SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the would-you-like-YouTube^WNetflix^WFacebook^WAmazon-with-that? dept.
Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times writes about Portugal's Internet which shows us a world without net neutrality, and it's ugly. Basically, tiered services get in there through a loophole for zero-rating.
After paying a fee for basic service, subscribers can add any of five further options for about $6 per month, allowing an additional 10GB data allotment for the apps within the options: a "messaging" tier, which covers such services as instant messaging, Apple FaceTime, and Skype; "social," with liberal access to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and so on; "video" (youTube, Netflix, etc.); "email and cloud" (Gmail, Apple's iCloud); or "music" (Spotify, Pandora).
Portugal isn't the only country allowing tiering of internet services. In Britain, the internet service provider Vodaphone charges about $33 a month for basic service but offers several "passes" allowing unlimited video or music streaming, social media usage, or chat, at additional tariffs of up to $9.30 per month. [Ed's Note: This is not entirely accurate - Vodaphone's ISP home broadband offering (17Mbps) is £24/month unlimited usage, the additional figures quoted are for faster fiber connections (38 and 76 Mbps) where available. How you use your connection is irrelevant. This is the same for many European ISPs. Smart phone costs are entirely separate.]
Although both countries are part of the European Union, which has an explicit commitment to network neutrality, these arrangements are allowed under provisions giving national regulators some flexibility. These regulators can open loopholes permitting "zero-rating," through which ISPs can exclude certain services from data caps. That's what the Portuguese and British ISPs essentially are doing.
If the vote on the 14th of December repeals Net Neutrality then consumer options will be greatly reduced while increasing greatly in prices as we can see from Portugal's example.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cykros on Tuesday November 28 2017, @06:33PM (3 children)
The anti-government argument that isn't disingenuous bullshit should be that municipal exclusivity agreements are anti-competition, monopolistic regulation that props up a handful of corporations as government backed cartels, wherein the costs are socialized and the profits are privatized, as long as the kickbacks keep flowing. I'm not for net neutrality because I'm pro-government; it's merely a common sense regulation to counteract the very foolish status quo we have held over from where the exclusivity agreement was for a non-essential entertainment source, but has grown into a stranglehold on a resource that is considered by much of the developed world to be a human right for those living in a modern society (the philosophy of this gets murky and isn't really something I'd like to delve into here).
You want to get rid of the government regulations, start with the exclusivity agreements, bring competition into the space. Then we can (happily even) talk about easing up on net neutrality regulation. Until then this is the public being shat upon simultaneously by the government and their corporate pets in tandem, and any so-called conservative or libertarian supporting this motion ought to be ashamed, or recognize that they've drifted into the arena of authoritarianism, pure and simple.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Tuesday November 28 2017, @09:36PM
by the corporate and their government pets in tandem... FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:03AM
That worked pretty well back in the days of dialup.
...now, with every corporation stringing its own cables...
Ever see a photo of how things looked in the early days of telephones? [google.com]
I like the notion of public infrastructure for utilities.
I have no problem with then allow privately-owned ISPs to provide access via The Commons on an equal basis, contingent on good behavior.
With lots of fiber in place and privately owned, it's probably too late for that in most places. 8-(
...without doing the eminent domain thing.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:42PM
The anti-government argument that isn't disingenuous bullshit should be that municipal exclusivity agreements are anti-competition, monopolistic regulation that props up a handful of corporations
What you're spouting is pro-government: pro-local government. True anti-government people are opposed to all government, so they support state laws that forbid municipal ISP service, since it competes against private corporations.
I'm not for net neutrality because I'm pro-government
Yes, you are. You're favoring government regulation, instead of favoring allowing corporations to make all the rules and act as they please.
and any so-called conservative or libertarian supporting this motion ought to be ashamed
Libertarians who oppose net neutrality, aren't "so-called", that's really what they are. Fundamentally, libertarianism is corporatocracy.