15 ms·

"What is zero rating?" you might ask. (I did). This is the process of ISPs offering free carriage of exclusively particular traffic. e.g. T-Mobile's "unlimit

"What is zero rating?" you might ask. (I did). This is the process of ISPs offering free carriage of exclusively particular traffic. e.g. T-Mobile's "unlimited [downsampled] youtube" offering, Facebook's free internet (offered in India IIRC), Amazon's whispernet for Kindle.

shmerl 8y ago
It's an ugly anti-competitive symptom of the actual disease - data caps. Curing the symptom helps marginally. What needs fixing is the disease.
- chillydawg 8y ago
  I'm not sure data caps are a disease, as such. It costs money to move data around. Caps on "unlimited" deals are obviously a dodgy sales technique, but I don't think that's what's being discussed.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    The natural data cap is the actual line speed of the connection. That would mean a 10Mbit connection == 3.24TB/month That's definitely a cap that is directly related to line speed. But these 150GB caps are purely because the internet companies are also content companies - and their content channels are zero rated. And with a 10Mbit connection, it only takes 33 hours to exceed their arbitrary cap over the whole month.
    - woah 8y ago
      That would only make sense if everyone used a totally consistent amount of bandwidth 24/7. The reality is that most bandwidth is used between 5-10pm. Bandwidth caps cause people to use bandwidth sparingly and ease congestion. To allay your complaints about unfairness, you could structure it so that the caps are looser in off hours like 3am, but then again, that wouldn’t benefit most people because they don’t use the internet at 3am. The best system would be to charge based on bandwidth usage, and raise and lower prices based on congestion per tower. But most ISPs don’t have the billing capability to support that, and bandwidth caps sort of approximate it.
      - ryukafalz 8y ago
        >To allay your complaints about unfairness, you could structure it so that the caps are looser in off hours like 3am, but then again, that wouldn’t benefit most people because they don’t use the internet at 3am. On the other hand, something like this might incentivize developers to take advantage of lower pricing during periods of lower congestion. Mobile OSes tend to provide the user a choice between downloading updates anytime or only when on WiFi, but if the pricing structure made this useful, there’s no reason they couldn’t download updates overnight too.
        icebraining 8y ago
        Back in the early 2000s, before most plans move to "unlimited", some ISPs in Portugal did exactly that: they had rather small caps, but then unlimited between 1am and 7am. And we did have developers take advantage of that; for example, there was a popular fork of eMule that had extra scheduling features, so it could automatically run just in that period.
        gcb0 8y ago
        then they realized they could get away without even that modicum of respect to the clients, because, well they run a legal monopoly. Either you only have one option (fiber, or even cable in some markets) or the 3 to 4 offerings have the same "deals" across the board. I try very hard to be civil on HN, but everyone defending artifical data caps are a bunch of idiots (in the true sense of the greek work: a person that can't live in society and should be voted to be ostracized).
        hueving 8y ago
        >I try very hard to be civil on HN, but everyone defending artifical data caps are a bunch of idiots Not that hard I guess. Data caps are the only reason you have affordable consumer internet because they allow a significant amount of oversubscription which matches the mostly-idle bursty behavior of consumers. You can get leased lines from ISPs with no caps easily. You just won't like the real price that comes with guaranteeing a customer that kind of bandwidth.
    - SpaceManiac 8y ago
      > purely because the internet companies are also content companies I have no doubt this is a reason, but most ISPs also oversell their bandwidth. If every customer with a 10Mbit line is only using it 10% of the time, your upstream lines only 'need' to be 10% of 10Mbit * the number of customers (plus whatever margin for spikes).
      - woah 8y ago
        A 100mbit connection that is not oversold can easily run a few hundred to a thousand dollars a month.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        Maybe a decade ago. It's down below $50/month now from a major exchange point. Even less if you deal in larger quantities as ISPs would.
      - jdietrich 8y ago
        It's called contention. Typical ratios are about 20:1 - for every 20Mbits of throughput they sell to customers, they have about 1Mbit of throughput to the internet. Leased lines are uncontended, but they're also vastly more expensive than conventional broadband services.
        crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        I don't care how they do contention. That's a business plan. What I do care about is fraudulent business practices. I expect a minimum speed alongside a maximum speed. And if their contention ratio is 10:1 then I expect 1Mbit-10Mbit for that connection. But no, the content/internet media companies play insane games, zero rating their stuff, enforcing arbitrary 'kill netflix' limits, and evil layer 7 filtering. They need broken up into lines owned by the state, service over lines sold to whomever provides service (like an ISP or a content company), and customers leasing the lines like how power works. These megagiant media corps should have never owned the physical connections. At all.
