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

101–110 of 110 posts

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

#101

Post by SixSigma »

phillc73 wrote: post #25
jedbrown wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me that the root of the problem is overpriced data, and not the "zero rating" of some services. Zero rating facilitates overpriced data, which in turn incentivizes users to stay within the discount/zero web. Without zero rating, a broad consumer base will demand reasonable data rates, encouraging carriers to compete.

If this is the case, and as @Someone1234 recalls the UK used to have zero rating services (I honestly don't remember them), what changed in that landscape to bring data prices to significantly lower points? Surely not just competition on its own. The US mobile market isn't a monopoly (although I stand to be corrected if this is spoken in ignorance).

My O2 and Vodafone contracts used to have a special number I could send to, to Tweet for free (I'm not on them now, so I don't know if they still do).

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

#102

Post by SixSigma »

super_sloth wrote: post #34
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.

Can I ask what network and what plan you're on? I am clearly on a vastly inferior one with t-mobile and should switch.

three

17 quid a month on contract or payg

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

#103

Post by mdpye »

maxerickson wrote: post #100
freehunter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with their policy in principle. In practice, I use the hell out of it. I frequently drive long distances (over an hour each way) streaming music from Spotify the entire way. I would rather have no data cap the same way my home Internet connection has no data cap. I would rather they not make exemptions for music specifically, since that shows they don't need the caps in the first place. But as long as they…

I'm whining about your phrasing. I wish people only used "principle" to describe very strongly held beliefs. You are weighing your belief that 'data is data' against, basically, a trivial convenience (you have many options, among them: no music, downloaded music, cheap streaming violating the principle, expensive streaming respecting the principle). That action says something about how strongly you believe in 'data i…

If you want to talk about the phrasing, I think you're missing a subtle distinction.

He disagrees IN principle, not ON principle.

As in, he disagrees in principle, but not in practice. As I understand it, "on principle" is the construction describing taking a stand on a decision because of your deeply held convictions. "In principle" is for a decision you've derived logically from a set of abstract premises.

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

#104

Post by maxerickson »

mdpye wrote: post #103
maxerickson wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm whining about your phrasing. I wish people only used "principle" to describe very strongly held beliefs. You are weighing your belief that 'data is data' against, basically, a trivial convenience (you have many options, among them: no music, downloaded music, cheap streaming violating the principle, expensive streaming respecting the principle). That action says something about how strongly you believe in 'data i…

If you want to talk about the phrasing, I think you're missing a subtle distinction. He disagrees IN principle, not ON principle. As in, he disagrees in principle, but not in practice. As I understand it, "on principle" is the construction describing taking a stand on a decision because of your deeply held convictions. "In principle" is for a decision you've derived logically from a set of abstract premises.

The first comment in the thread uses "on principle". The next one uses "in principle", but I think it is used there to describe a belief.

I could very well misunderstand, I don't know (or the usage above could be loose).

I guess part of my problem is that I have trouble with a construction like "In principle, I believe in the sanctity of human life. In practice, sometimes you have to execute bad people."

(I think) That's better expressed as a preference that people not be killed. It's a silly extreme example, but I'm having trouble seeing how else it would be used, in a mechanistic sense.

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

#105

Post by freehunter »

kmax12 wrote: post #92
bduerst wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

T-Mobile doesn't treat all music apps the same though. They only apply free streaming to their list of 27 app [1]. Depending on how fair they are to adding small companies to the list. this system is essentially prioritizing larger companies over smaller ones. http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/free-music-streaming.html

It's prioritizing companies that apply to be included with their program over the ones that did not apply. It's free and open to any legal provider. Out of those 27, I've only ever heard of 11, which goes to show that they're not prioritizing big companies over smaller companies.

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

#106

Post by freehunter »

maxerickson wrote: post #104
mdpye wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to talk about the phrasing, I think you're missing a subtle distinction. He disagrees IN principle, not ON principle. As in, he disagrees in principle, but not in practice. As I understand it, "on principle" is the construction describing taking a stand on a decision because of your deeply held convictions. "In principle" is for a decision you've derived logically from a set of abstract premises.

The first comment in the thread uses "on principle". The next one uses "in principle", but I think it is used there to describe a belief. I could very well misunderstand, I don't know (or the usage above could be loose). I guess part of my problem is that I have trouble with a construction like "In principle, I believe in the sanctity of human life. In practice, sometimes you have to execute bad people." (I think) Th…

It's more of "my principles tell me that this policy is wrong. However, I don't have the ability to make it right or avoid using it. So until it's set right by someone who DOES have that power, I don't have a choice."

So to use your analogy, I believe in the sanctity of human life. But my government doesn't. I don't kill anyone, but I live in a country that does. The fact that my government kills people won't stop me from driving on the government-built roads.

However you want to word it, I disagree with T-Mobile and AT&T's net neutrality policies. But I'm not in a position of power to make them change that, so what can I do?

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

#107

Post by sliverstorm »

ksk wrote: post #81
sliverstorm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beca…

The supermarket is a good example. That's already how it is, all the time, and yet we still get incumbents. Have you seen how many different kinds of jams, jellies, and peanut butters have taken hold? Yes, it's a challenge to be the new guy on the block, but that is just the nature of the beast. Now, if Jiffy paid supermarkets not to stock other brands of peanut butter, that would probably be anti-competitive.

If accessing Google cost you money while lycos/yahoo/altavista were free, nobody would have ever tried Google.

We can't know for sure, but IMO this is totally not true. The cost for one search worth of traffic is tiny, and their results were superior.

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

#108

Post by ksk »

sliverstorm wrote: post #107
ksk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beca…

The supermarket is a good example. That's already how it is, all the time, and yet we still get incumbents. Have you seen how many different kinds of jams, jellies, and peanut butters have taken hold? Yes, it's a challenge to be the new guy on the block, but that is just the nature of the beast. Now, if Jiffy paid supermarkets not to stock other brands of peanut butter, that would probably be anti-competitive. If acc…

>Yes, it's a challenge to be the new guy on the block, but that is just the nature of the beast.

So, we already have a better system (internet), and you want to go back to a worse system? Honestly, I don't know if you're trolling me at this point.

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

#109

Post by JadeNB »

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 think that few people believe that Netflix should receive preferential treatment for free; rather, the net neutrality issue is that Netflix could be required to pay for whatever carriage it receives, or else receive intentionally degraded service.

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

#110

Post by whyaduck »

frizzlebox wrote: post #95
whyaduck wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, definitely anti-competitive (he says as he changes Spotify's streaming quality to "Extreme" on his T-Mobile serviced phone).

I honestly wrote that "anti-competitive" bit so it wouldn't look like I was defending anyone. You caught me trying to preempt being called a shill. It didn't work.

I hope you didn't think I was calling you a shill - I literally changed my Spotify settings after I read about T-Mobile's policy in this article. Re-reading, my post could have been read differently. Sorry!
Post reply on HN