4 ms·

> https://i.imgur.com/PAwf6e3.png https://i.imgur.com/PAwf6e3.png "Some connectivity is better than no connectivity, hence the violation of NN is justified" D

by Mahn 12y ago

> https://i.imgur.com/PAwf6e3.png https://i.imgur.com/PAwf6e3.png "Some connectivity is better than no connectivity, hence the violation of NN is justified" Does he really not see the enormous liability that a precedent like this can create?

girvo 12y ago
The precedent already exists, at least here in Australia. Luckily it hasn't caused too many problems thus far, but whether that is merely an outlier remains to be seen.
- madeofpalk 12y ago
  To clarify for the global audience: (most) broadband in Australia is metered, so back when ADSL started getting big, ISP's would offset 14GB bandwidth cap with 'free zone' content - data which is unmetered. This still continues today, the most recent competitive offering is unmetered Netflix - http://www.optus.com.au/netflix http://www.optus.com.au/netflix Which, the latest news is that Netflix regrets signing these deals in the first place http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/04/netflix-regrets-signing-unmetered-streaming-agreements-with-optus-and-iinet/ http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/04/netflix-regrets-signing-un...
  - rjaco31 12y ago
    Wow, there are actual countries with bandwidth cap and privileged content for Home Internet? Damn, I thought that was just the hypothetical scarecrow of NN defenders =/
    - madeofpalk 12y ago
      eh. It's something that made sense over ten years ago. Very little content was hosted locally within Australia so most traffic had to go over the expensive links to other countries (which are obviously constrained in bandwidth). Privileged/unmetered content was often things like local Steam mirrors or whatnot which was closer to the user/ISP. Now that more and more content is cached locally, there's less and less of a need for it both bandwidth caps and privileged content.
      - rjaco31 12y ago
        But then why didn't they give you a shitty bandwidth when you try to access such remote content? That would be fair game, instead of capping the global data transferred over a month..
- sthreet 12y ago
  Aren't video games really expensive there for no reason?
  - PebblesHD 12y ago
    Video Games, Songs on iTunes, Internet, Phone Services... The list goes on, pretty much everything is expensive over here, even digital products with zero shipping or handling costs are triple or more the price in the US. For example I pay $70/month for 200GB of 'broadband' that peaks at 500kb/s and is totally incapable of streaming video. My mobile phone costs $95/month and I get 5GB of data.
napperjabber 12y ago
There is a bigger picture you're not aware of that is in play here. Zuckerberg is providing free internet to millions.
- nileshtrivedi 12y ago
  There are ways to provide free internet to millions, while NOT compromising on neutrality or providing convenient network leverage to Facebook and Reliance to pick winners. How is X megabytes / month for free but with ads (this is network neutral) not better than Internet.org's current model? Why not let those millions decide which are the essential internet services for them? Do the poor millions don't deserve choice? Let the user chose for himself. How hard can this be?
  - fwn 12y ago
    This is not about choice. (.. or we would appreciate the option to browse facebook for free.) It's about net neutrality. Unconnected people in India shouldn't destroy the bad impression we associated with this policy in the first place.
  - anoncow 12y ago
    > with ads Why ads? Facebook would be providing internet.org for free, right? If the goal is getting more people on the internet, then internet.org could provide unfettered access to the internet and still reach their goal. However, if the aim is to get more people on their platform and increase Facebook's bottom line, then the goal is about manipulating one of the most disenfranchised people. A way out for the zero rated schemes and internet.org is to sponsor bandwidth for the end user. The telecom service providers could offer 100mb per month free to the end users and bill internet.org et al for the service.
    - rjaco31 12y ago
      If you provide free capped connections to the end-users (with selected services not counting toward the cap), that would be a totally different discussion indeed. But that's not the case here.
minusSeven 12y ago
actually the problem comes from the profit seeking companies. The original intention was provide help to the poor people who can't afford it. I remember wikipedia and some other non profit companies were initially interested in providing this for free. As far as I know aircel still provides it for free. It not just in India though many countries like Russia Indonesia also offer something. The situation changes when you have profit seeking companies trying utilise the situation. Cleartrip response exposes this perfectly.

