3 ms·

Arg. I feel like articles like this are calling me stupid with some statements. Like this doozy: "T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cos

Arg. I feel like articles like this are calling me stupid with some statements. Like this doozy: "T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money" I guess I'm too stupid to understand what "same" means. Or: "Zero-rating [...] Customers loved it" That's not enough. The argument is about small providers conforming to T-Mobile. What customers think is irrelevant I'm afraid. Then the author goes on to explain how it lowered prices. It's like arguing the FDA shouldn't regulate food at all, customers love unhealthy food, and the prices are lower on unhealthy food, so everything's perfect right? I will say I somewhat agree on the earlier part of the article. I don't generally prefer premature regulations. But instead of asking "why do we need these when ISPs are mostly self-regulating?" since that cat is out of the bag we should be asking "why do we need to repeal these if they aren't harming the situation?" Of course the latter question won't be answered truthfully. The real answer, "so we can violate net neutrality" (or the "spirit of" or whatever). It's strange to see someone argue against being prematurely reactionary whilst arguing for being reactionary in the other direction for something already on the books. Want a different approach w/ the FTC or congress or something? Then do that first, and then repeal the rules. Otherwise, leave well enough alone unless, as I suspect, the true motive is that the rules are preventing things ISPs want to do.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> "Zero-rating [...] Customers loved it" Which is also disingeneous because it's obviously a rhetorical trick to get uninformed customers to form an opinion. If customers correctly compared the zero-rating offer with a hypothetical package at the same price with ten times the traffic included, but not limited to a bunch of selected services, I very much doubt that many people would still prefer the zero rating. The suggestion that the ISP is giving you traffic for free is simply a lie to get people on their side.
dgreensp 9y ago
Exactly. This is like listening to Trump talk about Obamacare. Oh, he agrees with the principles — more than the next guy! — but we’ve taken a massive step in the wrong direction and need to repeal it. I lost track of all the slimy rhetorical techniques in this article. FUD about the “cost of regulations” by talking about restaurants in SF. Saying that T-Mobile’s rise was good for competition, so I guess zero-rating is a good thing after all (without arguing that it was specifically zero-rating that led to T-Mobile’s rise). Saying the “only future we have to fear” is one where these regulations stay... really?? Just because he has a hand-wavy argument they might be bad, or at least unnecessary? Oh, let’s not forget, the argument that regulations as written don’t eliminate all possible ways to violate the spirit of the law, so they don’t do any good at all. Law can be updated. If there was a legal loophole that let people murder each other, would we say the laws against murder are pointless? Zero-rating is not aligned with net neutrality, even if it’s currently allowed by a loophole, and if it benefits some customer or some company in some way. Hemming and hawing about it is just kicking up smoke. The author wants to drive a wedge between the positions of “net neutrality” and “ISPs are telecommunication carriers,” and I don’t see it. Or he wants them to be neutral carriers but not have it be legally enforced. Or first repeal the current enforcement, and then talk about enforcing it some other way. Slimy, slimy, slimy.
- dgreensp 9y ago
  I forgot another: I think at one point the author attributes the uproar over net neutrality to “the media.”
nkurz 9y ago
"T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money" I guess I'm too stupid to understand what "same" means. It made sense to me, but maybe I'm the one misunderstanding. Let's try a hypothetical parallel: PhoneCo sells you 1000 minutes of phone service, meaning that you can make 1000 minutes of calls without additional charge. But as a "perk" (to encourage you to convince your friends to switch PhoneCo), calls to other PhoneCo customers don't count toward this limit. You can still make calls to anyone you want, but the minutes don't always count against your total. I think it's clear what is meant by saying that "PhoneCo treats all calls the same, some calls just don't cost money". Now assume we have DataCo, which sells you the right to download 1000 GB of data, but has a special arrangement with some partner companies such that data going back and forth to those companies does not count toward your limit. Again, you can still connect to any web site or data service you want, but for some subset of sites the data usage doesn't count toward your limit (presumably because those companies are paying something on your behalf). Is it unreasonable to say that "DataCo treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money"? Does it at least have a clear meaning? This is separate from the argument as to whether this is a good idea to allow, but I don't have much problem with the phrasing.
- kodablah 9y ago
  > But as a "perk" And there's where you went off "same". It's abusing the term "same". I of course understand the author, but he is mincing words. So yes, it is unreasonable to say that in response to "Does DataCo treat all data the same"...or at least you have realized that latter part ("some data just doesn't cost money") must always be present as a caveat. What it leads to, inevitably, is prioritizing the data on cost alone. Users are incentivized NOT to use the non-free side. It's like someone saying "have you ever done THING" and the response being "I have never done THING, except for that one time". Just say it isn't the same then, otherwise it comes off as weaseling.
  - nkurz 9y ago
    Rather than disagreeing about "same", we might be disagreeing about "treat". To me, treating all data/calls the same means that there is no difference in speed or reliability. I don't see it as automatically meaning that they are all billed the same. In some contexts this can be misleading, but I didn't think it was within the Stratechery article. I'm much more bothered by "unlimited" meaning anything but unlimited, and like the author, more concerned about the lack of a viable competitive landscape for broadband than with differential billing.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> "Zero-rating [...] Customers loved it" Which is also disingeneous because it's obviously a rhetorical trick to get uninformed customers to form an opinion. If customers correctly compared the zero-rating offer with a hypothetical package at the same price with ten times the traffic included, but not limited to a bunch of selected services, I very much doubt that many people would still prefer the zero rating. The suggestion that the ISP is giving you traffic for free is simply a lie to get people on their side.

