Portuguese non-neutral ISP shows us what our Trumpian internet will look like

boing
43

They aren’t. The access under your bandwidth allocation is unrestricted. You can buy generic bandwidth addons or larger initial packages. Same as everywhere, nothing restricted whatsoever, nothing different whatsoever. The only difference is you can buy additional add ons to only certain general classes of services, social, messaging, video, etc. for a reduced rate. Every single concerned person here has made grossly inaccurate assumptions about what they are doing based off of the article.

Actually no, that isn’t how the internet works. The cost of data across peering arrangements varies widely and data can indeed be provided to known fixed locations at reduced costs by buying blocks at a discount. That is how the internet works behind the scenes even with your very own ISP because that is how it works globally. It is how the internet works. Bigger companies already pay far far less per gb of bandwidth than smaller companies, because they buy much bigger allocation blocks.

Actually no, they don’t charge different rates under any regular bandwidth package.
They only have optional addons broken it out by class of service, messaging, video, etc. and aren’t favoring specific providers over other, that allow you to use additional data for that purpose at a reduced rate. any provider can register, not sure how many get approved. The point is they are approaching it VERY DIFFERENTLY that most people here are assuming without actually checking. They aren’t doing any of the things people are freaking out about. What they are doing might not be the best idea, but it also isn’t what it is being painted to be.

personally i advocate for unlimited connections because any limited connection imposes some sort of restriction, that is the nature of limits. a 1gb/month plan won’t use streaming video services. etc. i’m not advocating for this companies style of service, only pointing out all the misconceptions being bandied about here that just aren’t correct. what they are doing is very different from what peoples assumptions are, largely based on the misleading article.

I know it is a lot to ask, but I really wish people would spend a modicum of time checking their assumptions before airing them. From the article author to the commenters, it is a bit crazy how many people are making blanket assumptions that just aren’t correct.

Net Neutrality is essential for how the internet works. Every bite of bandwidth is paid double in the current model, once by the company hosting the content for their bandwidth, and once by the consumer for their bandwidth. both sides pay the middle pieces of the connection through what is known as peering arrangements. It is very profitable under the current net neutral model, these companies are making record profits, not going broke. How do you imagine that the internet works? Guess what you don’t have to “suppose” or “imagine”…you can find out in a few minutes of research. Just a thought.

3 Likes
44

Net Neutrality is a super important thing to fight for same as other digital rights like fighting DRM, fighting for fair use, fighting for digital privacy, etc.

It is important to make sure that our side isn’t making arguments based on misinformation which weaken our overall argument and make our position easy to dismiss by the opposition. Lets do our best to let the other side be the only one spreading FUD based on wildly inaccurate reporting. These arguments practically win themselves when you stick to the facts. We can be better than them.

That’s my hope at least…

1 Like
45

I’m from Portugal and this is article is completely wrong. MEO is selling UNLIMITED DATA for those services, not access to them. This is actually very cool, you buy a cheaper plan and then unlimited data to the services you spend the most data on.
I’ve caught a lot of people sharing this on Portuguese social media (I’m guessing most don’t event read the article) and now they also believe MEO e selling access to internet… this is really bad journalism

3 Likes
46

You are simply regarding the €5 base rate and the €5 extras as separate things. That’s why you come to the conclusion that they are doing nothing different with regard to the base rate. Which is true. Also goes to you, @Rui_Madeira.

But the extras are still part of the contract, even if called extras. The neutral base rate will play less and less of a role over time. For now, it doesn’t differ much from what other, neutral, ISPs are offering, plus the €5 netflix option clearly kicks ass. But from here onward, there’s no incentive for ISPs to compete over the cost of the neutral base rate anymore. Rather over good relations to corporate partners. These will not be sealed on any free market, but, you know, at business meetings. I don’t want to fund those meetings.

2 Likes
47

If they were partnering with specific companies who were subsidizing addons, then i could see how eventually this would cause concern if base packages were reduced or stayed the same.

