4 ms·

https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg Indonesia doesn't have net neutrality laws. That's the screenshot of Indosat (Internet Provider

https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg https://i.imgur.com/DhL4vKq.jpg Indonesia doesn't have net neutrality laws. That's the screenshot of Indosat (Internet Provider)'s app where you can buy data plan from. But as you can see, they sell data plans ala carte, per application in this case. If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan. Not only that, last year, the biggest home internet provider (Indihome), and the biggest mobile internet provider (Telkomsel), which both are owned by the government, banned Netflix under the guise of "Netflix hasn't rated nor censored their contents based on our country's rules". The truth is that both of them are selling their own movie streaming service. Indihome has partnership with iflix, and Telkomsel with HOOQ. Now, if you buy new prepaid number from Telkomsel, this is the kind of data fuckery you will get. https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png https://i.imgur.com/wb6gMBo.png

mediocrejoker 9y ago
my first question would be how the prices of the unlimited plan compares to the regular plans of other ISPs. In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.
- donkeyd 9y ago
  The screenshot in OP's post and this[0] comment, make me think that cheap plans will mostly allow you to use apps/sites where the companies pay the ISP. These will be things like YouTube and Netflix, who need visitors for profit. Things that will be blocked by default are sites like HN, company websites, personal websites and anything else that isn't a huge company. So in the cheaper plans, the one being visited pays, in the expensive one, the one who visits pays. In the end, it's just another revenue stream where, if they play it right, the consumer still pays the same, but the content providers also start paying. This means more money from the same bandwidth. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190
  - mediocrejoker 9y ago
    Do they actually block any of those things? What makes you think they would start blocking HN?
    - gervase 9y ago
      My understanding is that it's not that they're "blocked", it's that "you only can access what you pay for", which in this case is only those specific sites for which you pay to access. In other words, they don't "block" HN, they only provide access to Facebook, for example.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan. You say that like there's a hard line between them. No matter what it's "aimed at" it will hit people who want to save a buck and think they only need Facebook. Except that when there is a critical mass of people who no longer have the choice, Facebook's practices can become much more abusive because it becomes that much more difficult to leave. You have to convince everyone you know not only to use something else, but to use something that requires a more expensive data plan. Moreover, consider what you're asking for, even if only lower income people subscribed. You want to take away the benefits of competition from the people with the least means. Talk about the poor get poorer.
vilmosi 9y ago
Oddly, the UK does have net neutrality and you can get those app-specific data bundles in addition to universal access.
- jplayer01 9y ago
  While the EU does have net neutrality, there are loop-holes for some forms of zero-rating (which is basically the same bullshit, just jumping through a few hoops). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating
  - webXL 9y ago
    Do NN proponents really believe that they could prevent the loopholes here?
    - Brakenshire 9y ago
      The loopholes were deliberately built in during the drafting of the law, the European Council forced the Parliament to include them. It was widely reported on at the time.
biafra 9y ago
Do they block or throttle VPN traffic?
- ivarious 9y ago
  Some ISPs throttle P2P/torrent. I don't know specifically about VPN.
  - westbywest 9y ago
    VPN tunnels that go over port 443 SSL are difficult to throttle w/o affecting other services. They'd have to throttle by destination address, which can be more complex when available VPN endpoints are geographically distributed.
reustle 9y ago
Just for the curious, this isn't how every ISP in Indonesia is. Friends and I have had your standard sim cards which allows you to access any site freely.
- mediocrejoker 9y ago
  So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of these site-specific plans?
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
    - mediocrejoker 9y ago
      That's fair but you also have to ask what's in it for them to screw their users in this way. Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?
      - rainbowmverse 9y ago
        Google was a small, unrelated startup for a long time. Google Fiber was a real threat to the ISPs, but they already had a lock on municipalities and states. Some new upstart might find a way through that. Why risk it when they can just keep them from gaining traction in the first place?
      - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        > Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure? Once the startup takes all the risk to demonstrate market demand, the ISP can come in with their own offering and use the ISP monopoly to destroy the competition.
        9y ago
spokewoke 9y ago
Charging for access to a website like this should be considered a form of piracy. The only appropriate response is a full IP range block.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  Exactly! How is Google OK with this ISP basically charging a subscription fee to use YouTube? They're essentially reselling Youtube services.
knubie 9y ago
> If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan. So, under net neutrality your only option would be the "more expensive universal data plan"?

