Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Everyone Should Be Getting Wikipedia for Free

Confusion over net neutrality rules has internet providers too scared to offer freebies, even though it’s legal.

Wikimedia FoundationWikimedia FoundationInternet providers should be able to experiment with giving subscribers free stuff, such as access to Wikipedia and other public information and services on their smartphones. Unfortunately, confusion about whether today's net neutrality regulations allow U.S. providers to make content available without it counting against your data plan—a practice called "zero-rating"—has discouraged many companies from doing so, even though zero-rating experiments are presumptively legal under today's net neutrality regulations.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already taken steps to clear away the discouragement of such experiments. After Ajit Pai took over as FCC chairman in January, he moved to end the investigations, begun under his predecessor, into companies that have tried to go down that path. And of course Chairman Pai also opened a rulemaking proceeding in April aimed at rolling back those rules, which invited and allowed the FCC's Wireline Bureau to start those investigations. But these steps alone haven't sent the kind of staunch, affirmative encouragement that's really needed.

The lack of clarity about zero-rating could change overnight, however, and it wouldn't require any new laws, any new regulations, any new quasi-formal inquiries from the commissioners—or even Pai's proposed rollback of the 2015 regulatory order. All it would take would be for Pai to call openly (in speeches or interviews, say, or other public appearances) and frequently for internet providers to experiment with adding zero-rated public information to their offerings.

Zero-rating experiments can be a win-win-win: Customers get access to more useful content for the same price; companies have more options for attracting users and expanding their business; and society at large benefits when greater numbers of people are exposed to valuable resources such as Wikipedia, public-health information, and other non-commercial apps and websites.

But the big fear among some net neutrality activists is that commercial zero-rating will favor well-heeled incumbents over lean new innovators. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) put it in 2016, "The most dangerous of these plans, such as the AT&T and Verizon offerings, only offer their users zero-rated data from content providers who pay the carriers money to do so. Such 'pay for play' arrangements favor big content providers who can afford to pay for access to users' eyeballs, and marginalize those who can't, such as nonprofits, startups, and fellow users." Even non-commercial zero-rated offerings may a problem, EFF argued. These include the risk of "distorting" content consumption in favor of already-popular non-subscription services (think Google's search engine or Facebook) or the "walled garden effect"—i.e., that some price-sensitive customers may choose never to venture outside of the zero-rated services sponsored by the internet provider.

But what evidence we do have suggests that zero rating enables net new traffic, because people visit destinations that they would not otherwise. Roslyn Layton of Aalborg University has shown that at least 10 million people in developing countries use free data to access pregnancy and AIDS information.

The fact is, information sources like Wikipedia regularly drive traffic to the larger internet. A zero-rated, stripped-down, low-bandwidth version of the free online encyclopedia, called Wikipedia Zero, is already offered in dozens of developing countries around the world, which actually makes it easier to find relevant information and services on the non-zero-rated web. For instance, the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia Zero" includes links pointing users to both nonprofit sites and for-profit, advertising-supported sites—including many sources that are themselves critical of the Wikipedia Zero platform for being "inconsistent" with certain conceptions of network neutrality.

As I've written here before, I favor both net neutrality as a general principle, understood as an evolution of the common-carriage rules that have long governed telephone service and traditional mail as well as an evolution of the internet's history as an open platform that anybody can provide new content or services for. But I've also written in favor of a zero-rating as a tool (though hardly the only one) that I believe could help bring the rest of the world online in my lifetime.

I can hold both positions because I reject the prevalent view that "net neutrality" means internet providers have to treat different types of web content absolutely identically—especially if it stops someone from giving free but limited web access to those who wouldn't otherwise have internet access at all—and who could learn about the larger internet through the external links embedded in free, open resources like Wikipedia.

The digital divide isn't just a global problem. It's also an issue much closer to home: Pew Research Center data indicate that Americans who rely on their mobile devices for their sole or primary source of internet access are disproportionately from the lowest income groups. Pew identifies a broad group of Americans (about 15 percent) as "smartphone dependent," and concluded in a comprehensive 2015 paper that "even as a substantial minority of Americans indicate that their phone plays a central role in their ability to access digital services and online content, for many users this access is often intermittent due to a combination of financial stresses and technical constraints."

Editing or otherwise contributing to Wikipedia may crowd your data cap, because if you write or edit an entry, you typically have to reload (and maybe keep reloading) it to see how the changes look. This can require two or more orders of magnitude more bandwidth than just consulting Wikipedia does. But Wikipedia as an informational resource depends on ongoing contributions from everyone—not just users who can afford to pay for "unlimited" data.

The best-case scenario is a world in which every American is motivated to take advantage of the internet, in which we all have access to the whole internet, and in which internet providers can afford to offer that level of service to everyone. The best way to get to that point in a hurry, though, is to get more people online and sampling what the web has to offer. Encouraging non-commercial services like Wikipedia Zero and Facebook's Free Basics can help make that happen.

Pai and, ideally, other commissioners should come out strongly and expressly—via speeches and other non-regulatory forums, including responses to press inquiries—in favor of internet providers offering zero-rated services, especially those that aren't pay-for-play. Repeatedly sending the right message can do as much as deregulation to encourage innovation of this sort.

I'd also want the commissioners to urge U.S. internet providers to share their data about whether zero-rated services improve internet adoption, both among smartphone-only users and in general. With more information, the FCC can make more informed decisions going forward about what kinds of open-internet regulations to adopt—or to remove.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Longtobefree||

    The only problem is if we let the government decide what is 'good' and should be free, and what is 'ungood', they may not choose Wikipedia free. They may determine NPR and the DNC are the ones to be spread far and wide.
    What then?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Pitchforks and torches.
    Then guillotines.

  • croaker||

    Too quick.

    Woodchipper.

  • SomeGuy||

    To hep out the idiots here are two good articles to help you understand the real cost of data and these are pessimistic in pricing...as in being generous on the ISP side of costs. It is unlikely that it is even $1 per GB for cell phone data. I would wager it is more like 10-50 cents per GB.

    Land lines are sub 1 cent at most these days.

    https://tinyurl.com/hvx3j67
    https://tinyurl.com/y8pbfyzh

  • SomeGuy||

    its probably 10-50 cents per GB for 4G data. It also depends on what band you are using. Data on Sprints band 41 is very cheap because there is large amounts of cheap spectrum but data on 700mhz is substantially more expensive.

    So maybe data on 700mhz is $.50-1 but band 41 is like 10 cents.

  • Just the Tip||

    Net neutrality seems like something a National Socialist Party leader from the mid 20th century would have supported...

  • cthulhu||

    Damn, that's perilously close to Godwin-ing a comment thread for an article by...Mike Godwin, the originator of Godwin's Law.

    (BTW, I generally reject "net neutrality" as usually defined, but am in favor of some things that sometimes travel under the same label.)

  • Robbzilla||

    That's pretty awesome!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The purpose of an Open Internet is to let the market/me decide which sites to visit - not the ISP or government. How "libertarians" now favor the latter proves "libertarians" can be brainwashed too.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Please elaborate, liar.

    Have you paid up yet? -- No , of course not.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    It is simple. You favor the closed Cable TV model for the internet - where your cable provider chooses your programming array and provides "options" for you to choose from.

    I favor an open neutral internet where I choose my programming.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I wut?

    You are more delusional than normal today. Good luck with your meds.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That is the essence of what this debate is about.