    - Ajedi32 8y ago
      The problem is there's simply not enough capacity for _everyone_ to use their 10 Mbit connection at the same time. That's a necessary property of efficient packet-switched networks. As a result of this, people who use more total data generally incur higher infrastructure costs to the provider than those who use less; even if those two groups of people have the exact same link speed.
    - hueving 8y ago
      The natural data cap is the line speed of the ISP's peering links to upstream providers divided by the number of customers. Traffic out to the internet involves way more than your last mile connection.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > The natural data cap is the line speed of the ISP's peering links to upstream providers divided by the number of customers. The natural data cap is the line speed of the ISP's peering links to upstream providers divided by the number of active customers. But you don't need monthly limits for that, it's true all the time inherently. It's also kind of a scam on the ISP side because content providers are generally happy to peer with ISPs at no cost to the ISP, so it's not as if there's a non-artificial bottleneck there.
  - dkfndodbxob 8y ago
    It doesn't really cost money to move data around. The biggest cost by far is building the infrastructure. If the capacity is available, the cost of using it is minimal.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      I'd assume ISPs are taking infrastructure into their cost calculations, even in a case where the initial build out was government subsidized... things break, there are ongoing costs. And my totally uninformed understanding is that the ongoing maintenance costs, and the costs of expanded service are both pretty minimal.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        Both are incorrect. Almost no ISP infrastructure is “government subsidized.” Almost all the subsidies are urban ISPs subsidizing rural ones. There was a tiny bit of actual government subsidy under Obama as part of the post-recession stimulus. And ongoing maintenance and support costs are very high. Even if you don’t trust Verizon’s SEC disclosures (showing 5% or less in operating profit for wireline) look at the financial statements for something like Chattanooga’s EBP. The vast majority of revenue goes to ongoing costs, before you even get to paying down the initial build out.
        shmerl 8y ago
        Given severe lack of competition among ISPs in US, I don't buy the bogus argument that current prices are fair. Simple market logic suggests, that they overcharge, because they can. Therefore they do have more than enough money for their upgrades. And on top of that, most simply prefer to pocket them instead of investing into the network, with "no one needs it" excuse. Something they would never have done with healthy competition.
    - Ma8ee 8y ago
      It does cost money to move data around, even if it is an upfront cost when you build the infrastructure. When your users move enough data that you are getting close to the capacity of your infrastructure you need to invest more money to extend your infrastructure. Or to express it slightly differently: if there weren’t any data to move you wouldn’t have to build any infrastructure and you wouldn’t have any costs. If you want to move data you have to build the infrastructure which cost money, which means that it costs money to move data.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Fi's data is just "pay more get more", which makes sense to me. I don't think unlimited deals make sense since there's a true marginal cost here.
    - plussed_reader 8y ago
      Up to $100/6GB of mobile data. The next 9GB of mobile data are at normal up/down rates, then everything over 15GB is metered for the rest of the billing cycle. 'Bill Protection'.
      - xur17 8y ago
        It's $20 for a plan + $10/GB of mobile data. Not sure where $100/6GB comes from.
        kkarakk 8y ago
        Who is keeping multiple plans? You use one phone and one data plan and get fleeced when you blow past your data plan.
        xur17 8y ago
        I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. I presented pricing for a single user on a single plan.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- chewbacha 8y ago
  Not really, data limits are a necessary evil of infrastructure. It's more the trust-building that's going on between the giants of industry. It's the 1920s all over again, just with different tech.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Bandwidth limit is the natural limit. Not monthly data limit - that's simply a method to fleece users. Nothing to do with infrastructure.
    - chewbacha 8y ago
