
Why Free Can Be a Problem on the Internet - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/why-free-can-be-a-problem-on-the-internet.html?ref=opinion
======
null000
What I want to know is: Why is this suddenly a problem now? It was already
done when T-mobile made Pandora/a few other music services not count against
your data cap - everyone seemed happy about it then, and much of the press
enthused over T-mobile's innovativeness and daring.

It also bothers me that I haven't seen any arguments that explain why this is
bad in light of the fact that it's supposed to be based on infrastructure
requirements, rather than payments, company affiliation, or otherwise. Instead
of being used to squeeze small guys out of the picture, it looks more like a
platform for getting more exposure and traffic than you would otherwise. It
doesn't really pose a threat (except in slippery slope-esque situations) to
the things that net neutrality claim to be protecting.

Can't we all just be happy that, in a world of data caps, there's a company
trying to chip away at the things you have to choose between spending data on?
Does everything REALLY have to be a direct threat to the internet? Admittedly,
I'd much rather see "no data caps ever" (there are plans for that, and they
are pretty cheap on t-mobile) but I'm generally against letting perfect get in
the way of good.

~~~
rhino369
Net neutrality has always been a solution in search of a problem. The theory
has always been that the big bad ISPs will destroy the internet for the little
guy.

Any FCC implementation of net neutrality should make sure customers are being
harmed or some other anti-competitive actions are occuring.

But telling Tmobile they can't allow free video on their network is an
unwarranted intrusion into their business model. Should the government tell
Google they have to charge for Gmail?

~~~
Dylan16807
"Free video" is not really a problem, as long as it applies to all video.

But let me ask you something. Do you think the rules that force telephone
companies to connect to everyone are a bad thing? I think the way that's been
handled is good, and that forcing data caps to apply equally is pretty
similar.

~~~
netneutralish
The regulation that forced telephone companies to connect to everyone is good
in my books. That is an accessibility concern. If you're going to use that as
the analogy, I'd say the content accessibility concern over wireless networks
(in this case, T-Mobile) is also being met.

Data caps still apply to all T-Mobile wireless subscribers also, although I
can see that the spirit of your argument is that carriers shouldn't try to
exert influence over data endpoints (typically referred to as "content"). But,
using your same POTS analogy, does this mean that 1-800 toll-free numbers
should have been banned or regulated out of existence? The interesting point
is that in this case, T-Mobile is working around the FCC Net Neutrality laws
by making it clear that this is a free program for specific content partners
to participate in; it's like "free toll-free" for content that might appeal
the most to consumers (streaming audio and video).

~~~
Dylan16807
Good question about toll-free numbers. I think the difference is that a
business pays their phone provider to do toll free service. It's closer to
buying a better line to the internet than it is negotiating with individual
consumer ISPs for preferred service. Competition rather than the ISP taking
advantage of being the only path.

------
michaelchisari
Cheap is better than free. If we had a way to seamlessly pay pennies for
access, we'd never have to sell our data or suffer through ads.

~~~
mindslight
After you've paid these pennies, what is the incentive to not _still_ show you
ads or surveil you for commercial advantage?

IMHO we're better off focusing on defeating the hostile behavior first. The
Internet was a much nicer place before monetization via web spam.

~~~
tptacek
It was? I don't remember it that way.

There was definitely a lot less _web spam_ before web spam, and pages loaded
faster, but we weren't more secure (we were less secure, for reasons having
nothing to do with web spam), and we had fewer choices and less content.

~~~
idlewords
Turn off ghostery and ad blocking for a few days and see if you still think
things are better.

I say this with sunken eyes and sepulchral voice, having had to surf the
actual internet for a week in researching a talk.

~~~
tptacek
I don't use ad-blockers or Ghostery; just out-of-the-box Chrome.

~~~
idlewords
I'm frankly amazed. My laptop fan kept spinning and I had to keep religiously
closing tabs.

~~~
tptacek
Well, ok, look, yes, that happens to me several times a day, and I'm very well
acquainted with the Chrome Task Manager window.

I'm not sticking up for ad-tech! I just wouldn't trade the 2005 Internet for
the one I have now.