    I favor an open and neutral internet - you do not.

  • esteve7||

    you seem like the type of guy who would support the fairness doctrine because you don't understand how markets work.

    I'm confused --- there wasn't an open and neutral internet before 2016?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Of course not! It was full of bog posts asking if he'd paid up yet. How can that be neutral or fair and balanced,especially without a government forcing him to answer? By definition, because he hasn't answered, it is not fair and balanced, and thus was not neutral.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Actually, net neutrality whiners are even more delusional than normal, since the previous net neutrality regs never went into force -- all that happened is preventing them from coming into force later.

    NOTHING HAS CHANGED, yet the world is turned upside down.

  • Sevo||

    "NOTHING HAS CHANGED, yet the world is turned upside down."

    Sorta like the screamers:
    'Trump is a big meanie. He's gonna make the air black!'

  • Sevo||

    "I favor an open and neutral internet - you do not."

    Turd, here, favors a government-regulated internet and is either too stupid to understand or an outright liar.
    Yes, both.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing) Sevo wants GUBMINT to force most users to subsidize the ultra-high bandwidth usage of a minority of users who stream content from sites like Netflix. In the retarded world of anti-gubmint goobers, bandwidth is FREE -- which is why nobody pays for Internet access. (lol)

    Bandwidth is what we pay for, chump. A single monthly cost for unlimited bandwidth has been obsolete for years, but you proggies are addicted to sucking somebody's teat.

    This is how anti-gubmint "libertarians" are so easily brainwashed into defending the very gubmint they hate.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Access is what we pay for, and the primary reason we don't have choice is because government grants monopolies. Then deluded fools like you come along and claim only government can solve the problem, by substituting its rules for teh rules iththrew out when it granted the monopoly.

    That's fuckin statist logic for ya.

  • Michael Hihn||

    the primary reason we don't have choice is because government grants monopolies

    Not here.

    Then deluded fools like you

    (lol)

  • Greg F||

    A single monthly cost for unlimited bandwidth has been obsolete for years...

    There has never been unlimited bandwidth and never will be.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There has never been unlimited bandwidth and never will be.

    Check any provider website.

  • Greg F||

    Check any provider website.

    You don't know the difference between bandwidth and data.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Check any provider website.

    You don't know the difference between bandwidth and data.

    (lol) See my own providers rates just below.

    See how they COMBINE data and speed?
    Anything else?

  • Greg F||

    (lol) See my own providers rates just below.

    See how they COMBINE data and speed?
    Anything else?

    What you apparently don't understand is the difference between data rate and quantity. So let me put it in a way you might understand.

    7.0 Mbps is a rate. It is 7 million bits per second.

    300GB is 300 billion bytes. It is a quantity.

    An analogy would be miles per hour and miles.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So let me put it in a way you might understand.

    lol

    7.0 Mbps is a rate. It is 7 million bits per second.
    300GB is 300 billion bytes. It is a quantity.

    Per month!!

    An analogy would be miles per hour and miles.

    (smirk)One more time
    Why is bits/second not the same as bits/month -- just more seconds!!!

  • Greg F||

    Why is bits/second not the same as bits/month -- just more seconds!!!


    You still don't get dumb ass. 300 GB is bytes, not bits and has nothing to do with the transmission rate. 300 GB is 2.4 Tb (terra bits). At 7 Mb/s it would take roughly 4 days to transfer 300 GB.

  • Michael Hihn||

    NOW we see his fuckup!

    At 7 Mb/s it would take roughly 4 days to transfer 300 GB.

    (sneer) THAT DEPENDS HOW MANY HOURS PER DAY I ACTUALLY DOWNLOAD DATA!!
    HINT: "BEING ONLINE" DOES NOT MEAN DOWNLOADING DATA CONTINUOUSLY!

    UMM, WE SPEND FAR MORE TIME ... WAIT FOR IT .. READING WEB PAGES!!! (OMG)
    Obviously, you're also sublimely ignorant of WHY you have an Internet cache!

    Nobody is more stubborn than a committed bulshitter. Like the one now residing in the White House.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There has never been unlimited bandwidth and never will be.

    Bullshit.

    Check my Centurylink here. Click "How much data does my Internet plan allow me to use?"
    Depends on the plan. Here are the answers for ya
    7.0 Mbps and lower = 300GB
    7.0 Mbps - I Gig = 600 GB
    1 gig = unlimited

    My own "Unlimited Plan" (for 20 GB) allows 600GB of monthly data. Ready for reality?

    I assume to be as high a user as possible - who doesn't stream videos, etc. My monthly data usage is 20GB, of which 15GB is "system" -- connected 24/7 -- 1-3 hours online,plus 100--150 emails daily, plus a web designer. If I disconnected when I wasn't using it, my usage would likely fall to 7-10GB. Out of 600GB.

    Depending on the handwidth setting, a NetFlix video can use as little as 0.7 GB per hour -- which would be 850 hours of video if that's all I did - 25 movies per day! At the HD setting, it's 7.0 per hour -- or 85 movies per month -- nearly 3 per day, if that's all I did

    If I transfered data nonstop, I'd have 30 hours per month. Do you realize that just being online uses almost nothing? Or that this webpage takes about a half-second (at my speed)?

    As we see on this page, there is a massive amount of ignorance and confusion on this issue, Like most others,

    Any questions?

  • Greg F||

    Bullshit.

    Check my Centurylink here. Click "How much data does my Internet plan allow me to use?"
    Depends on the plan. Here are the answers for ya
    7.0 Mbps and lower = 300GB
    7.0 Mbps - I Gig = 600 GB
    1 gig = unlimited

    7.0 Mbps is your bandwidth, it isn't unlimited. It's 7.0 Mbps. There has never been unlimited bandwidth and never will be.

  • Michael Hihn||

    7.0 Mbps is your bandwidth, it isn't unlimited.

    THAT'S WHAT I SAID!!
    1) AT THAT SPEED, iT'S LIMITED TO 300GB/MONTH
    2) iT'S UNLIMTED AT THE SPEED OF ONE GB
    3) AND I LINKED TO THE PROOF (omg)

    There has never been unlimited bandwidth and never will be.

    My link proves you're full of shit, Mr, Trump. Repeating for psychos

    Check my Centurylink here. Click "How much data does my Internet plan allow me to use?"
    Depends on the plan. Here are the answers for ya
    7.0 Mbps and lower = 300GB
    7.0 Mbps - I Gig = 600 GB
    1 gig = unlimited
  • Greg F||

    My link proves you're full of shit, Mr, Trump. Repeating for psychos


    Your link proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

    At 7 Mbps you run out of data in 4 days.

    1 gig = unlimited
    which is really = (1Gb x 60 (sec) x 60 (min) x 24 (hours) x number days in a month)/8.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Just how STUPID is Greg F?? You won't believe it.

    At 7 Mbps you run out of data in 4 days.

    Only to anyone stupid enough to believe that "being online" means downloading data 24/7!!! Even in our sleep

    Which means ... NOBODY HERE IS READING ... OR EVEN COMMENTING!! EVEN HIM!!!!!
    How crazy is THAT?

    Confirm his assholery here.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863988

  • SomeGuy||

    christ hihn your stupid.

    My internet bandwidth is:

    180Mbps down and 25 Mbps up.

    I have a choice of either 1TB of data or unlimited data (whatever i can do with my limited bandwidth).

