13 ms·

To play devil's advocate here, does this mean companies shouldn't even offer time-limited freebies (e.g. promotional offerings "Buy 2 data packages for the pric

To play devil's advocate here, does this mean companies shouldn't even offer time-limited freebies (e.g. promotional offerings "Buy 2 data packages for the price of 1! Limited Time offer!")? Or is the worry that only indefinitely free offerings can set the stage for trouble later? To me both viewpoints set the stage for trouble, except the indefinite free offering is a darker shade of gray.

subway 11y ago
The issue isn't free/paid, but variations in communications service performance based on the content of the communications or the parties involved.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Yes, exactly. I didn't mean to say that all "free" things are a net neutrality problem, only that policies which affect different traffic differently are still problematic when they're free. For example, if T-Mobile started charging $10/month to access Spotify on their network, that's an obvious net neutrality problem. What I'm saying is that if T-Mobile lets you access Spotify for free on their network, that is also a net neutrality problem, although many people see it as just a bonus. Stuff where an entire plan is free is fine. It's when different traffic is treated differently that net neutrality comes in.
- netneutralish 11y ago
  Except where such variations in communications service are explicitly authorized by the consumer. A counter example that I bet T-Mobile is waiting to deploy is parental control. As strange as it sounds, there are actually families that pay to have their wireless carrier restrict adult content while on-net. EDIT: "As strange as it sounds" refers to the fact that most parental control solutions are network-based, when in fact a proper parental control solution should be client-based because as soon as your child goes to WiFi at MacDonalds/Starbucks they probably have access to all the adult content they want to see by bypassing the wireless carrier parental control network controls.
  - hmahncke 11y ago
    Speaking as a parent, the problem with client based controls is access to the client without an argument.
    - netneutralish 11y ago
      As a parent, and as a person working in the wireless industry, I share this frustration. The main issue is that a true client-based parental-control solution will: a) eat up more data as the client's parental control component needs to continually update its URL database; b) require more CPU and RAM (i.e. more expensive phone) if you want a better "content inspection" engine (since URLs are notoriously easy to bypass); c) you are willfully acting as a MITM and creating a backdoor by forcing all content to be decrypted in some way for the solution to work effectively and only controlled by you (the parent), which may (or may not) compromise your stance on the issue of e2e encryption, privacy and security; d) (your point above and following from c) having to personally safeguard and secure your child's device; e) on Android, is it even possible to not root the device? Where's there's a will, there's a way: most kids with smartphones coupled with an incentive to bypass controls (Minecraft was a good example given above) could easily root their device, or eventually social engineer their parents into choosing future devices that are rootable.
      - GauntletWizard 11y ago
        Parental Controls are DRM. They're precisely the same problem statement and software solution: You want to turn general-purpose computing into devices that hide their capabilities from the user, selectively. This doesn't work on an informed and educated populace, and kids reach that level of education earlier than you think. My parents stopped filtering my internet at about 8 - I'd been online since 4- and while I'm certainly more scarred and savvy about a variety of strange subcultures than I would otherwise be, I am glad of it. Even before then, the filters had not been 100%; I know by anecdote that I had seen some seriously deranged pornography before the filters completely dropped, and I really just wasn't interested.
  - vidarh 11y ago
Nullabillity 11y ago
Free isn't the problem, discrimination is.
- netneutralish 11y ago
  T-Mobile's loophole argument is two-fold: 1) they are allowing customers to opt-out (maybe they will concede this could be improved, but it doesn't change their fundamental desire to circumvent net neutrality); 2) content discrimination has positive benefits for consumers (i.e. allows higher consumption of content) T-Mobile may be willing to bet that the FCC and consumer groups will be hard-pressed to claim that sending HDTV vs. EDTV falls under a discriminatory context given the consumer benefits and (seeming) fulfillment of video service.

subway 11y ago

The issue isn't free/paid, but variations in communications service performance based on the content of the communications or the parties involved.

mikeash 11y ago
Yes, exactly. I didn't mean to say that all "free" things are a net neutrality problem, only that policies which affect different traffic differently are still problematic when they're free. For example, if T-Mobile started charging $10/month to access Spotify on their network, that's an obvious net neutrality problem. What I'm saying is that if T-Mobile lets you access Spotify for free on their network, that is also a net neutrality problem, although many people see it as just a bonus. Stuff where an entire plan is free is fine. It's when different traffic is treated differently that net neutrality comes in.
netneutralish 11y ago
Except where such variations in communications service are explicitly authorized by the consumer. A counter example that I bet T-Mobile is waiting to deploy is parental control. As strange as it sounds, there are actually families that pay to have their wireless carrier restrict adult content while on-net. EDIT: "As strange as it sounds" refers to the fact that most parental control solutions are network-based, when in fact a proper parental control solution should be client-based because as soon as your child goes to WiFi at MacDonalds/Starbucks they probably have access to all the adult content they want to see by bypassing the wireless carrier parental control network controls.
- hmahncke 11y ago
  Speaking as a parent, the problem with client based controls is access to the client without an argument.
  - netneutralish 11y ago
    As a parent, and as a person working in the wireless industry, I share this frustration. The main issue is that a true client-based parental-control solution will: a) eat up more data as the client's parental control component needs to continually update its URL database; b) require more CPU and RAM (i.e. more expensive phone) if you want a better "content inspection" engine (since URLs are notoriously easy to bypass); c) you are willfully acting as a MITM and creating a backdoor by forcing all content to be decrypted in some way for the solution to work effectively and only controlled by you (the parent), which may (or may not) compromise your stance on the issue of e2e encryption, privacy and security; d) (your point above and following from c) having to personally safeguard and secure your child's device; e) on Android, is it even possible to not root the device? Where's there's a will, there's a way: most kids with smartphones coupled with an incentive to bypass controls (Minecraft was a good example given above) could easily root their device, or eventually social engineer their parents into choosing future devices that are rootable.
    - GauntletWizard 11y ago
      Parental Controls are DRM. They're precisely the same problem statement and software solution: You want to turn general-purpose computing into devices that hide their capabilities from the user, selectively. This doesn't work on an informed and educated populace, and kids reach that level of education earlier than you think. My parents stopped filtering my internet at about 8 - I'd been online since 4- and while I'm certainly more scarred and savvy about a variety of strange subcultures than I would otherwise be, I am glad of it. Even before then, the filters had not been 100%; I know by anecdote that I had seen some seriously deranged pornography before the filters completely dropped, and I really just wasn't interested.
- vidarh 11y ago

Nullabillity 11y ago

Free isn't the problem, discrimination is.

netneutralish 11y ago
T-Mobile's loophole argument is two-fold: 1) they are allowing customers to opt-out (maybe they will concede this could be improved, but it doesn't change their fundamental desire to circumvent net neutrality); 2) content discrimination has positive benefits for consumers (i.e. allows higher consumption of content) T-Mobile may be willing to bet that the FCC and consumer groups will be hard-pressed to claim that sending HDTV vs. EDTV falls under a discriminatory context given the consumer benefits and (seeming) fulfillment of video service.