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: 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.