    Which is like ~50TB download if i downloaded 24/7 in a month.

    I have unlimited data and bandwidth assuming my ISP over provisions the network correctly.

    The more each person uses the bigger and faster the network needs to be which drives up cost and increases rates.

    If every house used 100Mbps 24/7 our rates would be about 300 dollars per month per person to allow enough BW in the network to handle that demand.

  • Michael Hihn||

    christ hihn your stupid.

    (sigh) watch "genius" everse himself when proven wrong!.

    I have unlimited data and bandwidth

    YOU SAID THERE IS NO SUCH THING!!

    There has never been unlimited bandwidth and never will be.

    Except when there is!

  • SomeGuy||

    yep as intellectually dishonest as always. I clearly explained it but you can't ever bother be honest.

    Your as bad as palin buttplug

  • Michael Hihn||

    I clearly explained it

    Here's what you "explained" BWAAA HAAA HAAA

    If every house used 100Mbps 24/7 our rates would be about 300 dollars per month per person to allow enough BW in the network to handle that demand.

    (smirk)
    BOTH Sameguy and Greg F commit the same insanne fuckup.
    They've BOTH ass-ume that being online means constantly downloading data! .... even when we're sleeping!! How fucking stupid is THAT?

    And are they really the same doofus?

  • SomeGuy||

    omg...you can't read or are beyond intellectually dishonest...can you shill more?

    I was explaining how internet works for you and how it costs but your too fucking stupid to understand.

    Please keep posting this is hilarious.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I was explaining how internet works for you and how it costs but your too fucking stupid to understand.

    Liar. (Proof immediately above)

    Someasshole: If every house used 100Mbps 24/7 our rates would be about 300 dollars per month per person to allow enough BW in the network to handle that demand.
    (smirk)
    BOTH Sameguy and Greg F commit the same insane fuckup.
    They've BOTH ass-ume that being online means constantly downloading data! .... even when we're sleeping!! How fucking stupid is THAT?
  • SomeGuy||

    keeping selectively quoting lol.

    I said;

    I have unlimited data and bandwidth assuming my ISP over provisions the network correctly.

    I can use 180Mbps 24/7 if my ISP over provisions properly. I dont have unlimited BW. I have 180Mbps. Christ your dishonest.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I said;
    I have unlimited data and bandwidth assuming my ISP over provisions the network correctly.

    I was being kind. You also don't know what provisioning means.

    And ... laughing hysterically ... you think that being online means downloading data 24/7 ... even when we're sleeping ... AND allowing NO time for reading this page and/or commenting.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6864023

  • SomeGuy||

    http://www.dslreports.com/faq/7135

    you really have no idea what your talking about.

    It is not economically practical, environmentally reasonable, or technically feasible to provide dedicated access for every service to every customer. A well-engineered oversubscribed service appears to function as a dedicated service to a subscriber.

    provision
    1.
    the action of providing or supplying something for use.
    "new contracts for the provision of services"
    synonyms: supplying, supply, providing, giving, presentation, donation; More
    2.
    an amount or thing supplied or provided.
    "low levels of social provision"
    synonyms: facilities, services, amenities, resource(s), arrangements; More

    A good ISP over provisions nodes or peer sites so that there is never any bottleneck so every line appears to be a dedicated connection.

    christ your an idiot.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (sneer)

    And ... laughing hysterically ... you think that being online means downloading data 24/7 ... even when we're sleeping ... AND allowing NO time for reading this page and/or commenting.

    you really have no idea what your talking about.

    You said it here, chump..
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6864023

  • Sevo||

    Michael Hihn|6.4.17 @ 12:09PM|#
    "(laughing) Sevo wants GUBMINT to force most users to subsidize the ultra-high bandwidth usage of a minority of users who stream content from sites like Netflix. In the retarded world of anti-gubmint goobers, bandwidth is FREE -- which is why nobody pays for Internet access. (lol)"

    (Howling with laughter!)
    Fuck off, you imbecile.

  • Robbzilla||

    An open, neutral internet can't be government controlled. If it is, it is neither open nor neutral, by definition.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What internet service are you using that doesn't allow you to choose what internet sites you go to?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Try streaming Netflix videos on a 2GB monthly plan.

  • Greg F||

    Try streaming Netflix videos on a 2GB monthly plan.

    That is enough for about an hour of HD at 5Mb/sec from Netflix.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That is enough for about an hour of HD at 5Mb/sec from Netflix.

    That makes four totally useless screwups on this page. That I know of.

    Do the math. 5 MB x 60 seconds x 60 minutes = 18,000 MB per hour = 18 GB in that hour -- versus 2GB for an entire month!

    Disclaimer: I do NOT pay Greg F to prove me correct so often.,

  • Greg F||

    That makes four totally useless screwups on this page. That I know of.

    Do the math. 5 MB x 60 seconds x 60 minutes = 18,000 MB per hour = 18 GB in that hour -- versus 2GB for an entire month!

    Keep digging.

    MB is megabytes. Mb is megabits. There are 8 bits in a byte and a megabyte is actually 1,048,576 bytes (2^20).

    Data is always specified in bytes. Transmission rates are always specified in bits.

  • Greg F||

    Do the math. 5 MB x 60 seconds x 60 minutes = 18,000 MB per hour = 18 GB in that hour

    I will do the math correctly for you

    Please note lower case b denotes bits:

    (5Mb x 60 x 60) = 18,000 Mb/hour

    Please note upper case B denotes bytes:
    Convert bits to bytes divide by 8

    18,000 Mb/8 = 2,250 MB.

    2GB is really 2^31 = 2,147,483,648 Bytes

    That is enough for about an hour of HD at 5Mb/sec from Netflix.

  • Dizzle||

    Seriously stop.

    Your fucking embarrassing yourself. Greg f has been right every single time.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Retard proves me right again!

    (Diane Reynolds) What internet service are you using that doesn't allow you to choose what internet sites you go to?

    (Hihn) Try streaming Netflix videos on a 2GB monthly plan.

    (retard)2GB is really 2^31 = 2,147,483,648 Bytes
    That is enough for about an hour of HD at 5Mb/sec from Netflix.

    NOT ENOUGH FOR A SINGLE MOVIE ... FOR THE ENTIRE MONTH!!.
    But he's not a total psycho

  • Michael Hihn||

    Two .. TWO ... wackos!

    Dizzle
    Seriously stop.
    Your fucking embarrassing yourself. Greg f has been right every single time.

    (sneer)
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863975

    Are you counting when he said "There has never been unlimited bandwidth, and there never will be."
    Until he said HE HAS IT ... after I linked to proof that he was full of shit?
    Have you two always been in the same gang?

  • Greg F||

    Are you counting when he said "There has never been unlimited bandwidth, and there never will be."
    Until he said HE HAS IT ... after I linked to proof that he was full of shit?

    Okay ass hole show me where I said I had unlimited bandwidth? And that link you provided doesn't have unlimited bandwidth either. Unlimited bandwidth is a physical impossibility.

  • Michael Hihn||

    PROOF -- PSYCHO!

    Okay ass hole show me where I said I had unlimited bandwidth?

    Umm, the message I replied to .. with a quote.

    And that link you provided doesn't have unlimited bandwidth either.

    PROOF confuses you??? And that's your THIRD lie on the proof.

    Unlimited bandwidth is a physical impossibility.

