rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetData is getting cheaper and cheaper. At what point does it get cheap enough that there's no more room for zero-rating plan shenanigans?
Regarding what constitutes an included site, this is just a pay-me-for-priority-access of another color. The carrier hope is a critical mass of folks subscribe and sites will race to pay the door man for club access. After a few years when most of the sites pay the door man and it isn't enough (the old executive yachts need to be replaced), prices on both sides will rise and carriers will have their Internet toll-troll dream.
If we're lucky, competition will increase, carrier costs will drop and neutral data plans will get cheap enough, fast enough that this extortion plan runs out of margin room and dies in the womb. | |
|
| fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Sep-30 9:43 am
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetI could see ISPs offering free broadband to poor people, if supported by advertising. That seems like a "good thing". But Net Neutrality would ban such arrangements. That seems like a "bad thing". | |
|
| | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
rradina
Member
2014-Sep-30 10:59 am
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetIf the poor need free Internet, give them a tax credit or let them sign up for a food an Internet stamp program at their local social services office. (Of course their next challenge is acquiring a device to access the Internet but ...)
If ISPs want to get involved, let them offer a voluntary $1/month voluntary charity program like other utilities offer. To minimize overhead, qualification could piggy back on government assistance program status. | |
|
| | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Sep-30 11:01 am
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetI'm just thinking broadband could be provided like free OTA TV; why cut off that option? | |
|
| | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
rradina
Member
2014-Sep-30 11:23 am
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetHow is forced advertising implemented? Javascript ad injection via ISP proxy? Seems easily defeated with various ad blockers. Poor people aren't dumb.
I assume we're talking about people who make hard choices at Wal-Mart. Store brands, that don't advertise, are preferred. Do manufacturers/service providers spend advertising dollars to target a demographic that cannot afford what they offer? | |
|
| | | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Sep-30 11:44 am
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetI'm not an engineer so I can't say how it work in a technical sense.
But I'm thinking Facebook (for example) could sponsor a form of limited broadband access that provides free access to FB and some limited web services (google, Wikipedia) but not the entire Internet. I don't see a problem with such business models, but it would be banned under Net Neutrality. For the poor who cannot afford broadband at all, I think it is a model that s/b allowed.
No one is forced to participate (either FB, the ISP or the customer). At every step it is voluntary. | |
|
| | | | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetIf we're still talking about the poor who cannot afford Internet access, how is FB making money to offset connectivity costs by advertising to people who cannot afford the advertised products (see my earlier post)? For that matter, in this voluntary world, who pays the ISP to invest in the filtering/blocking infrastructure required to limit access to FB? Won't this increase the cost of delivering filtered access? Even if FB finds advertisers, what happens if someone doesn't use FB enough to offset costs? Does FB cut them off? Does FB pay the ISP to terminate their service?
Regardless, since your reply mentions no one is forced to participate, this sounds more like an option for everyone, not just the poor. Are we just backdoor rationalizing something neutrality should ban by throwing out PC notions of helping the poor?
Rather than backdoor revenue schemes, I'd prefer hard-core net neutrality and a business environment that nurtures fixed-wireless competition. Perhaps then basic plans can be affordable for all. True, there will still be some who cannot afford anything but unless FB also hands out Internet appliances and USB modems, these folks don't need the Internet in their homes. They'll have to make do with using the Internet at public facilities like libraries. | |
|
| | | | | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Sep-30 2:38 pm
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetIf advertisers WANT to do this, why not let THEM worry about whether or not they will make money? Again, free TV is modeled this way and you don't seem to have a complaint about them. | |
|
| | | | | | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetArguing net neutrality prevents something that isn't viable is a straw man argument. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Sep-30 8:11 pm
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral Internetsaid by rradina:Arguing net neutrality prevents something that isn't viable is a straw man argument. You don't know if its viable or not. Why not give it a try? It works for TV, why not free Internet for the poor? What are you afraid of? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetYou don't know if TV marketed only to the poor is viable. Therefore it cannot be used to support your argument that an Internet marketed to the poor should be given a chance.