      By that logic, api rate limits are a method to fleece api users... which is not true at all. Rate limits are put in place to protect infrastructure for overloading, that's been the main reason I have implemented circuit breakers and rate limiting.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        Except it's a fallacious logic. ISP networks can perfectly handle the load already. There is no "data flood apocalypse" or anything the like. ISP execs said so much explicitly. They point blank admitted, data caps are not driven by technical needs but simply by greed.
  - jusssi 8y ago
    For some reason, there are places where this necessary evil doesn't seem to be, well, necessary. Neither my wired not my 4g connection have a data cap. Taking "necessary" out of necessary evil, leaves just evil.
- rayiner 8y ago
  What exactly is “anti-competitive” about data caps? They’re just a form of congestion pricing. Congestion pricing is now widely considered desirable for things like roads. Now, ideally, we would have fine grained congestion pricing with fees kicking in based on tower occupancy level. But customers would probably find that too unpredictable. Moreover, congestion isn’t the only cost to account for. Take the total number of dollars of capital and maintenance costs of the network over it’s useful life and divide by the total number of bits sent during that useful life. That produces a cost per bit that seems quite reasonable to apply to customers based on how many bits they send.
  - bb88 8y ago
    If an ISP is the only game in town, and they zero rate their streaming service but put a cap on Netflix it is anti competitive. The problem with your roads analogy is that there's more than one road to take. Not all roads are tolled. And the cure isn't getting rid of data caps, the cure is increasing competition on a local level.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      The physical RF spectrum is the local road. There are no more roads to take. No amount of economic policy supporting competition is going to bend the laws of physics, unless you're willing to shovel herculean amounts of resources into microcells (even smaller than 5G cell sites) to reduce contention (essentially replacing fiber and wifi).
      - dzhiurgis 8y ago
        National network + eSIM. Retailers compete on providing better internwtional traffic (pretty much as it is now with broadband in many countries).
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Your suggested solution does not address the local cell network contention issue zero rating attempts to mitigate.
- kazinator 8y ago
  Not specifically a symptom of caps! Even in a billing structure that has a fixed cost per unit of data transferred, regardless of usage (thus no cliff-like data caps), a zero rating exemption can still influence user behavior in anti-competitive ways. It's analogous to product dumping. (Did you want to say that it's a symptom of the disease of any price structure under which users get charged extra on top of their subscription fee, according to some function of their data use?)
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Good thing IPSs don't charge per unit of data transferred. That would be even worse. So in practice, zero rating in the context of ISPs is very much related to data caps. When there are no caps, zero rating has no meaning.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      It wouldn't be terrible if they charged per unit of data transferred _at a sane level_, we're just all aware that if they switched to this model (which exists in some places like South Africa) then they'd gouge us over prices... it'd also introduce an interesting social dynamic since sites that push megs of ads on you would literally be taking money from your pocket, instead of just wasting your time. It'd actually be kind of neat if bloatware were discouraged this way, since currently there is no cost to bloatware as long as whatever it is remains within the acceptably performant range.
    - kccqzy 8y ago
      Doesn't Google Fi do exactly this? They charge $10/GB for data.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        $10/GB is high. Purposely high, because the point of Google Fi is to use WiFi as much as possible and avoid cellular. So it's there if you need it but you don't want to need it much. This hardly works for the connection which is actually providing your WiFi, or if you want to try to use cellular exclusively.
- morpheuskafka 8y ago
  I totally agree that data caps are insane with today's technology and need to die for good. However, at least some zero-rating programs are "category-wide" and will enroll any streaming provider on request.
devindotcom 8y ago
Unfortunately it's not always represented accurately! This is a self link but if anyone else is curious about some of the specifics of zero rating, its justifications and issues, I wrote a piece on it a little while back: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/16/wtf-is-zero-rating/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/16/wtf-is-zero-rating/
vinay427 8y ago
I believe the Facebook offering in India was rejected after a series of PR missteps by Facebook and some increased public awareness around net neutrality: https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics
- drewmol 8y ago
