4 ms·

I guess then I don't understand what you were trying to say?! > People just won't use data if most of their uses of data immediately blow up their data usage (

I guess then I don't understand what you were trying to say?! > People just won't use data if most of their uses of data immediately blow up their data usage (remember back when Internet on phones was measured in KB? Some phones started coming out with J2ME apps for streaming video, but who would be foolhardy enough to use them when you were being charged several cents a minute?). I understand this to mean roughly "if people have a 10 GB data cap, they will be discouraged from using it for streaming video"--what did I miss? > while still charging from uses that are incidental. You'll be more likely to use your phone's data if you also have it on while in the car to stream music, the sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. Which I understand to mean "with zero rating with a large total bandwidth allocation (data cap and zero rating bandwidth combined), people are going to use more bandwidth at the same price"--what did I miss here? Really, I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but even on rereading it carefully, I don't see how I failed to address any of the context. > If we all used internet to read HTML-only websites I'm sure ISPs could guarantee faster speeds and actually keep the guarantees for much less than they do now. Realistically it takes more infrastructure to provide certain types of content at scale and I respect the ISPs rights to reflect that in their pricing. And to explicitly ddress this as well: That is true in one sense, but only relevant to the question of zero rating in a different sense in which it is not true. Yes, a minute of video takes much more bandwidth to transfer than a minute of text to read, in that sense, that's true, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. Transporting 1 GB of HTML, however, takes exactly as much infrastructure as transporting 1 GB of video. Which is why it's a net neutrality violation to distinguish between them.

BoorishBears 9y ago
This is next level stuff, I say your comment is taking bits and pieces of my comment instead of addressing the whole thing, so you take bits and pieces of your own comment to prove that you're not taking bits and pieces of mine? Let me just spell out what's wrong with your original comment then: >>You are committing so obvious fallacies it's just not really believable that you aren't aware. Great start. Really, I wish the internet had never learned the word "fallacy" to insert it at the drop of a hat -- >> They assume "If Spotify is free, they must be baking the cost into non-Spotify data". Which is not true. >>So, how is that data paid for then? Or are you saying that there are no costs associated with providing that service? Does it not cost anything to operate the cell towers that transmit the spotify data? Well if you kept reading I spell that out: Zero rating lets ISPs allow usages that would otherwise turn people away from data completely, while still charging from uses that are incidental. You'll be more likely to use your phone's data if you also have it on while in the car to stream music, the sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. Again. The sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. -- >> Zero rating lets ISPs allow usages that would otherwise turn people away >>from data completely, >>So, let's compare two scenarios that only differ in whether there is zero >>rating involved: >>1. The customer has a data cap of 100 GB for n $/month. >>2. The customer has a data cap of 10 GB plus an average (across customers, not enforced for individual customers) 90 GB of bandwidth that is limited to specific services for n $/month. What advantages/additional usages does the limitation to specific services in the latter case allow that the former does not? Now you also need to also actually know how zero rating is being used, they give you unlimited to those services, but they're allowed to limit the quality of service. They're allowed to form partnerships with the zero rated services. They're allowed to use their own services. These are all factors that add up to either saving cost or generating additional revenue over normal data usage. I take it that a person genuinely interested in net neutrality understands some context of it's real world effects so I didn't think I'd have to spell that about but apparently not. -- And I'll mention the one part of your second comment that isn't just restating your first comment: >>Yes, a minute of video takes much more bandwidth to transfer than a minute of text to read, in that sense, that's true, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. It's not relevant because it doesn't support your point of view... The peak bandwidth and total bandwidth needed to let people consume the internet increases if the media the internet is composed of requires... more peak bandwidth and total bandwidth. You could read 1990s style HTML and ultra compressed low res JPEG for a year and not use as much data as 4k Netflix does in an hour. That's extremely relevant when suddenly all your customers want to be able to do that.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Well if you kept reading I spell that out: > Zero rating lets ISPs allow usages that would otherwise turn people away from data completely, while still charging from uses that are incidental. You'll be more likely to use your phone's data if you also have it on while in the car to stream music, the sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. > Again. The sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. I still don't see how zero rating is required to enable that. How would the same amount of data, but as a data cap instead of zero rating, not enable the same use cases, and also lead to less money per MB on average, but more MBs total? > Now you also need to also actually know how zero rating is being used, they give you unlimited to those services, but they're allowed to limit the quality of service. They're allowed to form partnerships with the zero rated services. They're allowed to use their own services. These are all factors that add up to either saving cost or generating additional revenue over normal data usage. So ... how is zero rating required to enable lower quality services that conserve bandwidth? And if you limit the quality of some services, then transporting a gigabyte sent by that service saves costs vs. transporting a gigabyte from a different service? > It's not relevant because it doesn't support your point of view... No, it's not relevant because it does not support discrimination based on service, it only supports discrimination based on bandwidth used. > The peak bandwidth and total bandwidth needed to let people consume the internet increases if the media the internet is composed of requires... more peak bandwidth and total bandwidth. > You could read 1990s style HTML and ultra compressed low res JPEG for a year and not use as much data as 4k Netflix does in an hour. That's extremely relevant when suddenly all your customers want to be able to do that. Really, I completely don't even understand what your point is. Yes, modern internet use cases require more bandwidth than in the old days, therefore, if you as an ISP want to enable people to make use of those, you have to somehow provide them with more bandwidth. So far, I understand and I agree. What I don't understand is how you manage to go from there to "... therefore, ISPs should be able to bill customers more per gigabyte of Debian ISOs than per gigabyte of low-quality youtube streams", or maybe even that that would be required to achieve that goal?! I mean, that is the conclusion that you are trying to support, isn't it? None of your arguments seems to actually support zero rating (as opposed to any number of other measures that could be used to achieve the same purported goals).

