Cell service plans come with separate tariffs for regular data and "social" data, which works only in the walled garden of Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Insta, etc., and the "social" data is much cheaper.
Even though the positive reinforcement was not as draconian as stuff like this, where they're obviously trying to dissuade use, it was still pretty creepy.
Interesting idea. It's usually the last-mile that's the hard part - I presume that's the reason it's no longer done?
Did 'local content' include, say, Netflix?
Even better is the eco-system it spawned. Myself and others ended up with 2 connections & network magic to split traffic dynamically to optimise cost.
Netflix wasn't a thing back then in SA (and even now isn't big).
However these local only packages did come with access to the ISP's usenet server so people downloaded mountains of ahem linux ISOs.
>I presume that's the reason it's no longer done?
No. Couple of big undersea cables hit SA shortly after. So current thinking is more managing capacity during peak times with various incentives ("night time data" etc)
Take the plan I'm on with T-Mobile. I pay a fixed monthly amount and get 3 GB of data per month. If I go over 3 GB, T-Mobile reserves the right to give me lower speed for the rest of the month.
T-Mobile has a thing called "Music Freedom". Under Music Freedom, they zero rate around 45 streaming services.
Look at this from my point of view as a consumer. I signed up for 3 GB of full speed data a month, and I get that. There is never a situation due to Music Freedom's zero rating where I find myself short on data and think "dammit...I could have downloaded this if it weren't for that zero rating!".
All that Music Freedom does from my consumer standpoint is make it so sometimes I get more than the 3 GB my plan entitles me to.
Compare this to throttling and blocking. With throttling and blocking if T-Mobile were, say, throttling Skype or blocking it, then I could find myself saying "dammit...I paid for this and they are not giving it to me!".
In the Music Freedom case, they give me all I paid for and they toss some free extra on top. In blocking/throttling, they interfere with me using what I paid for. From a consumer point of view equating these two as net neutrality advocates do just seems odd on the face of it.
If we keep net neutrality focused just on making sure that we get the data we pay for, free of blocking and throttling, and if the ISP wants to give people extras on top of that let them, and I think net neutrality would then have near universal strong support among consumers, maybe even sufficient to get laws through Congress.
But what about the actual potential harms to competition from zero rating, which is one of the main points brought up in favor of covering it under net neutrality?
We can deal with that without shoving it into net neutrality. We already have a whole legal framework and associated regulatory infrastructure in place to deal with that: antitrust. We can use that to distinguish between the kind of zero rating this is probably good for consumers (Music Freedom) and the kind that is not (ISP zero rating just their own streaming service).
If I didn't get included in your zero rated list of services, or put forth the effort to conform to your amp-like provider-specific rules, then I am blocked or throttled or charged more for or whatever.
Pipes picking and choosing winners should be a no compromise situation. But you have to tackle the lack of alternative ISPs before you can get there (and you then probably will get there even without legislation).
If you aren’t willing to put forth the effort to be competitive, whose fault is that?
In the end, zero-rating is the exact same as charging more for some content.
This is like the difference between charging $0.95 for something with a $0.05 credit card fee versus charging $1.00 and giving a $0.05 discount for cash customers.
The only difference is the messaging.
This should raise antitrust issues. The competitors could sue under antitrust law to stop the practices and get damages, or the government could handle enforcement, or both.
Those two are indistinguishable and certainly not good for the consumer.
Zero rating just their own service and a bunch of competitors still has the same overall effect of raising the barrier to entry and thus prices with absolutely no benefit to the consumer.
The "benefit" of "free traffic on top" is an illusion, there is no free traffic. You are buying a 20 GB/month package (or whatever the actual value is) of which 17 GB are limited to particular services, it's just that it is framed as a "3 GB traffic with music free" package in order to manipulate the public into objection to network neutrality by then claiming that network neutrality would make it illegal to offer the "free traffic", which is absurd as any carrier is free to offer a "3 GB/month with 17GB/month free on top" package--which is exactly what we would see if net neutrality were a thing, except that it would be labeled as a "20 GB/month" package. The price they are asking obviously is paying for the 20 GB plus their margin anyway, and the price obviously is not the price that the market is willing to pay for "3 GB/month", but for "as much traffic as I actually use per month", which isn't 3 GB but 20 GB.
