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.
The most eloquent explanation of the problem of incentives this creates I've seen is that it dosen't incentivise your isp to provide the fastest, best service. Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment.
Eg, they will keep data caps tiny, because its better for them if every service with a lot of data usage comes to them to pay for a bypass. This is categorically massively punishing to smaller players without money and connections.
In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company.
Perfect isn't being the enemy of good in this case, "good enough" is being the enemy of things meaningfully improving, ever.
Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment.
This is a valid concern when the carrier asks for money in exchange for "enhanced" fast lane service. However, in this case T-Mobile is undermining that argument completely by offering "any website or mobile app that offers streaming video [to] opt into its program with no charge. And T-Mobile users can turn off Binge On at any time." (Emphasis mine.)
In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company.
I generally agree with you about non-competing cartels of any stripe, but this particular case seems like it was designed to be consumer-friendly to T-Mobile's short-term financial detriment. Perhaps additional two data points will help:
1) Carriers (both fixed and wireless) that are not #1 in market share will sometimes engage in loss-promotions or tactics to gain subscriber share. The question often turns into "how long can X sustain this strategy, and how many subscribers will they lose when they're forced to downgrade offerings?"
2) American carriers are at war with each other, to the benefit of end subscribers.
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?
Behold, the problem net neutrality has searched for: Bell Mobility circa 2013 [1]. For $5, you could buy either 10 hours of Bell Mobile TV™ or ~1.5 hours of Netflix (not including your subscription) [2]. Assumptions below. The story has a happy ending, in that the Canadian equivalent of the FCC wound up forcing them to change their pricing after four or five years [3]. Whoo. What's a few million dollars between friends.
Make up your own mind as to whether you want this to be your future.
Assumptions:
1 Mbit/s video streams
Data purchased in 5GB ($35) chunks. Note that, if purchased in 500 MB chunks, one can watch 15 minutes of Netflix, which is laughable and therefore not presented due to shock value.
"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.
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).
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.
A lot of the classic telecom regulations were taken at a time when the telephone company had a legal monopoly over all customers. Everyone had to sign up with AT&T.
So there were very good reasons the government got to dictate their business models. It was quid pro quo.
But I don't think interchangeability is the same as treating them equally. AT&T had to connect you to anywhere globally, but it didn't have to do it for the same price. Local vs. long distance vs. international.
Some cellphone companies even had "pick 5 free number" plans. Nothing bad happened.
Plus the internet seems to achieve total interactivity without it being mandated. Though a lot of the backbone internet came from regulated telecomms. Maybe I can't count on the internet developing in a free for all.
That fits in with saying that broad categories are fine, but you can't charge extra for me to call specific stores.
The internet is doing pretty well, but you get ridiculous things like ISPs wanting Netflix to pay to peer even though all the traffic is initiated on the ISP end.
Their business model is supposed to be to provide access to all data, not to act as a gatekeeper and decide what sort of data people should consume. I don't think your comparison to Google is at all analogous to what is going on here.
They're not acting as a gatekeeper in the strict sense of the word, because T-Mobile is allowing customers to opt-out of the zero-rating services and have the data count against their data buckets.
Most issues with gatekeepers are what they don't allow people to consume; in this case, they're not placing a restriction.
If people wish to stand their ground on principle, this particular carrier is giving them the option to do so by opting completely out of the program (at least according to the article).
Who says their business model to provide access to all data equally. That certainly hasn't been the way they've operated. The used to charge tons of money for text's data while voice data was considerably cheaper.
You could come up with reasons why Google shouldn't be allowed to give away Gmail. They use their search monopoly. They monetize it by spying on the contents of the email.
It's not a 1 to 1 parallel. I mostly meant why do you think Tmobile's business plan should be controlled by the FCC but Google should do what it wants.
>I mostly meant why do you think Tmobile's business plan should be controlled by the FCC but Google should do what it wants.
The FCC controls TMobile's business plans in the way the FBI controls organized crime. If the principles of the Internet are to be maintained, traffic prioritization as a monetization scheme needs to be carefully monitored and most likely snuffed out.
It isn't "suddenly a problem now". Many of us said the exact same thing when T-Mobile announced their music plan. But we were drowned out by the excitement of people who didn't seem to know any better.
It's unpopular to say this but "unlimited data" is not necessarily a consumer-friendly policy. We talk about data caps like it's a way to extort more money. But corporations have budgets they need to fill. If not data overages, they'd just raise your base plan pricing or add more fees. Unlimited data doesn't really reduce how much consumers pay.
The difference... is how that money is distributed. For unlimited data plans, everyone pays the same. Which means the dude who torrents 50 gigs over 4G pays the same as my great aunt, who barely knows how to dial her phone. (But data plans are required for smartphones.)
Tiered data is the first step towards making people who use their service more, pay a larger share of the money that, let's face it, our carrier is going to collect from us anyways. It's just hard for many of us in the tech circle to accept that. Because we're 1%ers. We use a disproportionately larger segment of data than everyone else. Should we pay more than people who barely use their phones? Absolutely.
I'm not saying carriers don't overcharge, I'm not saying carriers don't add a lot of unnecessary fees. I'm not saying we don't have scary ISP monopolies in places where the government really should step in. But what I am saying is that metered data vs. unlimited data isn't the fight we want to pretend it is. And "unlimited data" plans with their restrictions against hosting a server on wire lines or against tethering on wireless is distinctly opposed to the values of net neutrality. And setting aside what services are free to use and not free to use furthers that not net neutral goal.