BoorishBears 9y ago

This is next level stuff, I say your comment is taking bits and pieces of my comment instead of addressing the whole thing, so you take bits and pieces of your own comment to prove that you're not taking bits and pieces of mine? Let me just spell out what's wrong with your original comment then: >>You are committing so obvious fallacies it's just not really believable that you aren't aware. Great start. Really, I wish the internet had never learned the word "fallacy" to insert it at the drop of a hat -- >> They assume "If Spotify is free, they must be baking the cost into non-Spotify data". Which is not true. >>So, how is that data paid for then? Or are you saying that there are no costs associated with providing that service? Does it not cost anything to operate the cell towers that transmit the spotify data? Well if you kept reading I spell that out: Zero rating lets ISPs allow usages that would otherwise turn people away from data completely, while still charging from uses that are incidental. You'll be more likely to use your phone's data if you also have it on while in the car to stream music, the sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. Again. The sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. -- >> Zero rating lets ISPs allow usages that would otherwise turn people away >>from data completely, >>So, let's compare two scenarios that only differ in whether there is zero >>rating involved: >>1. The customer has a data cap of 100 GB for n $/month. >>2. The customer has a data cap of 10 GB plus an average (across customers, not enforced for individual customers) 90 GB of bandwidth that is limited to specific services for n $/month. What advantages/additional usages does the limitation to specific services in the latter case allow that the former does not? Now you also need to also actually know how zero rating is being used, they give you unlimited to those services, but they're allowed to limit the quality of service. They're allowed to form partnerships with the zero rated services. They're allowed to use their own services. These are all factors that add up to either saving cost or generating additional revenue over normal data usage. I take it that a person genuinely interested in net neutrality understands some context of it's real world effects so I didn't think I'd have to spell that about but apparently not. -- And I'll mention the one part of your second comment that isn't just restating your first comment: >>Yes, a minute of video takes much more bandwidth to transfer than a minute of text to read, in that sense, that's true, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. It's not relevant because it doesn't support your point of view... The peak bandwidth and total bandwidth needed to let people consume the internet increases if the media the internet is composed of requires... more peak bandwidth and total bandwidth. You could read 1990s style HTML and ultra compressed low res JPEG for a year and not use as much data as 4k Netflix does in an hour. That's extremely relevant when suddenly all your customers want to be able to do that.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Well if you kept reading I spell that out: > Zero rating lets ISPs allow usages that would otherwise turn people away from data completely, while still charging from uses that are incidental. You'll be more likely to use your phone's data if you also have it on while in the car to stream music, the sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. > Again. The sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total. I still don't see how zero rating is required to enable that. How would the same amount of data, but as a data cap instead of zero rating, not enable the same use cases, and also lead to less money per MB on average, but more MBs total? > Now you also need to also actually know how zero rating is being used, they give you unlimited to those services, but they're allowed to limit the quality of service. They're allowed to form partnerships with the zero rated services. They're allowed to use their own services. These are all factors that add up to either saving cost or generating additional revenue over normal data usage. So ... how is zero rating required to enable lower quality services that conserve bandwidth? And if you limit the quality of some services, then transporting a gigabyte sent by that service saves costs vs. transporting a gigabyte from a different service? > It's not relevant because it doesn't support your point of view... No, it's not relevant because it does not support discrimination based on service, it only supports discrimination based on bandwidth used. > The peak bandwidth and total bandwidth needed to let people consume the internet increases if the media the internet is composed of requires... more peak bandwidth and total bandwidth. > You could read 1990s style HTML and ultra compressed low res JPEG for a year and not use as much data as 4k Netflix does in an hour. That's extremely relevant when suddenly all your customers want to be able to do that. Really, I completely don't even understand what your point is. Yes, modern internet use cases require more bandwidth than in the old days, therefore, if you as an ISP want to enable people to make use of those, you have to somehow provide them with more bandwidth. So far, I understand and I agree. What I don't understand is how you manage to go from there to "... therefore, ISPs should be able to bill customers more per gigabyte of Debian ISOs than per gigabyte of low-quality youtube streams", or maybe even that that would be required to achieve that goal?! I mean, that is the conclusion that you are trying to support, isn't it? None of your arguments seems to actually support zero rating (as opposed to any number of other measures that could be used to achieve the same purported goals).