    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with documented proof." (lol)
    That would depend on capacity, dipshit. And DSL is different than cable! (gasp)
    Do you understand fiber????

    Here's the link again AND THE DETAILS (fourth time)
    Note that it's in the section that DEFINES the legal maximums at three different levels.
    It's only unlimited at 1 GB speeds, which ... ummm .... cost a lot more per month than
    1) under 7.0 Mbps
    2) 7 Mbps - 1 GBps

    Do you understand fiber? That it's a far more costly investment for a telephone company.?

    Have you always been a belligerent blowhard? In severe denial?
    Why do you think you can bully me?

  • SomeGuy||

    The sad thing hihn is my mom could even understand this and she couldnt even use email until a year or two ago. She can only use an ipad but she could still understand this.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (LAUGHING)

  • Greg F||

    Here's the link again AND THE DETAILS (fourth time)
    Note that it's in the section that DEFINES the legal maximums at three different levels.
    It's only unlimited at 1 GB speeds, which ... ummm .... cost a lot more per month than

    What a dumb ass. It isn't 1GB (giga byte), it's 1 Gb (giga bit). Dumb ass can't even grasp the difference between bits and bytes. The bandwidth is 1 Gb/sec which obviously isn't unlimited.

  • Robbzilla||

    Try buying a better plan, you cheapskate.

    Or, move somewhere that doesn't suck, just in case you want to come back with "But I caaaaan't! The providers won't leeeeeet me!"

  • Brian||

    Because what kind of libertarian would leave market suppliers free to make decisions about what they supply?

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Palin's Buttplug also wants the market/him to decide which cities he can visit. He doesn't want airlines deciding how much to charge for airfare tickets based on arbitrary things like distance, number of travellers, fuel cost, or airport size.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Palin's Buttplug also wants the market/him to decide which cities he can visit.

    Not quite. The cost of internet access is bandwidth. So what Buttplug REALLY supports is gubmint dictating the same airfare for NY to LA as for NY to Pittsburgh .. because HE (she?) would otherwise be discriminated against, depending on where he or she chooses to fly.

    Calling it "neutrality" is how the proggies launched their con.

  • Brendan||

    That, and package neutrality.

    All packages should be treated the same - two thousand .5lb packages should cost the same as a single 1000lb package or ten 100lb packages.

    There shouldn't be any sort of fast lanes or companies having to pay a "toll" to get their package to someone faster.

  • Michael Hihn||

    All packages should be treated the same - two thousand .5lb packages should cost the same as a single 1000lb package or ten 100lb packages

    So ... you totally flunked Accounting 101?

    There shouldn't be any sort of fast lanes or companies having to pay a "toll" to get their package to someone faster.

    How would you punish anyone who violated your mandates?
    You need to learn what limited plans are, because you're demanding government mandated subsidies to high-data users. That's no different than mandating the same airfare for NY-to-LA as NY-to-Pittsburgh.
    And how is The Bern these days?

  • Brendan||

    It was sarcasm.

    It's sad that things have gotten so crazy my response could actually be looked at something a person would say with a straight face.

    I've argued heavily against NN here and elsewhere for a variety of reason, including defending cable companies that blocked or throttle bittorrent-it's a lot like trying to ship 1,000,000 .01lb packages through a normal post office and wondering they they're pissed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's sad that things have gotten so crazy my response could actually be looked at something a person would say with a straight face.

    You haven't read the page?

    I've argued heavily against NN here and elsewhere for a variety of reasons

    I replied only to this thread. Which is how it's done.

    But, I LOVE your sarcasm, now that I know!

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: Peter Caca,

    The purpose of an Open Internet is to let the market/me decide which sites to visit


    No, the purpose of a so-called "Open Internet" is to turn what is a privately-owned and managed service into a commons with the resulting price and use discrepancies prevalent in all commons.

    If the idea of paying for access like one pays for seats in a baseball game doesn't please you, you can always try going back to reaading books from the public library, if you can find those titles you fancy.

  • Michael Hihn||

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Looks like Welch, Gillespie, and Bailey's beloved throat-cutting ululating Islamonazis went on another one of their insane, murderous rampages from hell in poor London.

    What a shame there's just about no one here left to talk about it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I thought calling them "radical Islamists" was supposed to end these terror attacks. That is what every wingnut/GOP type said would happen if Obama would just courageous enough to use those words.

    How could you Trumptards be so wrong (again)?

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Any remotely halfway sane human being would do what Trump wants to do, which is to keep any more of those animals from coming into our countries while we deal with the ones who are already here.

    Of course you're as fucked up as those animals are. You probably enjoy seeing innocent people get their throats cut while sitting at the pub enjoying a pint.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You should remember from my many posts here that I hate all religion and despise Islam the most by far (as it is the most vile form of conservatism).

    So Trump fucked up the one thing he promised to do that I wanted for him to do.

  • Sevo||

    "You should remember from my many posts here that I hate all religion and despise Islam the most by far (as it is the most vile form of conservatism)."

    Turd, here, worships the government and finds it is a jealous god.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Quit lying, you piece of garbage. You don't give a rat's ass how many people your buddies kill!

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    "deal with"

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: Peter Caca,

    I thought calling them "radical Islamists" was supposed to end these terror attacks.


    By the same token, calling them simply "violent extremists" was supposed to appease radical Islamisms by making an implicit statement that there's no war against Islam. Seems like nothing is working one way or the other, is it?

    But at least by calling them "radical Islamists", the point is made that these radicals are not ex-college students who have gone underground but are, in fact, motivated by different ideas. Correct?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Looks like Welch, Gillespie, and Bailey's beloved throat-cutting ululating Islamonazis went on another one of their insane, murderous rampages from hell in poor London.

    Plus ... it's crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide!

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Net Neutrality is such a poorly defined concept that even its proponents don't really know what it is, other than "not letting corporationz ruin the internet" or "having the government save the internet", both of which are ludicrous. When they get down to the nitty gritty of complaining that "pay to play" is immoral and biased, they forget that it frees up the remaining paid bandwidth for other uses. The bandwidth used for free no longer counts against the paid bandwith; isn't that good? A naive questioner might think the answer obvious, but the typical statist refuses to admit any benefit from private shenanigans, and refuses to admit that government can do any evil.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Yeah, in my experience the argument for "net neutrality" always comes down to motive - preventing corporations from adopting hypothetical unfair practices - and not details about what the actual regulations will be, how they will be enforced, what the trade-offs might be. It's a prime example of vague feel-good do-somethingism.

  • Robbzilla||

    Well.... that's the line they sell anyway.

    The real argument is that government needs to control everything everywhere all the time.

  • Zoidzilla||

    A mostly free from net-neuterism internet has given us the internet we have today.
    How come all of the problems neuterists claim to fear have not only failed to advance and encroach on freedon, but in fact have been eroding, capsizing, and collapsing thanks to the very market conditions they claim will cause them?
    If fears were justified, decades of unregulation should have manifested these problems for all to see, we wouldn't have to argue based on what might or could, concievably happen, because of imagined -capitalist-conspiratorial-agenda, the problem would be staring us in the face.
    It isn't.
    Fears that without neuterism, rich entities will pay for better, faster hosting, force providers to cater to them, squeezing the poor out of the market, marginalizing them, are based on the worst kind of closed-system malthusianism. Should we stop auto-makers offering, safer bigger, more powerful cars, because to meet such a demand diverts resources away from making cheaper, better cars for poor people? Should stop computer makers offering more powerful products, because that means the elves won't have time to make stuff for the poorer folk?
    Should the state regulate the manner in which bookstores and newsagents give priority to the placement and sale of books, magazines and newspapers?
    Continue to part 2...

