10 ms·

Why Free Can Be a Problem on the Internet

• michaelchisari 11y ago
  Cheap is better than free. If we had a way to seamlessly pay pennies for access, we'd never have to sell our data or suffer through ads.
  • intrasight 11y ago
    Agreed. We're still all waiting for the micropayment revolution.
    • solotronics 11y ago
      this is a great application for BTC in my opinion
    • thaumasiotes 11y ago
      It'll never happen. The cost of buying something can't go below the attentional cost of deciding whether to buy it.
      • Dylan16807 11y ago
        If it defaults to on, you don't have to think about it.
        • thaumasiotes 11y ago
          That sounds like a great way to go bankrupt.
          • Dylan16807 11y ago
            Okay, I can explicitly say that it would cap and use percents of the cap if you want. Look at flattr, not as an exact model but as similar.
  • mindslight 11y ago
    After you've paid these pennies, what is the incentive to not still show you ads or surveil you for commercial advantage? IMHO we're better off focusing on defeating the hostile behavior first. The Internet was a much nicer place before monetization via web spam.
    • carbocation 11y ago
      In fact, after you have paid these pennies, you have proven that you are willing to pay. This makes you even more valuable for an advertiser than you were when you paid nothing...
      • privong 11y ago
        > This makes you even more valuable for an advertiser than you were when you paid nothing... But it's the websites that are being paid by the advertisers. If the reader is more valuable to the website than the advertiser is, then advertising might be reduced. Of course, it's possible advertisers would respond to this by offering more money per ad.
    • tptacek 11y ago
      It was? I don't remember it that way. There was definitely a lot less web spam before web spam, and pages loaded faster, but we weren't more secure (we were less secure, for reasons having nothing to do with web spam), and we had fewer choices and less content.
      • mindslight 11y ago
        Less "content" was great. It was nicer to sift through a few pages of search results to find a few dense authoritative sources, edited and published by people with something to say. Today, the results are better ranked but more fragmented and sparser in originality, with a heavy weighting towards commercial platforms that aggregate tidbits. (I don't really see what security has to do with this)
      • idlewords 11y ago
  • Swizec 11y ago
    The problem with cheap is that people have huge expectations. "What do you mean I'm not entitled to life-long free updates after I paid you $0.9 for your app? I AM A PAYING CUSTOMER AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!" Happens a lot. I write books, here is a lovely email I got from somebody who spent a whopping $7: > Please refund me this purchase immediately. I cannot believe you are selling a product that is obsolete. React no longer uses [mixins] and we are already on React 0.14 RC-1. Considering that this product is effectively ONLY 35 pages, I would have expect you to have kept the code current. I will contact my credit card company today to ensure a credit was issued. Ed Post Script: I have perused your website before and was hesitant. Today, I took the plunge and am very disappointed! I never get that sort of behavior from people who buy the $59 package. ;)
    • rust4homoslol 11y ago
      he's got a point what's the issue with refunding him? his email comes off as a bit rude but that's just how people can be on the internet at first
    • 01Michael10 11y ago
      Curious... Link to the product you offer? $35 page book for $7?
      • Swizec 11y ago
        http://swizec.com/reactd3js/ http://swizec.com/reactd3js/ It's actually a bit over 60 pages, and the reason people pay is this: "With React+d3.js you'll learn how to build re-usable visualization components in about an hour." And because past buyers say things like this: "I'm starting a new position where I will focus on data visualization using React and d3. I got everything I needed from the book, your examples were straight forward and easy to follow. Thanks!" I've had a lot of people comment, both online and in person, that it was the perfect book for them because it's short and focused.
        • voltagex_ 11y ago
          Bought! Hope that helps you get back to writing "Why programmers work at night" ;)
  • Animats 11y ago
    We do. It's called phone bill cramming. Premium phone services are almost as dead as premium Minitel tiers. It's an idea that's definitely been tried.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• zanny 11y ago
  Its obviously against net neutrality completely to give fast lanes to netflix. Thats there is even a question about it is a sign of deep corruption in the FCC, that the move earlier this year about title 2 might have just been a feel good campaign with no substance if T-Mobile can get away with this bullshit. LTE had the potential to revolutionize digital communication by dramatically reducing the cost of last mile links. One cell tower could provide an entire suburb with 100MB/s Internet. Nothing about the design of the spec should mean you need caps. The only policy rule that matters is that when you have congestion on the line those who have used less so far get priority over those who have already gotten more.
  • caseysoftware 11y ago
    This is not "giving fast lanes" to anyone, it's not counting that data against the users' data cap. It's not remotely the same though it can (and probably will) result in changing user behavior towards those services. The more subtle distinction here is that they're playing the customer in the best way possible. Get users used to "free" for some thing and if the FCC comes back to slap them, T-Mobile says "well, we want to give you free data but the FCC wants us to charge you for it." And then people continue using more data and upgrades their plans (or pays for overages) making them more money or people throw a fit at the FCC. Either way, T-Mobile wins.