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.
Less "content" was great. It was nicer to sift through a few pages of search results to find a few dense authoritative sources, edited and published by people with something to say. Today, the results are better ranked but more fragmented and sparser in originality, with a heavy weighting towards commercial platforms that aggregate tidbits.
(I don't really see what security has to do with this)
The amount currently paid by users (in terms of their bandwidth used for ads) massively exceeds the amount websites get for displaying those ads. If users paid directly, they would need to pay _very little_ to be outbidding the advertisers so much that it wouldn't be worth the effort to add an ad platform to your website. That's the incentive to not still show you ads.
> After you've paid these pennies, what is the incentive to not still show you ads or surveil you for commercial advantage?
The parent may have been saying that if we'd had micropayments earlier, the ad culture may never have arisen or gotten as bad.
However, I think there's still a chance that micropayments could reduce ads. If it can result in a reasonable revenue stream, it might become advantageous to reduce ads and market that one's website doesn't track people with ads. That might further drive revenue.
In fact, after you have paid these pennies, you have proven that you are willing to pay. This makes you even more valuable for an advertiser than you were when you paid nothing...
> This makes you even more valuable for an advertiser than you were when you paid nothing...
But it's the websites that are being paid by the advertisers. If the reader is more valuable to the website than the advertiser is, then advertising might be reduced. Of course, it's possible advertisers would respond to this by offering more money per ad.
You pay a penny to read an article. If they show you an ad and you find that objectionable, withhold future pennies. Further, inform anyone who will listen that the publisher is being dishonest about ads. Anyone who finds this objectionable will likewise withhold their pennies.
What makes this hypothetical microtransaction-based market different from classical publishing/broadcasting is the lack of friction on the internet. Friendster, Myspace, Digg et al. is the lesson we should all take to heart.
The problem with cheap is that people have huge expectations. "What do you mean I'm not entitled to life-long free updates after I paid you $0.9 for your app? I AM A PAYING CUSTOMER AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!"
Happens a lot. I write books, here is a lovely email I got from somebody who spent a whopping $7:
> Please refund me this purchase immediately. I cannot believe you are selling a product that is obsolete. React no longer uses [mixins] and we are already on React 0.14 RC-1. Considering that this product is effectively ONLY 35 pages, I would have expect you to have kept the code current. I will contact my credit card company today to ensure a credit was issued. Ed Post Script: I have perused your website before and was hesitant. Today, I took the plunge and am very disappointed!
I never get that sort of behavior from people who buy the $59 package.
It's actually a bit over 60 pages, and the reason people pay is this: "With React+d3.js you'll learn how to build re-usable visualization components in about an hour."
And because past buyers say things like this: "I'm starting a new position where I will focus on data visualization using React and d3. I got everything I needed from the book, your examples were straight forward and easy to follow. Thanks!"
I've had a lot of people comment, both online and in person, that it was the perfect book for them because it's short and focused.
Haha thanks! To be honest, Why programmers work at night has been at a standstill for two reasons: 1) It's trying to be too many things to too many people and I can't decide who to focus on, and 2) It's been shelved for so long that at this point I feel deep fear of being judged when I get back to it.
It's hard to get back to something that you know 2000+ people are looking at you for.
I am just one of the people looking at it, so take these opinions for what you will.
Maybe it's better broken up into focus areas? It resonated with me and I was left wanting more - from what you said I'm not the only one. I really hope you do find a way to get back to it.
I wonder if it could work in a format other than a book? Look at "This is Not A Consipiracy Theory" for a really interesting way of producing a documentary.
I hope that one day I can show a book or something like this to my girlfriend to explain to her why I sometimes can't get to bed before 2 or 3 am...
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.
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.
"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.
>"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.
It can refer to both and more.
>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).
This is either post hoc rationalization or bullshit ad marketer speak.
You cannot claim, "oh, you watched the ad? you just paid for it!", unless a contract was in place before the ad was watched.
You are describing something more akin to exploitation.
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?
Free is not a problem here, because we're talking "free" in economical sense. Thermodynamics does not need dollars to exist. Society has been dealing with (economically) free since long before the invention of money. Things like doing one a favour, or giving away for public good, means free on the receiving end.
And before someone mentions reciprocation - yes, it exists, but it always works implicitly. If you expect an explicit reciprocation, then you're doing trade and not a favour.
We may be getting of-topic but address this part: "or giving away for public good", in this case for public good and someone performed a work for whatever was gave away; in the same line favors most of the time are a social contract of/for enhancing relationships with someone else; by reduction to absurd you can't do it endlessly, because it has a cost and someone has to pay it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Great explanation. T-Mobile wins provided they can keep this up. At some point, for the most popular content, they're going to need to address network congestion and service impacts. Even if people opt-out, network congestion from the more popular zero-rated services will affect everybody. Who knows - maybe that's their end goal so they can then "legally" manage their network as they see fit? I'll remove my tinfoil hat now.
Its the ultimate fast lane. Your slow lane here is literally everyone not in the fast lane as soon as you run out of data. Except rather than it being slow it literally stops.
More appropriately T-Mobile wants to bribe content providers and screw over everyone else by offering the persistently overpriced data rates all these cell providers try shoving down your throat.
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.