  • SomeGuy||

    It has been stated on here several times basic anti monopoly practices/net neutrality would prevent that have happened in the past.

    Comcast vs netflix
    comcast vs P2P
    Sprint vs VPN
    Verizon/AT@T/Tmobile throttling
    Comcast Throttling

    those are the only ones i know off my head but there are many more exist and many people dont know about because it isn't like a company is going to actively talk about its shady practices.

  • Bubba Jones||

    the dispute between Netflix and Comcast is not a Net neutrality issue because it does not have to do with how Comcast is treating Netflix's traffic once it's on the Comcast broadband network. Instead, it stems from a business dispute the two companies have over how Netflix is connecting to Comcast's network.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/comca.....eutrality/

  • SomeGuy||

    The issue is with ISPs charging extra fees for companies they dont like or they can get away with extorting extra money.

    Comcast knew they had the ability to extort extra money from netflix. It has nothing to do with the amount of data netflix causes. If anything pornhub, Steam, GOG cause more peak bandwidth issues.

    They saw a chance to get greedy so they used their ridiculous market/monopoly control to charge a single company extra.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If anything pornhub, Steam, GOG cause more peak bandwidth issues.

    Ummm, how would Netflix's "peak" bandwidth compare with pornhub, Steam and Gog combined ... when Netflix alone has 37% of all Internet traffic?
    Try again to attack all that greed.

  • SomeGuy||

    I explained it you just refuse to read and be intellectually honest.

    Downloads max out an internet connection.

    streaming does not. pornhub allows you to stream and download (movie files) porn at once. Assuming porenhub has good enough servers i can download 180Mbps aka 22.5MBps

    Netflix streams at ~5Mbps aka 600KBps

    Downloading a game from steam or GOG results in 22.5MBps which is 36 times great demand and is inconsistent and cant be easily planned. Netflix streaming is consistent and regular and can be properly planned as i stated before dumbass.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SAME fuckup!

    I explained it you just refuse to read and be intellectually honest.

    Dumbfuck INSISTS that being online means downlioading 24/7 ... even when we're asleep. Also means that NOBODY here is READING OR COMMENTING ... just downlioading the same page!

    Downloads max out an internet connection.

    Only during the download, chump -- which is a TINY percentage of time online, unless streaming.
    So you don't know what streaming is either!!!

    streaming does not.

    BACKWARDS!!!

    pornhub allows you to stream and download (movie files) porn at once.

    MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

    Netflix streams at ~5Mbps aka 600KBps

    YOU'RE STILL FULL OF SHIT! Netflix has settings, which can be as low as 0.5Mbps or as high as 25 Mbps.

    Here's the proof, chump: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

    Do we believe Netflix or a wacko who thinks being online means constantly maxing out the connection, 24/7?

  • Robbzilla||

    Ugh... Intellectually honest? You really shouldn't type those words after the post you just left. It shows that you're either fundamentally dishonest, or dumber than a sack of stupid.

    Guess how many people download those games from GOG, vs the number of people who use Netlflix?

    Netflix had over 50 million US subscribers in the first quarter of 2017. They consume around 35% of all bandwidth used in the US. Number two is Youtube at around 15%. Between the two of them, 50% of the bandwidth in the USA is consumed.

    GoG doesn't even make the list. Neither does Steam, a company that has a MUCH larger footprint than GoG.

    So quit lying. It really makes you look pathetic.

  • SomeGuy||

    only 10-500 people are on a node. So using 36x amount of BW as a netflix user is much harder to plan for.

    http://www.dslreports.com/faq/7135

    This specifically relates to a node bottleneck vs peering site but again using 36 or more times amount of BW at once is more likely to cause congestion and can't easily be planned for.

    So yes i am right and i know what i am talking about.

    Also ISPs have always claimed its only 2% of users that cause network congestion.

    That comes from ISPs but we know thats a bald face lie as i have explained.

  • SomeGuy||

    It isn't about overall data it is about causing peak congestion and netflix is not something that will cause peak congestion like downloading will.

    Peak congestion is what is most expensive and netflix is a regular type of data stream that is easy to plan for.

  • SomeGuy||

    I explained it you just refuse to read and be intellectually honest.

    Downloads max out an internet connection.

    streaming does not. pornhub allows you to stream and download (movie files) porn at once. Assuming porenhub has good enough servers i can download 180Mbps aka 22.5MBps

    Netflix streams at ~5Mbps aka 600KBps

    Downloading a game from steam or GOG results in 22.5MBps which is 36 times great demand and is inconsistent and cant be easily planned. Netflix streaming is consistent and regular and can be properly planned as i stated before dumbass.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Downloads max out an internet connection.

    ONLY WHEN YOU'RE DOWNLOADING

    YOU ALREADY POSTED THAT ... HERE:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6864019

    AND IT WAS JAMMED UP YOUR ASS HERE:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6864036

  • SomeGuy||

    Netflix causes a very consistent and easily planned for stream of data.

    Places that have 10-100GB of 100% maxed out speed cause inconsistent usage and high peak usage that actually clogs networks.

    If i stream netflix i am using 5Mbps and thats easy to plan for.

    If i download 100GB of games that is 180Mbps that is inconsistent and can not easily be planned for.

    That is 36 times more data at a given time and is the type of data that causes congestion.

    The issue here was monopoly business practices.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The issue here was monopoly business practices.

    Netflix alone has 37% of all internet traffic. So your personal use is totally useless.

  • SomeGuy||

    as usual your to fucking full of yourself to understand basic math.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Netflix alone has 37% of all internet traffic. So your personal use is totally useless.

    as usual your to fucking full of yourself to understand basic math.

    It's basic READING, Sluggo. (smirk)
    At THIS LINK, chump, which shows search RESULTS for the Netflix share of total traffic.
    So you've made an ass of yourself again ---- 14 times on this page!
    (so far)

  • Brendan||

    Steam and others are not irresponsible idiots buying transit from shitty tier1 providers that abuse peer links.

    They use CDNs and caching servers inside the networks of large residential/business providers.

  • SomeGuy||

    level3 is shitty....lol

  • Robbzilla||

    Multiply that by 50 million users, dumb ass.

  • Brendan||

    Comcast vs Netflix was a peering congestion problem that Netflix transit provider (Cogent) wasn't properly addressing. There's a reason why Cogent had a problem with AT&T, Verizon, Level 3, and Sprint as well. They were imbalancing settlement free peer links and saw their link throttled into compliance OR shut down.

    Comcast vs P2P was about the performance degrading aspects of Bittorrent. Like it or not, torrent wreak havoc on networks, and can cause noticeable performance problems on CMTS (Cable modem termination system) nodes.

    Both of these would fall under network management and were explicitly allowed by net neutrality.

    What throttling did AT&T, Verizon, and Tmobile engage in?

  • SomeGuy||

    The point is if I pay for a network connection I should receive what I pay for and not have my data fiddled with.

    Allowing ISPs to play favorites or block certain types of activity on a network connection is a bad thing no matter how you spin it.

    You know you could just google these things. There are plenty of cases about this stuff and EFF is a good start. So are tech forums.

