10 ms·
Portuguese ISP shows us what our non-neutral internet will look like
- BoorishBears 9y agoI’m so tired of seeing this example being brought up. The packages are for making those services cheaper not more expensive. This is essentially partial zero-rating. Zero-rating has its own effect on competition, but people are acting like an ISP is blocking access based on subscriptions which is an doomsday of a non-neutral internet I’ve seen trumpeted that’s I don’t believe will happen, and hasn’t happen in other countries. Well I guess net neutrality is another one of those topics I’d better know to not go against the guard on.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoYou do realize that there is no difference in the result whether you start with high prices and then selectively make some services cheaper or you start with low prices and then selectively make everything else more expensive, right?
- BoorishBears 9y agoWhere have the prices been shown to rise? US carriers didn’t raise prices when they introduced their “soft” zero rating on video traffic. My point is everyone is jumping to the worst conclusions instead of objectively considering the situation around what ISPs are doing without net neutrality laws. Not supporting blanket pro net neutrality talk != supporting an unregulated lawless Wild West of ISPs but everyone acts like it is (see how quickly my comment was buried before anyone even responded)
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago> Where have the prices been shown to rise? You do realize that the result is the same, whether you first reduce your prices as costs decrease and then raise them again, or just don't bother reducing them in the first place, right? > US carriers didn’t raise prices when they introduced their “soft” zero rating on video traffic. So, are you saying that moving around the video traffic doesn't cost them anything? Or how else are they paying for that, if not by keeping the price for other traffic artificially high?
- BoorishBears 9y agoIt cost them less, you get downgraded to lower res streams and in exchange they don’t limit how much you can view. And the idea is they have a choice, raise base prices, or add packages. It’s not add packages or don’t.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoNothing wrong with packages. Just everything wrong with packages for particular services. The solution is really simple: Offer packages of traffic. If people need 10 GB/month for low-res video streaming, then sell 10 GB/month for 5 EUR.
- rnhmjoj 9y agoReading the articles it seems this ISP is forcing you to buy a package of services to get any internet access at all; this is terrifying. Optional zero-rating is bad but not much worse than internet with a stupidly low data-cap already is, even if the net result may be the same.
- BoorishBears 9y agoThat’s not true, this image has made at rounds already, multiple first hand users confirmed this is a set of options to save on top of a base package.
- icebraining 9y agoThat depends on the base package, if you get a pre-paid plan you don't get any included Internet service. You can still access the regular Internet, but it debits 2€ for any day you use it, and only gives you 60MB for that day. To use more you must purchase some extra package.
- soneil 9y agoI’d think that still stifles competition. If netflix and youtube don’t count towards your data cap (which seems to be how this particular example works), surely that’s going to influence how you view other streaming services? “I could use amazon prime, but my data cap will be blown after two movies”, etc. It’s not really competition if the ISP picks the winners.
- BoorishBears 9y agoIt does stifle competition, but it benefits the consumer, which is why I feel like it should be regulated on a case by case basis. The same way a company can take multiple steps that stifle innovation, that individually to end completion, but cumulatively put it in a position where it can’t be competed with.
- ch4s3 9y ago> but it benefits the consumer In the short run, until there is no competition. This is a classic tactic of monopolists; serve consumers at below cost, wait until competition dies, and then raise prices to higher than pre competition levels.
- BoorishBears 9y agoThat’s what the second paragraph addresses. To me the focus should be on those monopolies, not this singular “tool” in their arsenal that itself, isn’t a huge factor in a formation of a monopoly
- ch4s3 9y agoWhy not both?
- alkonaut 9y agoEven just having one service such as Netflix not count against a data quota is terrible and completely undermines competition. I don't think there is any major difference between that, and any other version of a non-neutral internet. Its barely a slippery slope.
- MilnerRoute 9y agoOur Silicon Valley congressman points out that this offers "a huge advantage for entrenched companies, but it totally ices out startups trying to get in front of people, which stifles innovation." https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/92370196295609139211111 https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/92370196295609139211111
- icebraining 9y agoYou have a few extra 1s at the end :) https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701962956091392 https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701962956091392
- chewbacha 9y agoJust in time for Halloween. This is chilling.
- icebraining 9y agoNah, Meo has been doing this crap for a while. Plans by other operators (like Vodafone) also have zero-rating, although with a fixed set of apps.