  I may be overly cynical here but my understanding is: Facebook tried to build a walled garden development platform on top of TCP/IP, bundle it with free low-bandwidth internet necessities (consisting of Facebook and several other deliberately non-Google properties) and ram it dowm the throats of a billion impoverished and technologicly unfamiliar new internet users of India. At that time in 2013[0], FB market cap was $100B, GOOG was $282B. FB had 1.1B users with ARPU of $1.63, GOOG had 1.3B users with ARPU of $10.09. Looking avoid a market correction, FB aimed to add 1B new users from India and simultaneously prevent them from becoming new Google users and disguised the scheme as philanthropy. It didn't work. FB was then forced to moved fast and break: data access control policies, respect for their users, expectation of privacy, and lots of pesky regulations. By distributing user data for free as an investment in the future, then buying the competition to control the demand, FB cemented their position as a gatekeeper of the online commons and dictator of social media. Insights gained from this freely available, or loosely guarded user data helped explode demand for the user manipulation as a service offering FB had newly monopolized. Gloves now off, FB leveraged this position and acheived hockey stick profit growth after just one US congressional election season, a midterm year at that. FB's Q42018 ARPU ~ $7.37, MAU 2.23B[1]. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/08/31/how-much-is-a-user-worth/#4e8d01a01c51 https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/08/31/how-muc... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...
blackoil 8y ago
India does not have Facebook free internet. We do have a billion people and most competetive mobile service companies. For 200₹(3$) a month you can have unlimited calls SMS and 1GB of daily data.
- lesdeuxmagots 8y ago
  This is a relatively recent development! Pretty remarkable the pace of competition within the wireless market, which was relatively stagnant only a few years ago.
scarface74 8y ago
In all fairness, T-mobile’s zero rating is not anti-competitive. Any video carrier can sign up for it and no money changes hands. There were some porn sites that signed up for it - ie T-Mobile didn’t discriminate.
- consp 8y ago
  It usually is "free-as-in-beer" since they are allowed to sell user statistics that way (the Dutch T-Mobile zero rated music being an exception due to law). There is no way to opt out of that practice as it is included in most contracts by default. Setting up these methods are also not trivial for companies. The selection process is hidden (there is no information available), looking at the participating services most probably don't bother either due to cost, restrictions or administrative reasons. Streaming your own library is excluded in the contract, so it is not music, only what T-Mobile says is music. I call that censorship.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It usually is "free-as-in-beer" since they are allowed to sell user statistics that way (the Dutch T-Mobile zero rated music being an exception due to law). Why would the providers need to buy statistics on their customers? They already know who is listening to and watching what content. There is no way to opt out of that practice as it is included in most contracts by default. T-mobile has a setting where you can turn it off and on Setting up these methods are also not trivial for companies. Setting up adaptive streaming based on bandwidth available has been a solved problem since RealVideo in the late 90s. All providers do it now. Anyone can set this up with WireCast. The selection process is hidden (there is no information available), looking at the participating services most probably don't bother either due to cost, restrictions or administrative reasons. Every streaming provider in the US took advantage of it. Streaming your own library is excluded in the contract, so it is not music, only what T-Mobile says is music. I call that censorship. You can stream your own audio through Apple Music through the Music Match (?) Service. This is all really a moot point now that T-mobile only sells unlimited plans now and if you really want to opt out of compressed video you can pay $10 more.
- 8y ago
Slartie 8y ago
It's a neat psychological trick to get people accustomed to non-content-neutral pricing strategies by mobile network operators. Basically it is a counter-strategy to the net neutrality people. While net neutrality is usually argued as being a proven way to get the best possible outcome for the entire market as a whole, zero rating counters this by appealing to individual greed of the small-minded ("But I like free YouTube now more than your lofty it's-gonna-be-better-for-all-in-the-end future utopia!"). While I strongly detest it, using this strategy in this context is a stroke of genius. The base strategy already is generally proven to work great in all target demographics, but applied in a way in in which the modern, urban, don't-need-to-own-stuff-cause-sharing-economy-and-streaming-exists metropolitans which are traditionally rather opposed to old-school big-corp power grabs, actually get something immediately valuable to them out of the deal additionally boosts its effectiveness. A big fraction of the people that would otherwise possibly take part in the movement to advance the net neutrality cause are now placated by endless Spotify and Netflix on their phones.
woadwarrior01 8y ago
Zero rating is the antonym of net-neutrality.