  • Brendan||

    You pay for a connection to your ISPs network, but you are not the only customer.

    Much the same way a person pays for a meal in a restaurant and is not the only customer. If your behavior or demands impact the experience of other customers, the restaurant has a right to ask you to curb said behavior or leave.

    Things like Bittorrent are hard on the network and insanely disruptive on wireless links. Try running a nice torrent session over wifi and see what it does to everyone else on that connection. Cell phone carriers are well within their rights to block that sort of thing due to the detrimental effect it would on everyone else's connection.

    You could just prove these things with links.

  • Zoidzilla||

    continued...
    Should the state regulate the manner in which bookstores and newsagents give priority to the placement and sale of books, magazines and newspapers?
    Nonsense, markets grow, they already have, facilitated by forced-by-logistics-not-the-state investment of the rich, who, only posses their wealth downstream from giving us what we want and meeting with our approval. In a more liberated market.

    Libertarians reject this type of malthusian thinking relative to roads/highways, infrastructure who's inovation, expansion and accessability to the poor is limited far more by logistical contraints imposed by private ownership of property and resources. Why should we accept such thinking for infra- that, though physically based, is far more fluid, in ease of expansion and accomodation?
    Market dynamics apply to products, services, and infrastructure.
    Regulation didn't give us the internet we have today, the free market did. But if we're not careful, regulation WILL take it away.
    Don't neuter the market. It may make it more predictable and manageable for the statist chicken-little's who fear an unknown ( and unknowable ) future, but it will render the market impotent, and infertile,
    Market chaos is opportunity for the young and the bold. Further this cause.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I've been online since 1992. The Internet has never been free! And a single price for unlimited monthly bandwidth has been a dumbfuck business plan for several years now -- caused by VERY high bandwidth applications, like streaming Netflix.

    What we pay for is called bandwidth. It's not free! So how can so-called libertarians defend government dictating the terms between buyer and seller ... creating a forced subsidy if very high bandwidth users? That's hardly libertarian.

  • fafalone||

    That only sounds reasonable to people ignorant of how things actually work. The marginal cost of bandwidth accounts for pennies of your bill, and a tiny fraction of ISP bills. Peak capacity is the largest cost. A bunch of people all streaming Netflix at 8pm increases the backbone bandwidth requirements; but large file downloads at off-peak hours do not, particularly as most of this goes over peering rather than transit. And that is far better addressed by methods other than monthly bandwidth caps. Metering bandwidth like electricity is nothing but a profit grab that bears little relation to marginal cost. You're either an industry shill yourself or have been brainwashed by one.

  • SomeGuy||

    Yep!

  • Michael Hihn||

    SomeGuy|6.4.17 @ 9:05PM|#
    Yep!

    Actually, he was humiliated.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863991

    But not as badly as you have been.

  • Bubba Jones||

    So, they should charge more for Netflix traffic?

  • SomeGuy||

    If you read the last net neutrality post you would have understand how the internet works.

    Netflix pays Level3 for its network

    I pay Comcast to use its network.

    I pay for my own home network.

    It is level3's responsibility to have a large enough peering site on their side
    It is Comcast's responsibility to have a large enough peering site on their side.
    Just as it is my responsibility to have a large enough peering site on my side (router/switch)

    If I am requesting so much data from Level3 comcasts network is not able to keep up its Comcast responsibility to keep its network up to snuff. Not Netflix or level3.

    Is it comcasts responsibility to put in a 1GbE network in my house so I can use my 180Mbps cable line?

    No it isn't. My network is my problem like comcast network is their problem (mine since i am a subscriber/stakeholder). Comcast isn't responsible to install 1GbE in my house like Level3 and netflix isn't responsible for Comcast peering site.

    Christ this isn't complicated.

  • SomeGuy||

    just like Comcast isn't responsible for Level3 peering site if Comcast was the one with the most data hungry users.

    Should comcast pay level3 for their peering site if Comcast users use more data than Surewest and AT&T?

    Fuck no!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Christ this isn't complicated.

    Neither is nuclear physics, if you don't know what you;re talking about!

  • Brendan||

    No.

    If Level3 is sending more data towards Comcast than Comcast is sending towards Level3, then Level3 is the one who needs to mitigate this. Either by limiting their traffic to maintain the balance OR paying for the excess.

    It does not matter who requests the data, only who sends it.

    In your scenario, a Tier1 ISP that has settlement free peering with residential ISPs could provider cut rate transit to large traffic generators like Netflix, etc. and then demand that the residential ISP continually upgrade the peer links and tolerate more and more traffic towards their network for free.

    In the long run, there would be ISPs with nothing but 'eyeballs' and ISPs with nothing but content providers, with the content providers getting virtually unlimited access to the eyeball providers network.

    If you want rigid data caps, slow speeds, and/or high residential internet costs, this is the way to do it.

  • SomeGuy||

    If comcast subscribers want the data on level3 or any other network than they should pay for their own network...it really is that simple.

  • Brendan||

    Sounds like you want data caps.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That only sounds reasonable to people ignorant of how things actually work.

    (lol) You prove your ignorance here!

    The marginal cost of bandwidth

    Learn why marginal costs are totally useless for your comparison... and has no relevance at all to anything I said,

    And that is far better addressed by methods other than monthly bandwidth caps.

    Such as....??

    Metering bandwidth like electricity is nothing but a profit grab that bears little relation to marginal cost.

    Marginal costs are irrelevant.

    You're either an industry shill yourself or have been brainwashed by one.

    (smirk) Your ignorance includes FUCKING CONSUMER CHOICE.
    When Verizon has five data plans, that means users do not have to subsidize high data users.
    With a single plan -- pay attention -- the price averages out ALL usage, which -- pay attention -- increases the price for all below-average users, to subsidize lower prices for high data users,

    That's like when you wacky progressives say everyone should pay the same rates for health insurance which, for Obamacare -- pay attention -- forced younger and poorer people to subsidize lower premiums for older, wealthier people. You even fucked up Robin Hood!!!!

    But I'll bet you're cute, goose-stepping around your office!

  • SomeGuy||

    christ everything you just spewed is false. What he said is actually accurate. Go learn how the internet works and how networks and data transfers work.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (smirk) Your ignorance includes FUCKING CONSUMER CHOICE.
    When Verizon has five data plans, that means users do not have to subsidize high data users.
    With a single plan -- pay attention -- the price averages out ALL usage, which -- pay attention -- increases the price for all below-average users, to subsidize lower prices for high data users,

    That's like when you wacky progressives say everyone should pay the same rates for health insurance which, for Obamacare -- pay attention -- forced younger and poorer people to subsidize lower premiums for older, wealthier people. You even fucked up Robin Hood!!!!
    christ everything you just spewed is false.

    Why? (sneer)

  • fafalone||

    Sorry I called you a shill. Mentally ill shill is far more accurate. You clearly have no idea about bandwidth cost structures for last mile providers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's not the topic, chump.
    Be a man.

  • SomeGuy||

    its called an evenly distributed cost fee system.

    The cost of data is not every much and the bullshit math these ISPs claim is hilarious.

    They state on 2% of users use more than 300GB per month and they are the sole reason why internet is so expensive. That is patently fail and has been called out many times.

    It is impossible for 2% of uses to crash a network.

    Data is not every expensive. I forget the price but I think it is less than a penny per GB.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The cost of data is not every much and the bullshit math these ISPs claim is hilarious.