- PaulRobinson 9y agoWhilst I completely think net neutrality should be enshrined in law, I do wonder whether "the market" will ensure it is always available. If you have a choice of two ISPs and one of them is net neutral, the other is not, which one are you going to choose? If you are not able to choose your provider, you have a monopoly issue - the way to deal with that might be net neutrality for now, but you really need to break the monopoly irrespective of that. Some consumers may be ill-informed. I think if plans are explicit, that's actually going to cause pause for thought and consumers will educate themselves: there is some evidence of this younger consumers at least and the choices they're making (e.g. Facebook is dying off with < 30 year olds). For me the really scary option is when your ISP is preferring traffic for a major incumbent and limiting traffic to a new competitor and not making that explicitly clear to you. At that point you don't get to make an informed choice of ISP, you don't get consumer education calling out there are options, and you don't get shifts in the market. That's the really dangerous one we need to be wary of, IMHO.
- mikeash 9y agoI agree that net neutrality becomes much less important if there's real competition between ISPs. But for most of the US, there isn't. Monopolies and non-competitive duopolies are common. Yes, this should be fixed, but it's really, really hard, far harder than regulating neutrality.
- Thisisdense 9y agoNo such thing in Portugal as well
- BoorishBears 9y agoGetting blanket downvotes for going against the hivemind so nevermind.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoIn other words: They have not used it for anything more than trying to kill their competition? Well, nothing to worry about then!
- return0 9y agoI 'll be that guy. What's so bad about consumers having more choice? E.g i dont use facebook or netflix, would enjoy the (cheaper rates|larger speeds).
- mikeash 9y agoWhat makes the choice to pay extra for Facebook superior to having it included?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- return0 9y agomakes it cheaper for everyone else
- mikeash 9y agoHow?
- return0 9y agodo i need to go full economics 101 ?
- mikeash 9y agoApparently. Facebook doesn't cost the ISP anything to provide, and in fact it costs the ISP extra to implement site-specific rules like this, so they don't save any money providing service to people who choose not to use Facebook. The ISP therefore has no reason to reduce their price.
- return0 9y agotelecom charges worldwide have little to do with bandwidth cost https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/
- adam_seeliger 9y agoWho cares? Funny how the free market is being used as a scare tactic.
- kirykl 9y ago“I don’t need anything more than the free Facebook plan. If a new startup creates something FB will just copy it and I’ll soon have it for free anyway” -future internet user logic
- saas_co_de 9y agoIf a user can get FB services for free and can't afford internet otherwise is it better for them to have no internet at all?
- JoshMnem 9y agoYes -- otherwise they are squandering their long term Internet freedom for short term access to addicting garbage (Facebook).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- return0 9y agojesus that's judgemental.
- andrepd 9y agoIt's also a fact (Facebook is literally addictive).
- return0 9y agolike almost everything (including HN, trust me, i ve been there)
- JoshMnem 9y agoHere is some information: * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12161461/Facebook-addiction-activates-same-part-of-the-brain-as-cocaine.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12161461/Facebook-addiction-... * http://www.salimvirani.com/facebook/ http://www.salimvirani.com/facebook/ * https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/04/05/the-true-costs-of-facebook-addiction-low-self-esteem-and-poor-body-image/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/04/05/the-tru... * https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-have-been-hijacked-by-our-phones-tristan-harris-wants-to-rescue-them/ https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-have-been-hijacked-by-... * https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609104/smartphones-are-weapons-of-mass-manipulation-and-this-guy-is-declaring-war-on-them/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609104/smartphones-are-we... * https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3 https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-technology-hijacks-peop... * https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-binge-breaker/501122/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-bin... * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/25/facebook-orwellian-journalists-democracy-guatemala-slovakia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/25/facebook-... More things are happening in real life, email/telephone, newspapers, magazines, and in books than on Facebook. I think that Facebook is bad for the human mind and bad for society.
- apeace 9y agoI work for an indie ISP, so I really hope the big incumbent ISPs in the U.S. start doing this. Customers will flood to my company instead, since we would never package like this. And I'll be rich! The reality is this isn't going to happen, because the incumbent ISPs know it will destroy them.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mwilliaams 9y agoThe real problem is that there is far too little competition in this market. When consumers only have 2 options, or even just 1, that's a problem.
- bsder 9y agoOnly where companies like you exist. Everywhere else will get limited. This was just like Google Fiber. Suddenly, ISP speeds shot through the roof wherever Google Fiber threatened. Everywhere else, they didn't budge.
- pmontra 9y agoI support your feelings but I don't think it will be so easy. First of all, can you offer service in every state, every county? But even servicing a local area could be good for your business. However don't you fear you're going to pay higher fees for peering? I expect that if the big companies are going to pay for a fast lane then they'll want to make sure ISPs like yours can't help people to bypass those lanes.
- thisisit 9y agoThis whole thing reminds of something happened (happens) in the consumer product world. In India, long time ago, there was 300 ml Coca Cola for Rs. 10. For years, they tried to find a way to penetrate the rural market. You see, people were poor and normally couldn't afford the Rs. 10 worth of coke. Coca Cola came up with a brilliant plan. They started selling 200ml for Rs.5 . This achieved two things - a. opened up the market for people who "couldn't otherwise afford" coke b. Make the soda "considerably cheaper". Now 400 ml could be have for Rs. 10 Over time things have changed, 300 ml is no longer readily available. The 200 ml variant rules the market at the price of, you guessed it, Rs. 10.
