3 ms·

This article seems to equate two things – that which is true today, and that which the writer imagines for the future. The future is not fact. The fact of zero

This article seems to equate two things – that which is true today, and that which the writer imagines for the future. The future is not fact. The fact of zero rating is that it is beneficial to consumers, and progressive – the poorer one is, the more zero-rating is likely to help. That is factual, observable, measurable. The speculation is a slippery-slope argument, and not factual. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but simply that it’s a priori. Zero-rating is free shipping. I don’t know of anyone that considers free shipping anti-competitive, though one could make the same argument.

api 12y ago
It depends a bit on whether companies like Facebook are paying for this, and if they're paying a reasonable rate. My guess would be that they're paying something. The real problem re: network neutrality is a lack of competition and enforced monopolies. Open the last mile (and wireless) to more competition and you eliminate the worst network neutrality case scenarios.
shkkmo 12y ago
I don't think it's a slippery slope arguement at all. Zero rating is anti-competitive. I don't think that can be argued. What can be argued to to what degree it is harmful to the consumer. Anti-competitive business models can be beneficial to end users in the short term (e.g. selling at a loss to drive out competition and build a monopoly) but are pretty much exclusively detrimental in the long term.
tetrep 12y ago
>The speculation is a slippery-slope argument, and not factual. You don't need a slippery-slope argument, the immediate effects are anti-competitive. It adds a barrier to entry where in order to offer a service to a mobile user (with a data cap), you need to pay the carrier. It's like bribing a local official so that you can use the roads to make a delivery.
chimeracoder 12y ago
> Zero-rating is free shipping. I don’t know of anyone that considers free shipping anti-competitive, though one could make the same argument. That's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be USPS[0] providing certain shippers with free shipping, and not others[1]. Imagine the disastrous effects this would have on small sellers, who would certainly not have the means to negotiate these rates with USPS, whereas a larger company would. So it's not a slippery slope, because the anti-competitive impact is direct and immediate. USPS has to charge everyone the same price for the same service, and for good reason. [0] Like broadband ISPs, USPS has an effective monopoly on shipping in parts of the country, as private carriers (UPS/FedEx) will simply "offload" certain deliveries to them, as USPS is required to ship to all locations. [1] USPS does offer, for example, "Media mail" discounts, but this is available to all shippers, and represents a different service (slower delivery, no guaranteed dates - in the olden days, it represented surface shipping, though I'm not sure that is the case anymore).
- colechristensen 12y ago
  It seems more akin to USPS providing discounted rates for books in Media Mail and Library Mail (the T-Mobile way of discounting any streaming service without charge, at least) As long as traffic priorities are applied to _classes_ of traffic which don't directly benefit a provider's service over competitors, I don't have a problem with it and don't think it violates the spirit of what network neutrality is supposed to be about. It's also important that it's a positive benefit, not a restriction.
- jschwartzi 12y ago
  UPS does actually do something like this. If you buy a UPS label online without an account, you pay what's called "list price," which is the full advertised price for shipping. However, if you're a shipper with an account, UPS will discount your shipping below list price if you do a lot of business with them. I've seen up to a 20% discount for parcels shipped UPS Ground on a small company's account. I don't have any data on this, but I suspect that some combination of the list price discount and some special contractual arrangements are what allow Amazon to offer services such as Prime for such a low price. List price for a 1 lb next day air shipment were on the order of $50.00 last time I shipped anything.
gojomo 12y ago
France has banned free shipping of books as anti-competitive.
cortesoft 12y ago
I am not sure what you mean by "That doesn't mean it's wrong, but simply that it's a priori." The speculation that zero rating will lead to these problems is pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of an a priori fact... can you explain what you mean? Also, the French consider free shipping anti-competitive: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/11/france_banned_free_shipping_so_amazon_made_it_cost_one_cent.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/11/france_banned...

api 12y ago

It depends a bit on whether companies like Facebook are paying for this, and if they're paying a reasonable rate. My guess would be that they're paying something. The real problem re: network neutrality is a lack of competition and enforced monopolies. Open the last mile (and wireless) to more competition and you eliminate the worst network neutrality case scenarios.

shkkmo 12y ago

I don't think it's a slippery slope arguement at all. Zero rating is anti-competitive. I don't think that can be argued. What can be argued to to what degree it is harmful to the consumer. Anti-competitive business models can be beneficial to end users in the short term (e.g. selling at a loss to drive out competition and build a monopoly) but are pretty much exclusively detrimental in the long term.

tetrep 12y ago

>The speculation is a slippery-slope argument, and not factual. You don't need a slippery-slope argument, the immediate effects are anti-competitive. It adds a barrier to entry where in order to offer a service to a mobile user (with a data cap), you need to pay the carrier. It's like bribing a local official so that you can use the roads to make a delivery.

chimeracoder 12y ago

> Zero-rating is free shipping. I don’t know of anyone that considers free shipping anti-competitive, though one could make the same argument. That's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be USPS[0] providing certain shippers with free shipping, and not others[1]. Imagine the disastrous effects this would have on small sellers, who would certainly not have the means to negotiate these rates with USPS, whereas a larger company would. So it's not a slippery slope, because the anti-competitive impact is direct and immediate. USPS has to charge everyone the same price for the same service, and for good reason. [0] Like broadband ISPs, USPS has an effective monopoly on shipping in parts of the country, as private carriers (UPS/FedEx) will simply "offload" certain deliveries to them, as USPS is required to ship to all locations. [1] USPS does offer, for example, "Media mail" discounts, but this is available to all shippers, and represents a different service (slower delivery, no guaranteed dates - in the olden days, it represented surface shipping, though I'm not sure that is the case anymore).

colechristensen 12y ago
It seems more akin to USPS providing discounted rates for books in Media Mail and Library Mail (the T-Mobile way of discounting any streaming service without charge, at least) As long as traffic priorities are applied to _classes_ of traffic which don't directly benefit a provider's service over competitors, I don't have a problem with it and don't think it violates the spirit of what network neutrality is supposed to be about. It's also important that it's a positive benefit, not a restriction.
jschwartzi 12y ago
UPS does actually do something like this. If you buy a UPS label online without an account, you pay what's called "list price," which is the full advertised price for shipping. However, if you're a shipper with an account, UPS will discount your shipping below list price if you do a lot of business with them. I've seen up to a 20% discount for parcels shipped UPS Ground on a small company's account. I don't have any data on this, but I suspect that some combination of the list price discount and some special contractual arrangements are what allow Amazon to offer services such as Prime for such a low price. List price for a 1 lb next day air shipment were on the order of $50.00 last time I shipped anything.

gojomo 12y ago

France has banned free shipping of books as anti-competitive.

cortesoft 12y ago

I am not sure what you mean by "That doesn't mean it's wrong, but simply that it's a priori." The speculation that zero rating will lead to these problems is pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of an a priori fact... can you explain what you mean? Also, the French consider free shipping anti-competitive: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/11/france_banned_free_shipping_so_amazon_made_it_cost_one_cent.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/11/france_banned...