    • eli 11y ago
      It's not the same thing, but I do think it's in the same ballpark: the ISP is favoring one type of traffic over another. And it's based on their business relationship with certain providers. Not a fastlane, but still counter to the spirit of net neutrality.
      • netneutralish 11y ago
        And it's based on their business relationship with certain providers. If the bar to establish the business relationship was onerous, I'd completely agree. T-Mobile is undermining the argument by stating (whether true or not remains to be seen) that a qualifying website need only sign up to participate. Not a fastlane, but still counter to the spirit of net neutrality. The purpose of the net neutrality regulations were to provide equitable treatment in favour of end users. I'm struggling to see how giving end consumers more of what they want for the same price (zero-rating with an option to opt-out) is counter to the initial spirit of the net neutrality regulation. I think that current net neutrality regulations settled into a position that network operators shouldn't unduly (or at all) influence or favour certain endpoints over others. However, by providing this type of optional zero-rating, T-Mobile is firing the first salvo to force pro-net neutrality groups to more sharply understand and define the true incentives driving their respective agendas. If pro-nn groups don't respond to this the right way, then similar to the way that zero-rated streaming audio was used as a precedent to bring in these optional zero-rated streaming video, precedent upon precedent will build upon each other. I'm not sure if this is simply a loss-leading tactic by T-Mobile to gain market share, or if this is part of a longer-term play to form a beachhead from which to dismantle the entire net neutrality Title II regulations.
• xlayn 11y ago
  Free is a problem per se: the thing is that it's a concept that represents an idea with no possible physical representation; you can't have something for nothing in short due to 1st law of thermodynamics. Things happen as a result of an effort, a work performed; and economy works on the basis of profitable actions, if you match those two you get a redefinition of free as a bobby trap: your info, your time, your attention or your freedom.
  • cgio 11y ago
    In your redefinition of free as a bobby trap, and out of the options you give which may not be exhaustive, I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom. Therefore, free does not mean get something out of nothing, or get something for nothing. Free is not even an attribute of the good per se; it is an attribute of the relationship between good and "consumer". What you do with a good and the amount of energy you have to expend to make use of it is an expression of freedom rather than a price. Price is conditioning and not characterising the relationship between good and consumer but the relationship between "producer/owner" and "consumer", you have to pay it before getting any relationship with the good. How would you see the same definition with regards to free software? Of course, you may choose to spend time on contributing, but that does not mean that you have to, and obligation is one of the components of price. In the case of electronic content, the thermodynamics laws are respected perfectly as we can all see by the operation of the network/path that transfers something, no need for an additional layer of finance to have physics working. EDIT: changed my high level definition of free
    • xlayn 11y ago
      "I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom" The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search). "free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it.
• massysett 11y ago
  Better headline: "why 'Net Neutrality' and bureaucrats who think they know best can be a problem on the Internet". Because Tom Wheeler obviously should determine that mobile customers shouldn't get free Youtube.
• null000 11y ago
  What I want to know is: Why is this suddenly a problem now? It was already done when T-mobile made Pandora/a few other music services not count against your data cap - everyone seemed happy about it then, and much of the press enthused over T-mobile's innovativeness and daring. It also bothers me that I haven't seen any arguments that explain why this is bad in light of the fact that it's supposed to be based on infrastructure requirements, rather than payments, company affiliation, or otherwise. Instead of being used to squeeze small guys out of the picture, it looks more like a platform for getting more exposure and traffic than you would otherwise. It doesn't really pose a threat (except in slippery slope-esque situations) to the things that net neutrality claim to be protecting. Can't we all just be happy that, in a world of data caps, there's a company trying to chip away at the things you have to choose between spending data on? Does everything REALLY have to be a direct threat to the internet? Admittedly, I'd much rather see "no data caps ever" (there are plans for that, and they are pretty cheap on t-mobile) but I'm generally against letting perfect get in the way of good.
  • throwaway2048 11y ago
    The most eloquent explanation of the problem of incentives this creates I've seen is that it dosen't incentivise your isp to provide the fastest, best service. Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment. Eg, they will keep data caps tiny, because its better for them if every service with a lot of data usage comes to them to pay for a bypass. This is categorically massively punishing to smaller players without money and connections. In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company. Perfect isn't being the enemy of good in this case, "good enough" is being the enemy of things meaningfully improving, ever.
    • netneutralish 11y ago
      Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment. This is a valid concern when the carrier asks for money in exchange for "enhanced" fast lane service. However, in this case T-Mobile is undermining that argument completely by offering "any website or mobile app that offers streaming video [to] opt into its program with no charge. And T-Mobile users can turn off Binge On at any time." (Emphasis mine.) In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company. I generally agree with you about non-competing cartels of any stripe, but this particular case seems like it was designed to be consumer-friendly to T-Mobile's short-term financial detriment. Perhaps additional two data points will help: 1) Carriers (both fixed and wireless) that are not #1 in market share will sometimes engage in loss-promotions or tactics to gain subscriber share. The question often turns into "how long can X sustain this strategy, and how many subscribers will they lose when they're forced to downgrade offerings?" 2) American carriers are at war with each other, to the benefit of end subscribers.