4 ms·
Serious question, as I don't really have a strong opinion on zero rating either way: In a scenario where zero-rating is available to all actors at equivalent p
by yzzxy 12y ago
Serious question, as I don't really have a strong opinion on zero rating either way:
In a scenario where zero-rating is available to all actors at equivalent prices, is there still a problem? It would raise the barrier to entry for internet companies perhaps, but probably not by too much. I guess you could argue it encourages bandwidth capping?
I'd like to hear arguments from both sides.
- guelo 12y agoNot mentioned in the article is that Wikipedia refuses to pay to participate in zero rating. In the world you envision only profitable commercial sites would be available.
- brianpan 12y agoUnless that price is zero, that's exactly what net neutrality is trying to avoid- an uneven playing field.
- cegev 12y ago>In a scenario where zero-rating is available to all actors at equivalent prices, is there still a problem? It would raise the barrier to entry for internet companies perhaps, but probably not by too much. I guess you could argue it encourages bandwidth capping? An alternative, would be to allow zero-rating through free prioritization. Give either web services or consumers the choice of "this is an important connection: per-byte-rate and give higher priority," or "this isn't so important: zero-rate and give lower priority." That way VoIP and other latency/rate-critical services could operate more reliably, while BitTorrent, home cloud storage and others could operate without congesting the network and without data cap problems. If this choice was allowed in an automated way, it would not seem to cause any unfairness, or keep smaller/newer players off the market.