Base packages and bandwidth has been expanding incredibly fast due to technology, and that expansion is many orders of magnitude faster than what is required to mitigate any “market squeeze effect” many people express concern about being the eventual end point of such plans. Worth keeping an eye on going forward for sure, but nothing remotely close to the restricting access to those services without paying (ie. restricted closed internet).

It sure does. As long as it doesn’t break the internet! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I’d argue that they compete against other providers, which is what they do currently. These discounts aren’t achieved through corporate partners, that would indeed be a bit more worrisome.

48

I know. I’ve been trying to clear up the misconceptions but people don’t seem interested.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1 Like
49

I’ll leave you two (?) to it.

50

Thank you for saying this.

(I think you may be hopelessly optimistic to think it might happen (-: but thanks for saying it anyway.)

1 Like
51

Except that’s not really same and they are restricting something, it’s just nuanced. They’re not blocking access to specific sites. So, it’s not a clear obvious restriction. But, they’re pricing limited consumption differently to different sites. The ones that are more expensive are effectively restricted vs ones that are cheaper. It’s dressed up as allowing you to purchase some sites at a discount, but that’s the same as saying sites not on the list cost more.

That’s the same thing. Your total bill is the total for all the options you’re buying. The stuff in the addon special rate is clearly favored vs competing stuff that’s not in the addon. Since the stuff in the addon is cheaper, that also means the stuff NOT in the addon is more expensive, and hence discriminated against.

Everything before this doesn’t really matter, this statement and the process behind it is the entire question.

Since they’re charging for an addon that gives you say extra “video” usage at a reduced rate vs the base rate, the entire thing comes down to how they determine what’s actually in that “video” bundle. It’s a super nuanced difference, and it’s the one that means everything.

If the customer can register any “video” provider they want, and it’s becomes part of the “video” content. This is clearly great and doesn’t discriminate at all. It adds some burden to the customer to designate who a “video” provider is, but any new “video” provider could be added.

If the “video” provider needs to register themselves, but they’re all automatically included once they register at no cost beyond the act of registering. This wouldn’t discriminate much. There’s still a small barrier to entry for a new “video” provider that they have to register, but it’s so small at no cost to not be thought of as discriminatory at all, must more of a hassle as the number of places that need registration increases.

If the “video” provider needs to register and PAY for the right to be included, it’s highly discriminatory. This creates the scenario where the ISP is charging the “video” provider to be one of the favored providers.

If the “video” provider needs to register and the ISP has to approve them based on whim for the right to be included, it’s highly discriminatory. This creates the scenario where the ISP is picking the winners and losers in the “video” provider market. The scenario above where it’s paid for is similar and as the amount paid increases it get’s worse and worse.

From the article, we don’t know which of these four is at play in this instance. In the US, the T-Mobile model was more of the fist two and the AT&T model was more of the second two. On the surface they sound similar, but they’re hugely different.

3 Likes
52

But the Trump admin has all the people in place to make it happen. The Repugnantcans don’t care if the internet is run by corporations and detrimentally affects Amerikans lives. If they cared, they would’nt be trying to take our ACA and minimal social safety net protections away from us and reform the tax code to give trillions to billionaires at the expense of the Public Trust. The Obama admin did not have the ideological zeal to detrimentally impact the internet like the Trump admin. They see this as their last and best chance to change the economic and virtual business landscape, along with our online content to their dystopian future. Signing petitions, calling your Senators and Reps and attending rallies simply don’t matter any longer. The Reicht Wingers simply don’t care for the will of the people. They’re going to do what their donor overlords tell them to do. I hope to god you’re correct, that it is too big to be branded, but who is going to stop them?

53

When to conservatives stick to facts. Money talks, facts walk.

54

Redesigned, I have just one question… are you for or against Net Neutrality?

1 Like
55

Must be new to these parts? Welcome.
100% for and outspoken advocate of Net Neutrality.
Neutrality is one of the most crucial aspects of the internet today.