------
xlayn
Free is a problem per se: the thing is that it's a concept that represents an
idea with no possible physical representation; you can't have something for
nothing in short due to 1st law of thermodynamics. Things happen as a result
of an effort, a work performed; and economy works on the basis of profitable
actions, if you match those two you get a redefinition of free as a bobby
trap: your info, your time, your attention or your freedom.

~~~
cgio
In your redefinition of free as a bobby trap, and out of the options you give
which may not be exhaustive, I see my giving my attention as a paramount
expression of freedom. Therefore, free does not mean get something out of
nothing, or get something for nothing. Free is not even an attribute of the
good per se; it is an attribute of the relationship between good and
"consumer". What you do with a good and the amount of energy you have to
expend to make use of it is an expression of freedom rather than a price.
Price is conditioning and not characterising the relationship between good and
consumer but the relationship between "producer/owner" and "consumer", you
have to pay it before getting any relationship with the good.

How would you see the same definition with regards to free software? Of
course, you may choose to spend time on contributing, but that does not mean
that you have to, and obligation is one of the components of price. In the
case of electronic content, the thermodynamics laws are respected perfectly as
we can all see by the operation of the network/path that transfers something,
no need for an additional layer of finance to have physics working.

EDIT: changed my high level definition of free

~~~
xlayn
"I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom" The thing
is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to
search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free
video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube
infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to
perform the search).

"free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to
complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it
to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change
it.

~~~
cgio
I am not questioning the existence of monetisation models for things. That's
why we have an economy. What I question is generalising the existence of
monetisation models to say that there can be no free goods, especially when
this is somehow argued with reference to natural laws and implying that free
goods is an absurd or non-feasible concept. If we are to look into examples,
what would you say with regards to reading Wikipedia, or Standord encyclopedia
of philosophy. Are these ad-free channels defying a physical law?

~~~
eevilspock
There is no free lunch.

------
massysett
Better headline: "why 'Net Neutrality' and bureaucrats who think they know
best can be a problem on the Internet". Because Tom Wheeler obviously should
determine that mobile customers shouldn't get free Youtube.

------
zanny
Its obviously against net neutrality completely to give fast lanes to netflix.
Thats there is even a question about it is a sign of deep corruption in the
FCC, that the move earlier this year about title 2 might have just been a feel
good campaign with no substance if T-Mobile can get away with this bullshit.

LTE had the potential to revolutionize digital communication by dramatically
reducing the cost of last mile links. One cell tower could provide an entire
suburb with 100MB/s Internet. Nothing about the design of the spec should mean
you need caps. The only policy rule that matters is that when you have
congestion on the line those who have used less so far get priority over those
who have already gotten more.

~~~
caseysoftware
This is not "giving fast lanes" to anyone, it's not counting that data against
the users' data cap. It's not remotely the same though it can (and probably
will) result in changing user behavior towards those services.

The more subtle distinction here is that they're playing the customer in the
best way possible. Get users used to "free" for some thing and if the FCC
comes back to slap them, T-Mobile says "well, _we_ want to give you free data
but the FCC wants us to charge you for it."

And then people continue using more data and upgrades their plans (or pays for
overages) making them more money or people throw a fit at the FCC.

Either way, T-Mobile wins.

~~~
eli
It's not the same thing, but I do think it's in the same ballpark: the ISP is
favoring one type of traffic over another. And it's based on their business
relationship with certain providers. Not a fastlane, but still counter to the
spirit of net neutrality.

~~~
netneutralish
_And it 's based on their business relationship with certain providers._

If the bar to establish the business relationship was onerous, I'd completely
agree. T-Mobile is undermining the argument by stating (whether true or not
remains to be seen) that a qualifying website need only sign up to
participate.

 _Not a fastlane, but still counter to the spirit of net neutrality._

The purpose of the net neutrality regulations were to provide equitable
treatment in favour of end users. I'm struggling to see how giving end
consumers more of what they want for the same price (zero-rating with an
option to opt-out) is counter to the initial spirit of the net neutrality
regulation.

I think that current net neutrality regulations settled into a position that
network operators shouldn't unduly (or at all) influence or favour certain
endpoints over others. However, by providing this type of optional zero-
rating, T-Mobile is firing the first salvo to force pro-net neutrality groups
to more sharply understand and define the true incentives driving their
respective agendas. If pro-nn groups don't respond to this the right way, then
similar to the way that zero-rated streaming audio was used as a precedent to
bring in these optional zero-rated streaming video, precedent upon precedent
will build upon each other.

I'm not sure if this is simply a loss-leading tactic by T-Mobile to gain
market share, or if this is part of a longer-term play to form a beachhead
from which to dismantle the entire net neutrality Title II regulations.