by Mahn 12y ago

girvo 12y ago

The precedent already exists, at least here in Australia. Luckily it hasn't caused too many problems thus far, but whether that is merely an outlier remains to be seen.

madeofpalk 12y ago
To clarify for the global audience: (most) broadband in Australia is metered, so back when ADSL started getting big, ISP's would offset 14GB bandwidth cap with 'free zone' content - data which is unmetered. This still continues today, the most recent competitive offering is unmetered Netflix - http://www.optus.com.au/netflix http://www.optus.com.au/netflix Which, the latest news is that Netflix regrets signing these deals in the first place http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/04/netflix-regrets-signing-unmetered-streaming-agreements-with-optus-and-iinet/ http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/04/netflix-regrets-signing-un...
- rjaco31 12y ago
  Wow, there are actual countries with bandwidth cap and privileged content for Home Internet? Damn, I thought that was just the hypothetical scarecrow of NN defenders =/
  - madeofpalk 12y ago
    eh. It's something that made sense over ten years ago. Very little content was hosted locally within Australia so most traffic had to go over the expensive links to other countries (which are obviously constrained in bandwidth). Privileged/unmetered content was often things like local Steam mirrors or whatnot which was closer to the user/ISP. Now that more and more content is cached locally, there's less and less of a need for it both bandwidth caps and privileged content.
    - rjaco31 12y ago
      But then why didn't they give you a shitty bandwidth when you try to access such remote content? That would be fair game, instead of capping the global data transferred over a month..
sthreet 12y ago
Aren't video games really expensive there for no reason?
- PebblesHD 12y ago
  Video Games, Songs on iTunes, Internet, Phone Services... The list goes on, pretty much everything is expensive over here, even digital products with zero shipping or handling costs are triple or more the price in the US. For example I pay $70/month for 200GB of 'broadband' that peaks at 500kb/s and is totally incapable of streaming video. My mobile phone costs $95/month and I get 5GB of data.

napperjabber 12y ago

There is a bigger picture you're not aware of that is in play here. Zuckerberg is providing free internet to millions.

nileshtrivedi 12y ago
There are ways to provide free internet to millions, while NOT compromising on neutrality or providing convenient network leverage to Facebook and Reliance to pick winners. How is X megabytes / month for free but with ads (this is network neutral) not better than Internet.org's current model? Why not let those millions decide which are the essential internet services for them? Do the poor millions don't deserve choice? Let the user chose for himself. How hard can this be?
- fwn 12y ago
  This is not about choice. (.. or we would appreciate the option to browse facebook for free.) It's about net neutrality. Unconnected people in India shouldn't destroy the bad impression we associated with this policy in the first place.
- anoncow 12y ago
  > with ads Why ads? Facebook would be providing internet.org for free, right? If the goal is getting more people on the internet, then internet.org could provide unfettered access to the internet and still reach their goal. However, if the aim is to get more people on their platform and increase Facebook's bottom line, then the goal is about manipulating one of the most disenfranchised people. A way out for the zero rated schemes and internet.org is to sponsor bandwidth for the end user. The telecom service providers could offer 100mb per month free to the end users and bill internet.org et al for the service.
  - rjaco31 12y ago
    If you provide free capped connections to the end-users (with selected services not counting toward the cap), that would be a totally different discussion indeed. But that's not the case here.

minusSeven 12y ago

actually the problem comes from the profit seeking companies. The original intention was provide help to the poor people who can't afford it. I remember wikipedia and some other non profit companies were initially interested in providing this for free. As far as I know aircel still provides it for free. It not just in India though many countries like Russia Indonesia also offer something. The situation changes when you have profit seeking companies trying utilise the situation. Cleartrip response exposes this perfectly.