Any suggestion that it should be given a chance is just a thinly veiled argument against net neutrality by using the poor as a PC pawn.
Isn't it common sense that advertisers seek to reach customers who have the potential to buy their products and services? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Oct-1 4:53 am
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetLike I said, let the advertisers take the risk if they are willing to do so. Why are you so unwilling to at least them them try? If they fail, what harm is there to you? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetLike I said, it's a straw man argument. It shows negative effects of net neutrality by claiming fantasy. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Oct-1 4:57 pm
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetFantasy? Real world OTA TV works this way. But it's obvious neither of us is gonna convince the other. You may have the last word. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetThis is still about helping the poor isn't it? If not, perhaps your argument has merit.
Real world OTA isn't just available to the poor. If only the poor watched, sponsors would disappear faster than an MLK documentary narrated by Michael Richards. | |
|
| | | | | firephotoTruth and reality matters Premium Member join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA |
to rradina
I personally like the way PBS injects advertisements in their programming that I can get over the air or on the internet. | |
|
| | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
to rradina
said by rradina:If the poor need free Internet, give them a tax credit or let them sign up for a food an Internet stamp program at their local social services office. Why burden taxpayers with funding yet another social program if advertisers are willing to foot the bill instead? This is exactly how "free TV" works. | |
|
| |
TROTS to rradina
Anon
2014-Sep-30 10:17 am
to rradina
said by rradina:Data is getting cheaper and cheaper. At what point does it get cheap enough that there's no more room for zero-rating plan shenanigans? You are only looking at one variable - unit cost. If unit cost declines slower than units increase your hypothsis breaks down. If Internet growth was relativly flat, then, yes your argument makes sense. The reality is Internet growth is exponential with video, Internet of things, cloud, multi-G IOS updates, etc. | |
|
| | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
rradina
Member
2014-Sep-30 11:08 am
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetIf someone needs to update their device's IOS version, watch Netflix or ask their refrigerator if they need milk, are we still discussing the disadvantaged who need cheap, sponsored data plans? | |
|
| | | |
TROTS
Anon
2014-Sep-30 2:45 pm
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral InternetThere is an efficiency component to this as well. If electricity had no meter, why conserve?
What if the refrigerator used a video camera to stream uncompressed 7x24 to a cloud app to check your milk level. What if other devices did as well?
What if 5G IOS updates released daily (as bad as flashplayer) or if you had 20 android devices in your home all getting the same release (vs share copy).... and they all decided to ask for it at network prime time?
What if Netflix only wanted to keep one version of a movie and stream highest bit rate to even the smallest device?
How do you continue to drive efficiency innovation that cost less (in the end to the consumer).
Most of the wireline stuff seems inline with growth and less impactful... surprised most people focus on this vs the 4GB data plans on cell. | |
|
| | | | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: One Vision of a Non-Neutral Internetsaid by TROTS :There is an efficiency component to this as well. If electricity had no meter, why conserve? No need to meter if it's cheap enough. A natural equilibrium is reached beyond which you can no longer use more. Businesses pay for a particular speed and there's no usage meter. The speed limits how much they can use much like an electric meter can only pass a maximum amount of amps at any given time. Unfortunately we haven't figured out a way to generate electricity that cheaply. However, I suspect we will determine or already have ways to transmit data that cheaply. In 20 years we'll probably look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. Remember when the phone company's solicited the FCC to charge an extra fee for modems using POTS lines? They were somewhat right in claiming that folks were using their lines much more for modems than they ever used them for voice. How times have changed. | |
|
|
Kuro
Anon
2014-Sep-30 8:57 am
Londoners would give up children to connect to WiFiSounds like they had the same idea as a South Park episode. Does anyone read every terms and conditions word for word? | |
|
|
MoreGlad to see more original programming coming to Netflix. If the movie studios are going to lock Netflix out, this is their only way to keep customers. | |
|
|
|