4 ms·
I disagree that this is a better label. For a consumer, some violations of Net Neutrality might actually reduce monthly charges and increase their available ban
by oscilloscope 12y ago
I disagree that this is a better label. For a consumer, some violations of Net Neutrality might actually reduce monthly charges and increase their available bandwidth.
For example, let's say T-Mobile's Music Freedom program (which uses packet inspection to whitelist Spotify, Pandora, and a few others so they don't count in data metering) expands to also encompass popular video streaming services: Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, etc.
Now a consumer could pay T-Mobile for an inexpensive plan, say $20 for 1 GB of data on a mobile device. They stream high-definition video and music every night, maybe using 40 GB of data this month. But they only pay for 1 GB, which is still available to them for email and general internet browsing.
No extra penalties, no extra fees.
That's a great deal for the consumer, since the majority of their bandwidth use is probably streaming media from these services. The free streaming is a value-add which encourages users to pay for streaming services, but it doesn't count against the advertised data they pay for.
This clearly discriminates different kinds of traffic and provides preferential treatment to certain services. But it doesn't cause general internet services to be slower. Storing the media in hard drives near cell towers may cause the preferred media to be faster.
- simoncion 12y ago> That's a great deal for the consumer... Remember Hulu Plus? The deal there used to be that you paid the major "Content Providers" a monthly fee and in exchange, you got advertisement-free access to a small slice of their catalog. Shortly after people started paying for the service the advertisements crept in, but the monthly fee stayed the same. The truth of the matter is that today's great deal can be eliminated at a CRO's whim tomorrow. Moreover, "great deals" such as these throw substantial roadblocks in the way of non-favored players who which to participate in the marketplace. This substantially reduces competition, and substantially reduced competition has lead to the sorry state of the US's consumer telecommunications and Internet service "market".
- greeneggs 12y agoI see your point, but I believe Hulu Plus has always had advertisements [0]. [0] http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/hulu-unveils-subscription-service-for-9-99-a-month/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/hulu-unveil...
- simoncion 12y agoI stand corrected (and walk a little funny, too). I should trust my memory less and re-verify my recollections more frequently.
- alkonaut 12y agoWat? For the consumer it's a short term benefit with horrible long term consequences. The effect would be that no one can start competing streaming services since this handful of services become significantly cheaper than the competition. So it extends the oligopoly of carriers to the streaming services? What you want as a consumer is your 40gb to use on any service you want, while not being ruined. If there is a decent selection of carriers then the pricing issue usually sorts itself. Making some data cheaper than other data is just not a way forward, unless you accept local monopolies among providers.
- tobylane 12y agoIf I only eat carrots, I can live off a carrot patch. Finding enjoyment in the limits of something you probably shouldn't be limited to isn't a good thing.