    Funnier than you INSISTING that we are downloading every second we're online?

    They state on 2% of users use more than 300GB per month and they are the sole reason why internet is so expensive.

    You get crazier by the hour.

    Data is not every expensive. I forget the price but I think it is less than a penny per GB.

    (snort) Crazier by the second.

    STILL waiting for why you'd force me to pay for more bandwidth than I want, or need.
    Why must I subsidized high data users. FIFTH REPEAT:

    (smirk) Your ignorance includes FUCKING CONSUMER CHOICE.
    When Verizon has five data plans, that means users do not have to subsidize high data users.
    With a single plan -- pay attention -- the price averages out ALL usage, which -- pay attention -- increases the price for all below-average users, to subsidize lower prices for high data users,

    Do the math.

    Does The Bern give you a cookie for all your trolling?

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is for proggie retards. Two users. One uses 2GB per month. The other uses 800GB.

    The retards are pissed .. PISSED ... that the first one pays for only 2GB.
    They even say that consumer choice is PROVIDER GREED. (OMG)

    Instead, they should both pay the same price, say the goobers. What would that price be? THEY DON'T KNOW!

    For anyone above the age of 10, the price would be the price for (800 + 20)/2 = 410GB.

    Why do the proggies say the 2GB user should pay for 20500% of their usage ... to subsidize 390GB of FREE data for the 800GF user.

    To eliminate provider greed!!!
    It ain't just Birthers who swallow crazy conspiracies

  • Louis Lucky||

    "Zero-rating" huh. So after Mr. Godwin decides how much of its product ISPs are forced to give away for nothing, can we "zero-rate" Godwin's column so that Reason does not compensate him for his labor here?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Forced?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yeah, forced..

  • Mike Godwin||

    Wait--Reason's going to pay me for this?

  • GILMORE™||

    Hitler?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Gilmore been brainwashed. Yet again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Bandwidth is not free.
    Measured data plans are based on the cost of bandwidth. Not content. duh.
    Using the same "logic" one can conclude that cable fees are a statist plot, and tribal goober libs would swallow it.

    The entire net neutrality scam is dumb. Some "libertarians" want average internet users to subsidize the bandwidth of the relative few who stream movies and music -- but they don't know how badly they've been manipulated. THAT is why limited bandwidth plans will expand, which a a GOOD thing. It's called consumer choice. But keep whining for a free lunch -- which, for most, means you being forced to subsidize the bandwidth of heavy Netflix (and similar) users.

    Any questions?

  • AdamJ||

    So you want the government to regulate it so average users are not "forced" (by private actors) to subsidize the rest? Or should consumers (the market) just be able to demand low-cost low-data plans?

  • Michael Hihn||

    So you want the government to regulate it

    (sneer)

    so average users are not "forced" (by private actors) to subsidize the rest?

    We call that NON-regulation.

    THAT is why limited bandwidth plans will expand, which a a GOOD thing. It's called consumer choice.

    Or should consumers (the market) just be able to demand low-cost low-data plans?

    Which part of that confuses you??

  • Greg F||

    Measured data plans are based on the cost of bandwidth.


    Measured data plans are based on bytes. Bandwidth is measured in bits/second.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Measured data plans are based on the cost of bandwidth.

    Measured data plans are based on bytes. Bandwidth is measured in bits/second.

    AGAIN?
    Measured data plans are PRICED by both speed AND data transfers! I keep TRYING to clarify your confusion several times, especially here:

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863905

    Bits/second is the same as bits/month. Data per time period. Seriously!

  • Greg F||

    Measured data plans are PRICED by both speed AND data transfers! I keep TRYING to clarify your confusion ..

    Let us know when the difference between bits (lower case b) and bytes (upper case B) has sunk in to that thick skull of yours. Let me spell this out for you again.

    1. Transmission rates are always in bits
    2. File size is always specified in bytes.
    3. There are 8 bits to a byte.
    4. Quit making a fool of yourself by confusing bits with bytes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Actually. your bullshit was TOTALLY ridiculed here, chump.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863975

    (smirk)

    But he'll continue stalking me. The bellowing blowhard.

  • Greg F||

    Actually. your bullshit was TOTALLY ridiculed here, chump.


    Actually all you have shown is you don't know the definition of bandwidth. Still waiting for that "unlimited bandwidth" plan.

  • SomeGuy||

    read this thread its hilarious. Hihn is a dumbass

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863939

  • Michael Hihn||

    read this thread its hilarious.

    Yes, I enjoyed humiliating you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Still waiting for that "unlimited bandwidth" plan.

    Twice is not enough for proggie retards??
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6864081

  • Michael Hihn||

    Measured data plans are based on the cost of bandwidth.

    Measured data plans are based on bytes. Bandwidth is measured in bits/second.

    AGAIN?
    Measured data plans are PRICED by both speed AND data transfers! I keep TRYING to clarify your confusion several times, especially here:

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863905

    Bits/second is the same as bits/month. Data per time period. Seriously!

  • Dizzle||

    Lol, again.

    You don't get the difference between bytes and bits over time.

    So everyone here knows, Greg F has had this correct the entire thread. Michael's being a tard bucket, aka a bucket full of tard.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Retard REPEATS!

    Dizzle|6.4.17 @ 8:48PM|#
    Lol, again.
    You don't get the difference between bytes and bits over time.

    It's the MATH you two keep fucking up!

    So everyone here knows, Greg F has had this correct the entire thread. Michael's being a tard bucket, aka a bucket full of tard.

    They were both documented as full of shit.

    Greg F here --- Dizzle here (smirk)

    So they run around repeating their retardation in other threads, as I've just proven.
    Stalkers.

    (posted in self-defense of serial aggression)

  • Greg F||

    It's the MATH you two keep fucking up!

    Your the one who fucked up the math not knowing the difference between bits and bytes. Your also the one who thinks there is such a thing as 'unlimited bandwidth' due to the fact you don't understand that the bytes in a data plan are not bandwidth. You think they are both the same thing.

    For your assignment show us someone ... anyone ... who offers "unlimited bandwidth".

  • SomeGuy||

    his cockiness is hilarious. Shows how much of a retard he is because he keeps making an ass of himself while thinking he knows what he is saying but doesnt.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How crazy is he? Watch.

    Your also the one who thinks there is such a thing as 'unlimited bandwidth'

    I PROVED IT!!!

    For your assignment show us someone ... anyone ... who offers "unlimited bandwidth".

    Already did, asswipe.

    HERE:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863905

    Repeated here, when you first went psycho.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863969

    That's twice. And you replied to both. One VERY sick fuck

  • Greg F||

    Measured data plans are PRICED by both speed AND data transfers!

    On Verizon the speed (bandwidth) is the same for all data plans. Doesn't matter if you have 2GB or unlimited they all run at the same speed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Measured data plans are PRICED by both speed AND data transfers!

    On Verizon the speed (bandwidth) is the same for all data plans.

    Now you're back to saying speeds is bandwidth!

    Doesn't matter if you have 2GB or unlimited they all run at the same speed.

    Nobody said otherwise, Sport.

  • mtrueman||

    "the relative few who stream movies and music"

    Yeah, a question, relative to what? I don't think I know a single user who doesn't stream movies and/or music. How is limited bandwidth a good thing? Limiting bandwidth is not the goal in Korea, it's providing everyone with super fast Internet, and they're pretty successful.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I don't think I know a single user who doesn't stream movies and/or music.