I’m of the opinion that “fake news” and false claims hurt the side I’m on (anti-drm, pro net neutrality, pro ip reform, etc.) far more than they help. They make our valid factual arguments easier to dismiss as BS and do far more harm to our side than than other side ever has. The real damage is being done from within our camp when they decided to mimic the misinformation of the other camp and join in their game, imho. FUD.

This is just plain untrue and not at all what the company is doing. I spent some time going over their offerings and familiarizing myself with the facts, visiting other forums and threads this news was repackaged from, etc. Shifting the argument to new equally unfounded points when the main premise is pointed out to be untrue doesn’t make the entire thing stink any less, especially when no effort has been made to check the new arguments either. A lot of other people are jumping in here with their equally unresearched assumptions with zero effort made to check if their assumptions were in any way based in the facts.

I’m all for laying down the actual arguments as to why Net Neutrality is so important, and to discuss the actual threats it is facing today, right now, that are so important, but i won’t let BS or fake news stand on our or the other side. If these arguments don’t stick to the facts, we’ve lost already. If we do, the real arguments have a lot of merit and I believe strongly in them.

56

The ISP is selecting winners and losers. Effectively their “discount” for services like Instagram is a disincentive and additional charge to use a competitor. So while the article may not have gotten the facts quite right about why you should be upset, the facts should still be upsetting.

2 Likes
57

Yes, I had read your other postings previously. But the gist of the matter is, we need to maintain Net Neutrality. Everything else is semantics. From what I hear you saying, if it were you making the decision to gut Net Neutrality rules, you would. I do not for one minute trust corporate Amerika, especially with the Trump admin and Repugnantcans in control to change existing Net Neutrality rules so they can then slowly dismember and neuter my ability to market myself or access the internet as I see fit. The internet for the most part was built by Amerikan tax payers and needs to maintain its status as a regulated utility. Corporations should have no right, absolutely none on restricting my access.

58

Sorry, I did not see your last posting stating you are
“100% for and outspoken advocate of Net Neutrality”
I was trying to dissemintae what you were saying from your posts. I look at it like this, keep the internet just the way it is today, don’t make any legislative changes which may open a back door for dystopian corporate regulation.

59

That isn’t quite what they are doing either, but that has been the second most put forward and corrected assumption in this thread. I have like 40 stamps on 3 bingo squares.

What they are doing is quite different than people are assuming.

If they were doing that, and if plans weren’t expanding at several magnitudes of order faster than required to mitigate a “market squeeze” effect, then I do get how limited plans with different rates to different providers would eventually be an issue and a reason for concern. I’ve made that argument in places where that actually was happening in the past.

Of course for informed perspective, these same people also fail to take into account the HUGE much greater price differences large and small players already pay in the “neutral net” already, amazon pays much less per gb than BB for example. Pricing impacts, and market squeeze effects are an important discussion to have where they really exist, but in an informed and smart way, and understanding how that is different from net neutrality and where they overlap is equally as important.

I can only respond to the exact same argument so many times and point out how while it has some merits it doesn’t quite apply as assumed here, and how what the ISP did differs from that specific assumption. At some point people are just going to have to read upthread, or look at the company’s offerings for themselves.

60

No worries. I agree 100% there are some very troubling laws being proposed right now that actually affect net neutrality and we should be focusing on those, rather than this contrived and misleading story.

Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, is pushing some real frightening stuff every chance possible.
This is a real threat we are actively facing right now.
If people actually care they’ll be organizing to stop what he is doing and discussing the real issues.

Much news these days is a distraction while the real damage is slipping through unaddressed. Most Trump stories focus on some stupid thing he says, media tabloid bs, while real damage is being done to the country. It is a classic con, a magician’s trick of controlling attention, imho.

The real tragedy is that the left isn’t sticking to the facts, they are jumping into the fake news fray as well…two “rights” make a wrong! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: It is exactly what the architects of the extreme american polarization want so they can control us and rob us blind. Anyone on the left that plays into this is just as much to blame as the right, imho. But this is getting into a bigger meta discussion. :slight_smile:

Basically that Net Neutrality is important but this is fake news and hurting the discussion rather than furthering it. While I’m correcting misinformation about what this company is doing, i’m not in any way advocating against net neutrality, in fact the opposite, i’m arguing that misinformation hurts our pro net neutrality argument more than the opposition ever could.

