When you're done gasping over net neutrality being destroyed by the evil others, and have an open mind for actual facts, here's Ben Thompson's sharp-as-always essay on why the current US regulation is actually preventing lower costs for a neutral net for everyone: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/#memberful_done
@raucao The author of the article seems to be ignorant of the pose that carriers are taking in anticipation of law changes. Also this http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
@bkero Not at all. And in addition to the facts from around the globe (nowhere does active discrimation exist), whatever someone "poses" right now is speculation anyway. However, mobile Internet in the US being among the most expensive is pretty obvious.
@bkero Lol, I invented a new word there. :)
@raucao I consider zero tiering discrimination, that definitely exists here. The Google Wallet blocking is also active discrimination. Plus what they did before with tethering apps.
@bkero Exactly. That's the whole point. Did you read the whole article?
@raucao I did.
@bkero It's usually the case, no speculation needed.
@raucao "Zero tiering isn't bad because it benefits the customer in the short term" is a flimsy argument.
@bkero "flimsy argument" is not a counter argument, but only emotional.
@raucao So is his conclusion to that particular topic, and even his logic within it. The data is not treated the same, due to metering.
@bkero "metering"? Do you have links for proof of active discrimination per IP or sth? I'd love to learn about it.
@raucao Metering as in billing for some content, but not for others. I do have proof of Comcast doing similar on their backend network, digging up.
@raucao Once I've burned through my 3GB of data, I'm a captive audience to their zero-rated content. The rest of the section was "look how competitive they're being".
@bkero Once you've burned through what you bought, you get free stuff. How is that a bad thing? That's your personal choice, not discrimination.
@raucao It's a bad thing because it's disrupting the level playing field of access. Same as Facebook's effort for zero-rating in India, and why it was blocked.
@bkero I disagree. You can't expect to have free Internet for everyone, and as long as actual Internet traffic is not discrimated by host, the playing field is leveled. And I haven't read any horror stories of that happening en masse in Western countries so far, bith with no regulation and with extra messaging packages.
@bkero Look at why the Internet grew so fast in the first place. Basically no regulation whatsoever, and AOL died when people realized what it was.
@bkero Us building, and more importantly using, alternatives to FB and Twitter is much more important imo. We the users are the ones making free FB more attractive, by feeding it content.
@raucao I wouldn't expect free internet for everyone. I expect, as you say, it is not discriminated. By slowness or by bandwidth cost.
@raucao The Verizon-Google Wallet story I mentioned earlier is that happening at the scale of millions of users. For years.
@bkero Did I say nobody will try? Only in a shitty overregulated market can someone survive fucking over millions of customers. That's what I thought the whole point of the article was. And it's fairly easy to see that, when comparing markets.
@raucao I'd say they're acting exactly like a member of a colluding oligopoly with many natural monopolies is expected to. But not only did they try, they did it for a looonngg time with no punishment.
@bkero There is no natural monopoly. Monopolies only grow from state-issued licenses/patents and regulation.
@raucao Sorry, that should be when capital costs are high. Not fixed. :)
@bkero Then again, are you actually angry about Google Wallet? :D
@raucao I don't use it, but it's a valid point for this argument. :)