Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday November 28 2017, @04:15PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:17AM (#602802)

    An example of government regulation that actually improved things would be nice to buttress you argument.

    Net neutrality. Comcast should not be allowed to throttle torrent traffic, for example; that is simply a behavior that is fundamentally harmful to a free and open Internet. Just like I see no reason we should allow companies to dump harmful chemicals into a river, I see no reason we should allow ISPs to violate net neutrality. I just don't see why that is desirable at all.

    Because I can't really think of one, I'm inclined to oppose any attempt to increase regulation.

    In other words, you're an ignorant automaton who mindlessly opposes any and all regulation.

    How much did Obama promise everyone their health care premiums would go DOWN if we only trusted him and his merry band of regulators?

    There are bad regulations, so therefore all regulations are bad. How about all the times when corporations have screwed people over? Oh, and you can't escape from monopolistic ISPs, unless you want dial-up. Have fun!

    Land lines are still highly regulated and are essentially dead, replaced by cheap less regulated cell service.

    Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that cellphones are far more convenient and portable than landlines. No, it's all because of government regulations.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1