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: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @08:04PM (3 children)
Your entire post comes from the belief that it's not fair to ISPs for every bit to be treated equally due to some services generating higher demand. Yet, you've refrained from explaining logically as to why anyone on here, or any consumer at all, should care. What exactly is your logical reasoning behind why net neutrality is bad? In your mind, is the american telecom industry struggling for profit? Is our government bailing these providers out regularly due to unfair regulations preventing them from thriving or providing quality service? Both of those assertions would be completely ridiculous.
Here are three benefits to keeping net neutrality:
-More affordable internet (consumers)
-Far more fair market place for businesses to compete (economy)
-Lack of capability, by either industry or government, to restrict speech and ideas (the public)
Explain logically how you believe ending net neutrality will benefit consumers and/or the public in any shape way or form. If you can't do that, your position is null and void.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday November 29 2017, @02:10AM (2 children)
Nope. I think bits should cost the user more if they cost more to deliver. I think a busy wire should cost more than an idle one. These are basic laws of economics. You don't pay a flat rate for water so why do people think they should pay a flat rate for bits? Many places charge more for electricity based on the demand to encourage use at off-peak times. This is not objectionable. If Netflix or Hulu put a local copy inside the wire that activity does not impact their outbound pipe so it is reasonable to charge less for that use. If the ISP has some sort of deal with a particular end point, an ad deal for example, it is reasonable to exclude that traffic from bandwidth metering as part of a deal. The Internet is young, we do not yet know the optimal model to pay for much of the content and delivery yet. Allowing experimentation is good.
Did you even read my original post? We have "Network Neutrality regs now and censorship is rampant. You might want to actually hear Pai's side [multichannel.com] of the story.
Because "Net Neutrality" is a lie. To quote a recent post by Andrew Torba of Gab.ai, "If you want to help meme we need to change the terms. He’s not destorying net neutrality. He’s destroying Title II regulatory bullshit for broadband providers. The memes should say “annihilate Title II and restore internet freedom.”
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:52AM
I did read your first comment, I wasn't convinced, and nothing in it touched the point you responded to.
In response to your first paragraph I thought your points were not entirely unreasonable, with the exception of bandwidth caps which I believe to be an entirely separate discussion.
The second paragraph, about third world nations, I do not believe accurately applies to this discussion at all. Third world, and even second world, nations typically don't have power at all hours of the day, with rolling blackouts being an accepted part of daily life. Further, utility companies in those nations are typically corrupt, with the payment to the person mattering far greater than that to the company itself. They're very far from an example to follow, because I'm sure the internet service provided is even worse.
Both of these points you made didn't do much to convince me that this regulatory burden is not just necessary and fair, but also not difficult for our internet providers to work with.
Once again your first paragraph isn't unreasonable or wrong, but the article you linked in the second section isn't very convincing at all. The actions of edge providers, such as twitter, are completely unrelated and unaffected by net neutrality legislation. Tell me why undoing net neutrality will prevent censorship on twitter and facebook, and I will happily tally you a point.
I understand the arguments against net neutrality such as:
-The costs from treating all services equally prevents investment in improving infrastructure
-Smaller providers are less able to deal with the cost than larger ones(1)
-Dividing services into tiers allows lower income people to get online easier due to lower costs
1: In the rare case of a small provider in the current market
However, you've failed to make any of those points in your posts. Believe me I want to be won over, I love free market solutions, but the current market isn't free. Current regulation prevents proper competition between ISPs resulting in regional monopolies. With healthy competition and a reasonable barrier to entry in the market, regulation would be unnecessary; providers wouldn't dare cut their customers a raw deal due to fear of them jumping ship.
Try to win me over, explain to me how undoing this regulation, in our CURRENT market, is reasonable and beneficial. It's quite honestly entirely plausible to win me over, because I actually want to be, and believe me if you lay it out clear and plain enough to convince me, I'm willing to bet others will be convinced as well.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday November 29 2017, @07:55PM
The issue described in that linked article isn't going to get any better without net neutrality. In fact, it'll probably get a hell of a lot worse.
Right now we have issues where Twitter/Facebook/Google/etc will arbitrarily remove or block content. And that's a bit annoying, but it's easily solved by telling them to fuck off and using a different website.
Without net neutrality, we could easily lose that choice. When Facebook contracts with Comcast to become the official social network of Comcast, and any competing social networks are blocked, then you can't just go elsewhere. Look at the original article. The ISP offers a "Social" tier which includes Facebook, Instagram (...which is also Facebook), Twitter, Snapchat...but does it include Diaspora*, GNUSocial, or Mastadon? If you're unhappy with the actions of the big four, too damn bad, because that's the only plan you can get.
So is your argument that we should make Facebook a heavily regulated public utility so they can't engage in censorship, but allow the ISPs to do whatever they want? That seems completely backwards. The problem isn't that Facebook limits content; the problem is that ISPs want to prevent you from taking your business elsewhere. And it's a lot harder to take your business elsewhere if you don't like your ISP -- in many areas you might have exactly one choice, and building a competing service is at best an extreme logistical challenge and at worst completely illegal.