All of this zero rating stuff is marketing bullshit to make you believe they are on your side when they limit your freedom. There is zero reason why I shouldn't be able to buy a 20 GB/month package at the same price as the current "3 GB plus music free", except that I could stream music from my own server instead of having to pay yet another service from a number of winners chosen by my carrier.
It's a trope when someone points out that google isn't free, and if you are getting something for free then you are not the customer actual. With zero rating, it's not even free! So then you ".. pay a fixed monthly amount .." to be the carrier's product, no?
1. Network operators exempting an entire class of service, such as T-Mobile's “Music Freedom” which has the same terms for everyone who applies 2. Network operators accepting money from specific service providers to exempt only those services, such as the Facebook-only service offered in some parts of the world
Most people consider the second form a problem since it heavily favors large companies, especially since a less-favored company doesn't even have the guarantee of being able to reach a deal at all, but opinions vary more about the first and a lot of advocates have either inadvertently or deliberately confused the issue. I'm choosing to see that advocacy as well-intended but I think it's alienated a lot of people who really don't see a problem with the first form (at least as long as it's really open) but would agree to bans on the second.
Which is irrelevant as the terms themselves are discriminatory, plus the mere fact of having to apply is a major barrier to entry.
If you want to build a new streaming service of any kind (a niche radio station, say?) in a world with network neutrality, you need a server with an internet connection, so the barrier to entry is ten bucks a month or so and you can start streaming to a few hundred listeners. If you need to apply for zero rating, you now have to read and understand the requirements of a few hundred carriers around the globe, adapt your software so it can meet all those varying requirements ...
Also, it is inherently incompatible with many use cases. I have my own server, and I can stream my own music. What are my chances of success if I tried to get T-Mobile to zero rate traffic from my own streaming server? Do I have to allow them to listen into the connection?
And then, what if I wanted to sell a device for people to do the same, say? A home NAS that allows people to stream music to their smartphone? How do I get T-Mobile to zero-rate that?
> but I think it's alienated a lot of people who really don't see a problem with the first form (at least as long as it's really open)
But the problem is that if you don't fight the first, you effectively get the same result as the second. The long-term effect on innovation and prices is the same, as it is inherently not "really open". Also, carriers offering these packages is not an accident, it is intentional manipulation by choosing a misleading framing. But choosing not to fight the framing doesn't help you--while you might have more allies then, you would effectively also not have anything left that is worth fighting for. The idea of selling 20 GB/month packages to the public as "3 GB/month plus music traffic free on top" in order to then be able to correctly claim that "this would be illegal with net neutrality" in order to make people incorrectly think "with net neutrality I would only get 3 GB for the same price" is genius, but you really shouldn't fall for it.
We also had service tiering, such as pop/imap being priced differently than http, etc...
Free mobile then came in and used the same tactic they used on adsl, single pricing, large amount of data, no differentiation between websites / ports / data types (even including peer to peer) etc... And others had to follow.
So we're in a status quo right now, but just like our fixed line Internet, its quality depends on one of the providers not aligning with the others. If they change their mind, get bought or whatever, the game could change quickly.
Took me a minute to parse, since I didn't realize that universal was the name of a content company, rather than a service plan's name and access to all music.
Kind of reminds me of the (also French) company Total, who seems like they were invented to make tabulation charts about the oil industry hard to read.
- cheaper social
- more expensive non-social
- combination of those two
I really don't expect it's the first option, unless they're really in a race to the bottom. The third option makes sense even without subsidies - offer something "nice" to typical customers and offset it with other traffic.
The only thing that matters is that Whatsapp messenger is cheaper to use than, for example, signal messenger.
How does this make any sense? If anything, making general access more expensive is going to drive consumers to move to a different provider.
For example look at roaming rates in Europe. For decades sending messages/data from another country was crazy expensive - with every single provider. Once EU ruled that roaming charges in the EU should not apply, there was no crisis or huge rise of prices to compensate the losses. Once it was forced, companies started to race each other to announce how awesome they are, being the first in the country to provide free roaming.
So making WhatsApp cheaper than the base price is one thing. Making Signal more expensive than the base price is quite different.
And then for all the customers, as the incumbents having established a moat can become increasingly abusive.
They are clear about the amount of metered data you get too. Not that it's great but it's not as bad as it could be.