dgreensp 9y ago

Exactly. This is like listening to Trump talk about Obamacare. Oh, he agrees with the principles — more than the next guy! — but we’ve taken a massive step in the wrong direction and need to repeal it. I lost track of all the slimy rhetorical techniques in this article. FUD about the “cost of regulations” by talking about restaurants in SF. Saying that T-Mobile’s rise was good for competition, so I guess zero-rating is a good thing after all (without arguing that it was specifically zero-rating that led to T-Mobile’s rise). Saying the “only future we have to fear” is one where these regulations stay... really?? Just because he has a hand-wavy argument they might be bad, or at least unnecessary? Oh, let’s not forget, the argument that regulations as written don’t eliminate all possible ways to violate the spirit of the law, so they don’t do any good at all. Law can be updated. If there was a legal loophole that let people murder each other, would we say the laws against murder are pointless? Zero-rating is not aligned with net neutrality, even if it’s currently allowed by a loophole, and if it benefits some customer or some company in some way. Hemming and hawing about it is just kicking up smoke. The author wants to drive a wedge between the positions of “net neutrality” and “ISPs are telecommunication carriers,” and I don’t see it. Or he wants them to be neutral carriers but not have it be legally enforced. Or first repeal the current enforcement, and then talk about enforcing it some other way. Slimy, slimy, slimy.

dgreensp 9y ago
I forgot another: I think at one point the author attributes the uproar over net neutrality to “the media.”

nkurz 9y ago

"T-Mobile treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money" I guess I'm too stupid to understand what "same" means. It made sense to me, but maybe I'm the one misunderstanding. Let's try a hypothetical parallel: PhoneCo sells you 1000 minutes of phone service, meaning that you can make 1000 minutes of calls without additional charge. But as a "perk" (to encourage you to convince your friends to switch PhoneCo), calls to other PhoneCo customers don't count toward this limit. You can still make calls to anyone you want, but the minutes don't always count against your total. I think it's clear what is meant by saying that "PhoneCo treats all calls the same, some calls just don't cost money". Now assume we have DataCo, which sells you the right to download 1000 GB of data, but has a special arrangement with some partner companies such that data going back and forth to those companies does not count toward your limit. Again, you can still connect to any web site or data service you want, but for some subset of sites the data usage doesn't count toward your limit (presumably because those companies are paying something on your behalf). Is it unreasonable to say that "DataCo treats all data the same, some data just doesn’t cost money"? Does it at least have a clear meaning? This is separate from the argument as to whether this is a good idea to allow, but I don't have much problem with the phrasing.

kodablah 9y ago
> But as a "perk" And there's where you went off "same". It's abusing the term "same". I of course understand the author, but he is mincing words. So yes, it is unreasonable to say that in response to "Does DataCo treat all data the same"...or at least you have realized that latter part ("some data just doesn't cost money") must always be present as a caveat. What it leads to, inevitably, is prioritizing the data on cost alone. Users are incentivized NOT to use the non-free side. It's like someone saying "have you ever done THING" and the response being "I have never done THING, except for that one time". Just say it isn't the same then, otherwise it comes off as weaseling.
- nkurz 9y ago
  Rather than disagreeing about "same", we might be disagreeing about "treat". To me, treating all data/calls the same means that there is no difference in speed or reliability. I don't see it as automatically meaning that they are all billed the same. In some contexts this can be misleading, but I didn't think it was within the Stratechery article. I'm much more bothered by "unlimited" meaning anything but unlimited, and like the author, more concerned about the lack of a viable competitive landscape for broadband than with differential billing.