    So, you pulled this out of your ass?

    How is limited bandwidth a good thing?

    Pay attention.
    If it had no advantages, NOBODY WOULD BUY IT!
    Why is THIS page overflowing with proggies who know NOTHING about markets?

  • mtrueman||

    "So, you pulled this out of your ass?"

    I don't seem to have made myself clear. Where did you come up with the assertion that streaming music and movies is restricted to 'a relative few?'

    And why discourage internet use by limiting bandwidth? Most other countries I'm familiar with do their best to incentivize usage over fast connections.

  • fafalone||

    How many ignorant ass shill comments are you going to post in this thread? You're the one doing the manipulating here. Fine, you can have you metered data, but on the condition it represents the actual marginal costs. So my 200TB of off-peak bandwidth will only add a few cents to my bill. Stop shilling.

  • SomeGuy||

    glad to see one informed person on here on how the internet works. I was the only one explaining the internet on one of the net neutrality pages.....

  • Michael Hihn||

    How many ignorant ass shill comments are you going to post in this thread?

    (smirk)

    You're fill of shit -- since Netflix alone has 37% of all Internet traffic.

    Plus, for you to have any semblence of a brain, providers would have to LOSE MONEY on metered plans!
    Do you REALLY expect anyone to buy that bullshit. (Other than dumbfucks like SomeGuy)

    Now ... assuming the lower monthly fees are all profitable ... pay attention .,.. then you're full of shit on the relevance of marginal costs!!! Because .... wait for it ... NOBODY WOULD BUY THE LOWER DATA PLANS.
    So the ENTIRE industry is fucked up and should listen to you!!

    Still confused? YOU claim -- pulled out of your ass -- that there is no real cost difference.
    If so ,.. then it's IMPOSSIBLE for all the data plans to be profitable ... AND for there to be a market for smaller plans.

    Still confused? If somebody has a 2GB plan, that's only one hour of a Netflix movie PER MONTH ... as unwittingly admitted by Greg F in one of his NONSTOP fuckups.

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6863930

  • SomeGuy||

    please keep posting because the illogical shit you post is making my night.

    I wish i had some cider or korean wine to drink as i read this.

  • fafalone||

    lol i think i broke him, he's just spewing gibberish now.

  • Greg F||

    lol i think i broke him, he's just spewing gibberish now.

    LOL ... that is what he always does. Nothing new.

  • SomeGuy||

    never seen it this bad lol

  • AdamJ||

    I'm starting to get confused about who is on what side of the net neutrality issue. But as a libertarian, how about the ISPs and content providers are free to make whatever deals and offer whatever "free" products they like and consumers are free to react with their wallets? Then if a provider is found to be in violation of antitrust laws, it gets dealt with at that time.

    I have not heard a compelling argument (especially a libertarian or free market one) for creating new government regulations to solve a problem that has not occurred yet.

  • SomeGuy||

    The problem are monopolies. Comcast and other ISPs have the ability to force business out of the market and distort pricing.

    It happens often and is getting worse as certain ISPs own more and more of the market with too large of a barrier to enter.

  • jdgalt1||

    Wikipedia is so statist-biased that it's been superseded. Everyone should use Infogalactic.com instead.

    Of course, if Mr. Godwin got his way, doing so would mean we have to pay more to receive it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Wikipedia is so statist-biased

    Like George Soros finances snopes?

    Of course, if Mr. Godwin got his way, doing so would mean we have to pay more to receive it

    Read it again. Then learn how tiny is the data on a wikipedia page -- or the site you troll for -- which is all of 0.00011 GB -- or a half-second of time.

    You progressive teat-suckers want to pay for 2GB of data, but get unlimited data. On a libertarian web site!

  • fafalone||

    Progressive teat-sucker is better than anti-consumer industry shill spreading manipulative misinformation to try to extract 100,000% profit margins on something because most people don't understand the actual cost structure and what does and does not increase capital and marginal costs.

  • Sevo||

    fafalone|6.4.17 @ 8:17PM|#
    "Progressive teat-sucker is better than anti-consumer industry shill spreading manipulative misinformation to try to extract 100,000% profit margins on something because most people don't understand the actual cost structure and what does and does not increase capital and marginal costs."

    Sniff, sniff: Slaver stink!
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • SomeGuy||

    fafalone has a point. He isn't supporting social prog methods he is simply pointing out its not as bad as monopolies. He never said it was the best solution

  • Michael Hihn||

    fafalone has a point

    (snicker)
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6864038

  • SomeGuy||

    yep still intellectually dishonest...your point?

  • SomeGuy||

    If you read my 2 links above you would understand his point.

  • fafalone||

    You favor being enslaved by the corporations. I don't favor being enslaved by the government, I favor being enslaved by neither.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Progressive teat-sucker is better than anti-consumer industry shill

    Consumer choice, based on the consumer's chosen usage is .... anti-consumer!
    Can he possibly be crazier? YES!

    100,000% profit margins on something because most people don't understand the actual cost structure and what does and does not increase capital and marginal costs.

    Dumbass babbles about costs ... while pissing on his own face with 100,000% profit margins?

    Um, the highest profit margin possible is 100% ... which allows NO COSTS AT ALL! Umm, marginal or otherwise. (This is what happens when we call out the teat-suckers.)

  • fafalone||

    If something costs you $1 and you charge $100,001 for it, that's a 100,000% profit margin. You can't even handle basic math, no wonder you have so little understanding of how bandwidth costs are incurred.

  • Mark22||

    As I've written here before, I favor both net neutrality as a general principle... But I've also written in favor of a zero-rating as a tool...

    So, you're the typical statist, progressive prick: you signal your good intentions and demand that people respect you for it, but in reality, all you deliver is shitty regulations and crony capitalism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Where did he say as a mandate, trashmouth?

    Zero rating simply means the provider pays for your traffic instead of you paying for it -- quite logical, especially for an ad-supported or subscription service. Maybe some day you'll grasp how markets work.
    Or just stop talking like a jackass.

  • fafalone||

    Wow, you're really vicious about spreading misinformation aren't you. With zero-rating it's just free extra money, since never in the history of zero-rating has it meant anything other than just collecting additional profits where you already made a substantial profit from just the end-users bill, which entirely covered all bandwidth costs to begin with. Just shut up please, you're deliberately ignorant on this entire subject.

  • Mark22||

    Where did he say as a mandate

    He didn't say zero-rating was a mandate, he implied that a tightly regulated market should be loosened up and permit certain forms of zero-rated services in cases in which central economic planners like him deem it beneficial to society, i.e., the typical progressive delusion.

    What he didn't say is what a free market advocate should say, namely "I have no idea what market structure would be beneficial. The FCC should STFU about all this and let market participants work it out among themselves through economic interactions."

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Libertarians hate the concept of "public" (even though libertarian scholars have shown that it is consistent with the framework of libertarianism), but this is a clear case of a public utility. It is illegal for me to string wires across town to offer a competing service. And it's not just because I'm not in the internet game; companies with the overwhelming influence and money of Verizon aren't even allowed to do it in a lot of places.

    So as long as it's a public utility, there's no reason we should expect that people have the power to vote with their feet. And as long as that's true, there's ample reason why there should be sufficient oversight and regulation. Comcast is going to just have to find a way to live with being a public utility company and be thankful that they don't have to be a non-profit to be in that role.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online