shmerl 8y ago

It's an ugly anti-competitive symptom of the actual disease - data caps. Curing the symptom helps marginally. What needs fixing is the disease.

chillydawg 8y ago
I'm not sure data caps are a disease, as such. It costs money to move data around. Caps on "unlimited" deals are obviously a dodgy sales technique, but I don't think that's what's being discussed.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  The natural data cap is the actual line speed of the connection. That would mean a 10Mbit connection == 3.24TB/month That's definitely a cap that is directly related to line speed. But these 150GB caps are purely because the internet companies are also content companies - and their content channels are zero rated. And with a 10Mbit connection, it only takes 33 hours to exceed their arbitrary cap over the whole month.
  - woah 8y ago
    That would only make sense if everyone used a totally consistent amount of bandwidth 24/7. The reality is that most bandwidth is used between 5-10pm. Bandwidth caps cause people to use bandwidth sparingly and ease congestion. To allay your complaints about unfairness, you could structure it so that the caps are looser in off hours like 3am, but then again, that wouldn’t benefit most people because they don’t use the internet at 3am. The best system would be to charge based on bandwidth usage, and raise and lower prices based on congestion per tower. But most ISPs don’t have the billing capability to support that, and bandwidth caps sort of approximate it.
    - ryukafalz 8y ago
      >To allay your complaints about unfairness, you could structure it so that the caps are looser in off hours like 3am, but then again, that wouldn’t benefit most people because they don’t use the internet at 3am. On the other hand, something like this might incentivize developers to take advantage of lower pricing during periods of lower congestion. Mobile OSes tend to provide the user a choice between downloading updates anytime or only when on WiFi, but if the pricing structure made this useful, there’s no reason they couldn’t download updates overnight too.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        Back in the early 2000s, before most plans move to "unlimited", some ISPs in Portugal did exactly that: they had rather small caps, but then unlimited between 1am and 7am. And we did have developers take advantage of that; for example, there was a popular fork of eMule that had extra scheduling features, so it could automatically run just in that period.
        gcb0 8y ago
        then they realized they could get away without even that modicum of respect to the clients, because, well they run a legal monopoly. Either you only have one option (fiber, or even cable in some markets) or the 3 to 4 offerings have the same "deals" across the board. I try very hard to be civil on HN, but everyone defending artifical data caps are a bunch of idiots (in the true sense of the greek work: a person that can't live in society and should be voted to be ostracized).
        hueving 8y ago
        >I try very hard to be civil on HN, but everyone defending artifical data caps are a bunch of idiots Not that hard I guess. Data caps are the only reason you have affordable consumer internet because they allow a significant amount of oversubscription which matches the mostly-idle bursty behavior of consumers. You can get leased lines from ISPs with no caps easily. You just won't like the real price that comes with guaranteeing a customer that kind of bandwidth.
  - SpaceManiac 8y ago
    > purely because the internet companies are also content companies I have no doubt this is a reason, but most ISPs also oversell their bandwidth. If every customer with a 10Mbit line is only using it 10% of the time, your upstream lines only 'need' to be 10% of 10Mbit * the number of customers (plus whatever margin for spikes).
    - woah 8y ago
      A 100mbit connection that is not oversold can easily run a few hundred to a thousand dollars a month.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        Maybe a decade ago. It's down below $50/month now from a major exchange point. Even less if you deal in larger quantities as ISPs would.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      It's called contention. Typical ratios are about 20:1 - for every 20Mbits of throughput they sell to customers, they have about 1Mbit of throughput to the internet. Leased lines are uncontended, but they're also vastly more expensive than conventional broadband services.
      - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        I don't care how they do contention. That's a business plan. What I do care about is fraudulent business practices. I expect a minimum speed alongside a maximum speed. And if their contention ratio is 10:1 then I expect 1Mbit-10Mbit for that connection. But no, the content/internet media companies play insane games, zero rating their stuff, enforcing arbitrary 'kill netflix' limits, and evil layer 7 filtering. They need broken up into lines owned by the state, service over lines sold to whomever provides service (like an ISP or a content company), and customers leasing the lines like how power works. These megagiant media corps should have never owned the physical connections. At all.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    The problem is there's simply not enough capacity for _everyone_ to use their 10 Mbit connection at the same time. That's a necessary property of efficient packet-switched networks. As a result of this, people who use more total data generally incur higher infrastructure costs to the provider than those who use less; even if those two groups of people have the exact same link speed.
  - hueving 8y ago
    The natural data cap is the line speed of the ISP's peering links to upstream providers divided by the number of customers. Traffic out to the internet involves way more than your last mile connection.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > The natural data cap is the line speed of the ISP's peering links to upstream providers divided by the number of customers. The natural data cap is the line speed of the ISP's peering links to upstream providers divided by the number of active customers. But you don't need monthly limits for that, it's true all the time inherently. It's also kind of a scam on the ISP side because content providers are generally happy to peer with ISPs at no cost to the ISP, so it's not as if there's a non-artificial bottleneck there.
- dkfndodbxob 8y ago
  It doesn't really cost money to move data around. The biggest cost by far is building the infrastructure. If the capacity is available, the cost of using it is minimal.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I'd assume ISPs are taking infrastructure into their cost calculations, even in a case where the initial build out was government subsidized... things break, there are ongoing costs. And my totally uninformed understanding is that the ongoing maintenance costs, and the costs of expanded service are both pretty minimal.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Both are incorrect. Almost no ISP infrastructure is “government subsidized.” Almost all the subsidies are urban ISPs subsidizing rural ones. There was a tiny bit of actual government subsidy under Obama as part of the post-recession stimulus. And ongoing maintenance and support costs are very high. Even if you don’t trust Verizon’s SEC disclosures (showing 5% or less in operating profit for wireline) look at the financial statements for something like Chattanooga’s EBP. The vast majority of revenue goes to ongoing costs, before you even get to paying down the initial build out.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        Given severe lack of competition among ISPs in US, I don't buy the bogus argument that current prices are fair. Simple market logic suggests, that they overcharge, because they can. Therefore they do have more than enough money for their upgrades. And on top of that, most simply prefer to pocket them instead of investing into the network, with "no one needs it" excuse. Something they would never have done with healthy competition.
  - Ma8ee 8y ago
    It does cost money to move data around, even if it is an upfront cost when you build the infrastructure. When your users move enough data that you are getting close to the capacity of your infrastructure you need to invest more money to extend your infrastructure. Or to express it slightly differently: if there weren’t any data to move you wouldn’t have to build any infrastructure and you wouldn’t have any costs. If you want to move data you have to build the infrastructure which cost money, which means that it costs money to move data.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Fi's data is just "pay more get more", which makes sense to me. I don't think unlimited deals make sense since there's a true marginal cost here.
  - plussed_reader 8y ago
    Up to $100/6GB of mobile data. The next 9GB of mobile data are at normal up/down rates, then everything over 15GB is metered for the rest of the billing cycle. 'Bill Protection'.
    - xur17 8y ago
      It's $20 for a plan + $10/GB of mobile data. Not sure where $100/6GB comes from.
      - kkarakk 8y ago
        Who is keeping multiple plans? You use one phone and one data plan and get fleeced when you blow past your data plan.
        xur17 8y ago
        I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. I presented pricing for a single user on a single plan.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
chewbacha 8y ago