~~~
eli
> _T-Mobile is undermining the argument by stating (whether true or not
> remains to be seen) that a qualifying website need only sign up to
> participate._

Strongly disagree. T-Mobile already zero-rates major audio streaming services,
but it doesn't have the indie Shoutcast station I've been listening to for
over a decade. (It doesn't have any Shoutcast stations.) Will the video
streaming exemption cover my home Plex server? Very doubtful. Why is it OK for
an ISP to favor entrenched commercial services over homegrown indie ones?
That's absolutely counter to the spirit of net neutrality.

Even if T-Mobile could magically cover all audio and video services instantly,
why are they allowed to favor one _type_ of service over another? Why am I
charged differently for bytes going to Netflix than for bytes going to Skype?

> _I 'm struggling to see how giving end consumers more of what they want for
> the same price (zero-rating with an option to opt-out) is counter to the
> initial spirit of the net neutrality regulation._

Couldn't you make exactly the same argument about fast lanes? Why is it bad to
give consumers some of their data faster?

Let's look at it another way: Making connections to providers on this list
effectively cheaper (but not touching the data cap) is equivalent to making
providers NOT on the list cost more.

How about they just deliver my bytes equitably without regard to any business
relationships they have with any providers? If T-Mobile thinks my data cap is
too low, they should raise it and let me decide what services to use.

~~~
netneutralish
When net neutrality's recent concrete lightning rod was around Netflix having
to pay for their customers to have enhanced services, that was a clear case of
favouring one type of service over another from a network QoS perspective.

If a customer is paying for a service, they owe it to the customer to deliver
those bytes equitably and with ideally the same level of service. This was not
happening in Netflix's case, and the spirit of net neutrality absolutely
applied there.

* Couldn't you make exactly the same argument about fast lanes? Why is it bad to give consumers some of their data faster?*

I'm suggesting that we can't make the same argument about fast lanes because
that specific concept involves applying different service levels
(faster/slower) to specific content types. It's bad to give consumers specific
types of data faster if carriers are intentionally crippling popular over-the-
top (OTT) players and then forcing customers to pay for the "actual" speeds
that they paid for in their [50Mbps|100Mbps|Gigabit] package.

However, in this particular case, T-Mobile (supposedly) isn't changing
anything related to your existing service level. All of your existing bytes
counting towards your data cap are presumably still being delivered equitably,
barring network congestion conditions. The only thing that has presumably
changed is the way that those bytes are being billed (in this case, free) for
certain content providers.

A distinction needs to be made between delivery of bytes + resultant abhorrent
actions (e.g. deliberately crippling a popular endpoint or content type and
giving customers no choice but to pay for a service level they've already paid
for = evil), and maintaining the same service delivery level while charging
for them differently.

* Let's look at it another way: Making connections to providers on this list effectively cheaper (but not touching the data cap) is equivalent to making providers NOT on the list cost more.*

I agree with you in principle, but that once strong argument centered around
input costs and promotional offerings, which ultimately ends up in the
"subsidies" bucket. Originally, the premise was that access to providers was
selectively made more expensive and one often didn't have a say in the matter.
You're correct that zero-rating (similar, but not quite the same, as the
Internet.org debacle) influences consumer behaviour. However, T-Mobile is
giving principled consumers a way out - by continuing to offer the same level
of service today as they will tomorrow (or whenever it comes into effect) with
zero-rating enabled, they're letting consumers speak with their wallets in
both literal senses of the word (opt-out, or switch to another carrier).

I can't speak to the indie stations issue like Shoutcast, but if it can be
shown that T-Mobile's sign up process isn't as easy as they make it out to be
then this may be the Achilles heel that the FCC can leverage.

~~~
zanny
> different service levels (faster/slower) to specific content types.

Major commercial video gets unlimited streaming, everyone else gets rated.

It is literally the exact same tiering by another name, made worse because
rather than being _slow_ you literally run out of data and cannot access the
rest of the Internet at all.

