merely be stating the obvious and not be newsworthy.)

And I'll admit that unlimited streaming music does sound nice. But net neutrality is important to me, and so it would be hypocritical of me to dismiss it when it benefits me.

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

#90

Post by rlvesco7 »

On the similar note, the NFL app on my android, which was installed without permission and cannot be deleted, sends 10s of megabytes of data to Verizon even though I've never opened it once. What it's sending, I don't know, and it's using up my data plan for no reason.
Post reply on HN