Not really, data limits are a necessary evil of infrastructure. It's more the trust-building that's going on between the giants of industry. It's the 1920s all over again, just with different tech.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Bandwidth limit is the natural limit. Not monthly data limit - that's simply a method to fleece users. Nothing to do with infrastructure.
  - chewbacha 8y ago
    By that logic, api rate limits are a method to fleece api users... which is not true at all. Rate limits are put in place to protect infrastructure for overloading, that's been the main reason I have implemented circuit breakers and rate limiting.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      Except it's a fallacious logic. ISP networks can perfectly handle the load already. There is no "data flood apocalypse" or anything the like. ISP execs said so much explicitly. They point blank admitted, data caps are not driven by technical needs but simply by greed.
- jusssi 8y ago
  For some reason, there are places where this necessary evil doesn't seem to be, well, necessary. Neither my wired not my 4g connection have a data cap. Taking "necessary" out of necessary evil, leaves just evil.
rayiner 8y ago
What exactly is “anti-competitive” about data caps? They’re just a form of congestion pricing. Congestion pricing is now widely considered desirable for things like roads. Now, ideally, we would have fine grained congestion pricing with fees kicking in based on tower occupancy level. But customers would probably find that too unpredictable. Moreover, congestion isn’t the only cost to account for. Take the total number of dollars of capital and maintenance costs of the network over it’s useful life and divide by the total number of bits sent during that useful life. That produces a cost per bit that seems quite reasonable to apply to customers based on how many bits they send.
- bb88 8y ago
  If an ISP is the only game in town, and they zero rate their streaming service but put a cap on Netflix it is anti competitive. The problem with your roads analogy is that there's more than one road to take. Not all roads are tolled. And the cure isn't getting rid of data caps, the cure is increasing competition on a local level.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    The physical RF spectrum is the local road. There are no more roads to take. No amount of economic policy supporting competition is going to bend the laws of physics, unless you're willing to shovel herculean amounts of resources into microcells (even smaller than 5G cell sites) to reduce contention (essentially replacing fiber and wifi).
    - dzhiurgis 8y ago
      National network + eSIM. Retailers compete on providing better internwtional traffic (pretty much as it is now with broadband in many countries).
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Your suggested solution does not address the local cell network contention issue zero rating attempts to mitigate.
kazinator 8y ago
Not specifically a symptom of caps! Even in a billing structure that has a fixed cost per unit of data transferred, regardless of usage (thus no cliff-like data caps), a zero rating exemption can still influence user behavior in anti-competitive ways. It's analogous to product dumping. (Did you want to say that it's a symptom of the disease of any price structure under which users get charged extra on top of their subscription fee, according to some function of their data use?)
- shmerl 8y ago
  Good thing IPSs don't charge per unit of data transferred. That would be even worse. So in practice, zero rating in the context of ISPs is very much related to data caps. When there are no caps, zero rating has no meaning.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    It wouldn't be terrible if they charged per unit of data transferred _at a sane level_, we're just all aware that if they switched to this model (which exists in some places like South Africa) then they'd gouge us over prices... it'd also introduce an interesting social dynamic since sites that push megs of ads on you would literally be taking money from your pocket, instead of just wasting your time. It'd actually be kind of neat if bloatware were discouraged this way, since currently there is no cost to bloatware as long as whatever it is remains within the acceptably performant range.
  - kccqzy 8y ago
    Doesn't Google Fi do exactly this? They charge $10/GB for data.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      $10/GB is high. Purposely high, because the point of Google Fi is to use WiFi as much as possible and avoid cellular. So it's there if you need it but you don't want to need it much. This hardly works for the connection which is actually providing your WiFi, or if you want to try to use cellular exclusively.
morpheuskafka 8y ago
I totally agree that data caps are insane with today's technology and need to die for good. However, at least some zero-rating programs are "category-wide" and will enroll any streaming provider on request.