61

I’ve been vaguely annoyed by your approach to this thread and I finally figured out why - you have spilled plenty of ink purporting to correct inaccuracies or misconceptions, but in fact all you’ve really done is repeatedly express that other people don’t understand a complex subject, and that their input should be disregarded because they don’t know as much about it as you do.

Which, if true, fair enough. Teach us. But you’ve gone on at length about how important it is for people to defer to the true facts, and how much research and expertise you have on the situation, but have offered very little actual information or insight, and done a poor job learning from or cooperating with others in discussion. It seems that your main point is not about Net Neutrality itself, but rather about the great difference between your level of understanding of Net Neutrality and others’.

Indeed. Let’s consider your point made and leave it at that.

2 Likes
62

If you read my replies, I’ve clarified what the company is actually doing versus assumptions that were made by people who couldn’t be bothered to do any reading into the matter at all before stating their opinions and conjectures as facts.

I am no expert on this company, and never claimed to be. I am apparently the only one who can be bothered to read their website and the various other threads discussing this non-story.

https://www.meo.pt/

After reading their plans yourself, is there any assumption I’ve corrected that you feel I am mistaken about?

If so please let me know. I care more about the facts and would gladly engage any point you feel i’ve made that isn’t correct or anything the company is doing that you feel i got wrong.

I apologize that you found my replies annoying or didn’t follow my very specific clarifications around people’s misconceptions. You can always ask me for clarification about a point at any time or refute a specific point.

I personally find it a bit irksome that there are so many opinions being thrown out as if they were facts about “what they are doing” from people who haven’t even bothered to read anything on their own or figure out what they actually are doing. We truly live in an age where people consider their opinions to be the same as facts.

If you read my replies, what the company is offering isn’t that complex. I haven’t said anyone’s input should be disregarded because they don’t know as much as I do, that is silly. I have pointed out that what they are claiming the company is doing is not what the company is doing. That is just clearing up a misconception and is easily independently verifiable by anyone here who can be bothered to look into it. This isn’t my personal knowledge or an opinion, it is simply checking the facts, which used to be a basic journalistic skill. Anyone can do it. Fact checking used to be a thing people cared about. Please feel free to look into it and correct anything you feel i’ve misunderstood, that’s all i’ve done.

wait? now i’m confused, either my point was made OR you didn’t follow any of my points, how could it be both? Regardless, just in case you are sincere and not snarking…

Every single numbered item below is contrary to a claim made in this thread:

  1. This company is not blocking or restricting or reducing access to any service.
  2. This company is not charging extra in order to access certain services.
  3. This company’s base plan includes bandwidth that can be used equally for any service.
  4. This company offers larger plans and generic data add ons that can be used with any service equally.
  5. This company is intentionally trying not to favor one service provider over the other.
  6. This company has broken these packages out by type of service not certain providers over others.
  7. This company has a system for additional providers to register under a type of service.
  8. This company isn’t achieving these discounts through corporate deals.

What this company is doing different is offering discounted extra bandwidth to certain classes of services. Might not be the best pricing mechanism, but it isn’t breaking net neutrality.

Additionally but not specifically related to what this company is doing, some people are conflating pricing equality with net neutrality. Those people’s points don’t seem to reflect understanding the difference, or the huge discrepancies in pricing that exist already today on the neutral net. It is an important discussion to have, but meaningless outside of its full context. Amazon doesn’t pay the same price per GB as BB, bandwidth pricing is based on size and location and a very unlevel playing field. If people want to have that discussion, then sure, lets actually have it in an informed way.

Also Net Neutrality is actually under real threat right now, so while we all yap about this fake news we are distracted from the actual threat Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, is pushing at every chance possible. This is Trumpian era news at its finest.

1 Like