Slashdot Mirror
Countries With Zero Rating Have More Expensive Wireless Broadband Than Countries Without It
A comprehensive multi-year study by the non-profit Epicenter.works, comparing the 30 member countries of the European Union (EU) on net neutrality enforcement, has found that zero rating business practices by wireless carriers have increased the cost of wireless data compared to countries without zero rating. From a report: This directly contradicts all of the assertions by major wireless carriers that their zero rating practices are "free data" for consumers. Based on the evidence, zero rating not only serves as a means to enhance ISPs' power over the Internet, but it's also how they charge consumers more money for wireless service. Zero rating was originally going to be banned by the FCC under the General Conduct Rule, but when the FCC changed leadership the agency promptly green lighted and encouraged the industry to engage in zero rating practices before it began its repeal of net neutrality.
It's a fairly simple rule .. if a telco claims to do something which benefits their consumers, it's a fucking lie.
By the time you are in management at one of those, you are an undeniable sociopath who only cares about doing whatever it takes to maximize profits, and your own bonus.
Nobody in management at such a company isn't a complete and utter sack of monkey crap.
Epicenter.works is an advocacy organization, not a research organization. So this "study" may be a bit biased. They have an agenda to push.
I'm also thoroughly convinced it's an exercise in futility attempting to convince Trump supporters to stop voting against their own best interests.
If you want to change their votes, perhaps you could start by listening to their concerns, instead of telling them they are too stupid to vote properly. That is about the same as telling them they are deplorable, which, if you recall, wasn't a successful strategy.
The myth that Republicans vote against their own interests is based on two fallacies:
1. That they share your views about what their "best interests" are. They don't.
2. That poor states like Mississippi voted 100% Republican. Guess what? They didn't. Poor people in red states vote blue. It is the middle class where the Democrats lost.
if their vote directly hurts them, which it often does, then it is voting against their best interests.
for example republicans vote to cut the 3 large saftey nets, which that group largely depend on.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I agree but you'd be surprised at the amount of idiots who think that zero-rated content is a good thing.
They say that if we block carriers from doing it, they will offer the same plans without the zero-rated bonus. As if the extra bandwidth used by the zero-rated content was free.
Here (Canada) a carrier (Videotron) was forced (by the CRTC) to stop zero-rating music streaming since it has been ruled a net neutrality violation. I applauded but a lot of people said the government was making plans more expensive.
I thought you guys were in favor of the free market? That's the entire point of NN - to allow a free market on the internet, rather than allowing the ISP oligopoly to decide winners and losers.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This is my shocked face. :|
The ENTIRE POINT of net neutrality is so that the telecoms can't reach into your data and try to squeeze you for more money based on how valuable the data is to you.
Like listening to your phone calls to decide how much money to charge you based on how much you love talking to your mom.
Not all of us are communication nerds. Please define terms. Who is rating what at zero using what units?