mediocrejoker 9y ago

my first question would be how the prices of the unlimited plan compares to the regular plans of other ISPs. In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan.

donkeyd 9y ago
The screenshot in OP's post and this[0] comment, make me think that cheap plans will mostly allow you to use apps/sites where the companies pay the ISP. These will be things like YouTube and Netflix, who need visitors for profit. Things that will be blocked by default are sites like HN, company websites, personal websites and anything else that isn't a huge company. So in the cheaper plans, the one being visited pays, in the expensive one, the one who visits pays. In the end, it's just another revenue stream where, if they play it right, the consumer still pays the same, but the content providers also start paying. This means more money from the same bandwidth. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15757190
- mediocrejoker 9y ago
  Do they actually block any of those things? What makes you think they would start blocking HN?
  - gervase 9y ago
    My understanding is that it's not that they're "blocked", it's that "you only can access what you pay for", which in this case is only those specific sites for which you pay to access. In other words, they don't "block" HN, they only provide access to Facebook, for example.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> In other words, are these ‘walled garden’ plans aimed towards people who would otherwise buy a regular data plan or are they aimed at people for whom the choice is a walled plan or no plan. You say that like there's a hard line between them. No matter what it's "aimed at" it will hit people who want to save a buck and think they only need Facebook. Except that when there is a critical mass of people who no longer have the choice, Facebook's practices can become much more abusive because it becomes that much more difficult to leave. You have to convince everyone you know not only to use something else, but to use something that requires a more expensive data plan. Moreover, consider what you're asking for, even if only lower income people subscribed. You want to take away the benefits of competition from the people with the least means. Talk about the poor get poorer.

vilmosi 9y ago

Oddly, the UK does have net neutrality and you can get those app-specific data bundles in addition to universal access.

jplayer01 9y ago
While the EU does have net neutrality, there are loop-holes for some forms of zero-rating (which is basically the same bullshit, just jumping through a few hoops). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating
- webXL 9y ago
  Do NN proponents really believe that they could prevent the loopholes here?
  - Brakenshire 9y ago
    The loopholes were deliberately built in during the drafting of the law, the European Council forced the Parliament to include them. It was widely reported on at the time.

biafra 9y ago

Do they block or throttle VPN traffic?

ivarious 9y ago
Some ISPs throttle P2P/torrent. I don't know specifically about VPN.
- westbywest 9y ago
  VPN tunnels that go over port 443 SSL are difficult to throttle w/o affecting other services. They'd have to throttle by destination address, which can be more complex when available VPN endpoints are geographically distributed.

reustle 9y ago

Just for the curious, this isn't how every ISP in Indonesia is. Friends and I have had your standard sim cards which allows you to access any site freely.

mediocrejoker 9y ago
So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of these site-specific plans?
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
  - mediocrejoker 9y ago
    That's fair but you also have to ask what's in it for them to screw their users in this way. Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?
    - rainbowmverse 9y ago
      Google was a small, unrelated startup for a long time. Google Fiber was a real threat to the ISPs, but they already had a lock on municipalities and states. Some new upstart might find a way through that. Why risk it when they can just keep them from gaining traction in the first place?
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure? Once the startup takes all the risk to demonstrate market demand, the ISP can come in with their own offering and use the ISP monopoly to destroy the competition.
      - 9y ago

spokewoke 9y ago

Charging for access to a website like this should be considered a form of piracy. The only appropriate response is a full IP range block.

jbob2000 9y ago
Exactly! How is Google OK with this ISP basically charging a subscription fee to use YouTube? They're essentially reselling Youtube services.

knubie 9y ago

> If your favorite app is not there, you're shit out of luck and have to use the more expensive universal data plan. So, under net neutrality your only option would be the "more expensive universal data plan"?