devindotcom 8y ago

Unfortunately it's not always represented accurately! This is a self link but if anyone else is curious about some of the specifics of zero rating, its justifications and issues, I wrote a piece on it a little while back: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/16/wtf-is-zero-rating/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/16/wtf-is-zero-rating/

vinay427 8y ago

I believe the Facebook offering in India was rejected after a series of PR missteps by Facebook and some increased public awareness around net neutrality: https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics

drewmol 8y ago
I may be overly cynical here but my understanding is: Facebook tried to build a walled garden development platform on top of TCP/IP, bundle it with free low-bandwidth internet necessities (consisting of Facebook and several other deliberately non-Google properties) and ram it dowm the throats of a billion impoverished and technologicly unfamiliar new internet users of India. At that time in 2013[0], FB market cap was $100B, GOOG was $282B. FB had 1.1B users with ARPU of $1.63, GOOG had 1.3B users with ARPU of $10.09. Looking avoid a market correction, FB aimed to add 1B new users from India and simultaneously prevent them from becoming new Google users and disguised the scheme as philanthropy. It didn't work. FB was then forced to moved fast and break: data access control policies, respect for their users, expectation of privacy, and lots of pesky regulations. By distributing user data for free as an investment in the future, then buying the competition to control the demand, FB cemented their position as a gatekeeper of the online commons and dictator of social media. Insights gained from this freely available, or loosely guarded user data helped explode demand for the user manipulation as a service offering FB had newly monopolized. Gloves now off, FB leveraged this position and acheived hockey stick profit growth after just one US congressional election season, a midterm year at that. FB's Q42018 ARPU ~ $7.37, MAU 2.23B[1]. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/08/31/how-much-is-a-user-worth/#4e8d01a01c51 https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/08/31/how-muc... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...

blackoil 8y ago

India does not have Facebook free internet. We do have a billion people and most competetive mobile service companies. For 200₹(3$) a month you can have unlimited calls SMS and 1GB of daily data.

lesdeuxmagots 8y ago
This is a relatively recent development! Pretty remarkable the pace of competition within the wireless market, which was relatively stagnant only a few years ago.

scarface74 8y ago

In all fairness, T-mobile’s zero rating is not anti-competitive. Any video carrier can sign up for it and no money changes hands. There were some porn sites that signed up for it - ie T-Mobile didn’t discriminate.

consp 8y ago
It usually is "free-as-in-beer" since they are allowed to sell user statistics that way (the Dutch T-Mobile zero rated music being an exception due to law). There is no way to opt out of that practice as it is included in most contracts by default. Setting up these methods are also not trivial for companies. The selection process is hidden (there is no information available), looking at the participating services most probably don't bother either due to cost, restrictions or administrative reasons. Streaming your own library is excluded in the contract, so it is not music, only what T-Mobile says is music. I call that censorship.
- scarface74 8y ago
  It usually is "free-as-in-beer" since they are allowed to sell user statistics that way (the Dutch T-Mobile zero rated music being an exception due to law). Why would the providers need to buy statistics on their customers? They already know who is listening to and watching what content. There is no way to opt out of that practice as it is included in most contracts by default. T-mobile has a setting where you can turn it off and on Setting up these methods are also not trivial for companies. Setting up adaptive streaming based on bandwidth available has been a solved problem since RealVideo in the late 90s. All providers do it now. Anyone can set this up with WireCast. The selection process is hidden (there is no information available), looking at the participating services most probably don't bother either due to cost, restrictions or administrative reasons. Every streaming provider in the US took advantage of it. Streaming your own library is excluded in the contract, so it is not music, only what T-Mobile says is music. I call that censorship. You can stream your own audio through Apple Music through the Music Match (?) Service. This is all really a moot point now that T-mobile only sells unlimited plans now and if you really want to opt out of compressed video you can pay $10 more.
8y ago

Slartie 8y ago

It's a neat psychological trick to get people accustomed to non-content-neutral pricing strategies by mobile network operators. Basically it is a counter-strategy to the net neutrality people. While net neutrality is usually argued as being a proven way to get the best possible outcome for the entire market as a whole, zero rating counters this by appealing to individual greed of the small-minded ("But I like free YouTube now more than your lofty it's-gonna-be-better-for-all-in-the-end future utopia!"). While I strongly detest it, using this strategy in this context is a stroke of genius. The base strategy already is generally proven to work great in all target demographics, but applied in a way in in which the modern, urban, don't-need-to-own-stuff-cause-sharing-economy-and-streaming-exists metropolitans which are traditionally rather opposed to old-school big-corp power grabs, actually get something immediately valuable to them out of the deal additionally boosts its effectiveness. A big fraction of the people that would otherwise possibly take part in the movement to advance the net neutrality cause are now placated by endless Spotify and Netflix on their phones.

woadwarrior01 8y ago

Zero rating is the antonym of net-neutrality.