- icebraining 9y agoSo they dropped the prices, how is that a problem? If it's because it now costs more, if it was so long ago, are you sure that's not just inflation?
- thisisit 9y agoIt is due to both inflation and clever marketing. I was trying to make a point about the latter. It started out about being about "affordability" and choice but it no longer was about that. Same goes for people talking about this net neutrality being about affordability and access. That is not true. It is a simple marketing tactic which will cause the internet prices to go above and beyond inflation.
- guhcampos 9y agoPeople need to stop spreading this without even knowing what's going on, this is the kind of behavior that gets Trumps elected and creates mass histeria. What that Portuguese ISP is selling has nothing to do with net neutrality per se. It's just a promotion, a marketing campaign, and a very common one around the world. I'm not saying it's okay or that it does not hurt competition, user choice and neutrality to some extent: but get your facts together before spreading half truths. So for the facts: these are add-on packages to an otherwise common 10gb/mo mobile data plan. You don't get to buy them individually and they won't otherwise affect your plan. What they do is to make the access to the particular services in the list unlimited. So you get your 10gb for everything, but maybe you watch a lot of Netflix and are willing to pay a few extra bucks to have it not counting a giants your data plan. That's all this is. Again, I'm not saying this is fair, ideal or neutral, but it's also not what the article is saying it is. It's also more tailored to get such services users into the carrier business than the other way around. It's more like a "join us to use Netflix for free" than "we allow you to use Netflix only" kind of thing. It is concerning to some extent, but it isn't new, exclusive to Portugal, or hurting the core concept of Net Neutrality at all, at least not directly. One might be right in argue that making some services cheaper is essentially the same as making other services more expensive - this being a clear violation of the neutrality concept - but it does not block, censure or otherwise limit access to any particular service or domain. Call it an ethical loophole if you will, but please don't spread mass hysteria with images you can't read.
- corkraider 9y agoThat's not the way I interpret it. I think you get 10 GB of traffic to for example messaging apps for 5€ if you buy the messaging package. 10 GB of traffic to the rest of the internet is 20€. But yes as you said nobody really understands what's going on, this image is just used to manipulate people. We also have the same in Spain but since it cannot be captured in a screenshot it'll never be viral :) https://www.vodafone.es/c/particulares/es/tienda/movil/vodafone-pass/ https://www.vodafone.es/c/particulares/es/tienda/movil/vodaf...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 9y ago
- rocky1138 9y agoThis is horrendous. The only way to combat it is for the companies in these plans to block ISPs that do this.
- spodek 9y agoAnother way is to legislate net neutrality.
- jancsika 9y agoSo what does the ISP get out of doing this?
- craigvn 9y agoProduct segmentation. Currently this is normally just done by speed or data limits. This gives another option to screw people out of money.
- RA_Fisher 9y agoThe concept of net neutrality seems very short sighted. Cell provided is starting to compete with cable. There's also satellite and copper wire from the phone companies. As a consumer, I feel like the trend is in the right direction. Why would I want to setup a regulatory environment that would likely deliver higher rates and poorer service?
- chrischen 9y agoI am in SF and the only provider or gigabit fiber in my building is comcast. A true competitive market does not exist (not unless you consider 15mbps DSL as an alternative to 1000mbps fiber) and therefore the reality of “competition” in the ISP market is abusive monopolies or oligopolies, just like how the reality of communist regimes are abusive authoritarianism.
- RA_Fisher 9y agoSounds like you have a healthy amount of competition in SF. I bet you could write down at least six providers if you include cellular internet. That sounds like a very healthy market to me, what's the claim? That you only have one gigabit option? I remember feeling the same way when I only had 33.6k with AOL 20 years ago. The advancement has been really incredible. Regarding the abusiveness of authoritarian regimes, I'd suggest the book(s), "The Gulag Archipelago."
- chrischen 9y agoNope, T-Mobile specifically caps mobile LTE usage to prevent people from using unlimited LTE as a replacement for home internet. And even that is about 20-40 mbps.
- naner 9y agoRestricting tiered site access will deliver higher rates and cause poorer service?
- RA_Fisher 9y ago
- rootsudo 9y agoThis is the norm in Philippine mobile data ISP for Smart or Globe.
- ngcazz 9y agoYou know what I'd like to see a net neutrality exception for? Adverts should be zero-rated. If ISPs are gonna shove bullshit down my throat they sure as hell deserve to accommodate the cost of getting that to me.