Why Free Can Be a Problem on the Internet

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/why-free-can-be-a-problem-on-the-internet.html?ref=opinion

by hvo • 11 years ago

84 64 11 years ago

Cheap is better than free. If we had a way to seamlessly pay pennies for access, we'd never have to sell our data or suffer through ads.

intrasight• 11 years ago

Agreed. We're still all waiting for the micropayment revolution.

solotronics• 11 years ago

this is a great application for BTC in my opinion

thaumasiotes2• 11 years ago

It'll never happen. The cost of buying something can't go below the attentional cost of deciding whether to buy it.

mindslight2• 11 years ago

After you've paid these pennies, what is the incentive to not still show you ads or surveil you for commercial advantage?

IMHO we're better off focusing on defeating the hostile behavior first. The Internet was a much nicer place before monetization via web spam.

carbocation• 11 years ago

In fact, after you have paid these pennies, you have proven that you are willing to pay. This makes you even more valuable for an advertiser than you were when you paid nothing...

tptacek3• 11 years ago

It was? I don't remember it that way.

There was definitely a lot less web spam before web spam, and pages loaded faster, but we weren't more secure (we were less secure, for reasons having nothing to do with web spam), and we had fewer choices and less content.

privong2• 11 years ago

After you've paid these pennies, what is the incentive to not still show you ads or surveil you for commercial advantage?

The parent may have been saying that if we'd had micropayments earlier, the ad culture may never have arisen or gotten as bad.

However, I think there's still a chance that micropayments could reduce ads. If it can result in a reasonable revenue stream, it might become advantageous to reduce ads and market that one's website doesn't track people with ads. That might further drive revenue.

ZoFreX• 11 years ago

The amount currently paid by users (in terms of their bandwidth used for ads) massively exceeds the amount websites get for displaying those ads. If users paid directly, they would need to pay _very little_ to be outbidding the advertisers so much that it wouldn't be worth the effort to add an ad platform to your website. That's the incentive to not still show you ads.

chongli• 11 years ago

You pay a penny to read an article. If they show you an ad and you find that objectionable, withhold future pennies. Further, inform anyone who will listen that the publisher is being dishonest about ads. Anyone who finds this objectionable will likewise withhold their pennies.

What makes this hypothetical microtransaction-based market different from classical publishing/broadcasting is the lack of friction on the internet. Friendster, Myspace, Digg et al. is the lesson we should all take to heart.

Swizec3• 11 years ago

The problem with cheap is that people have huge expectations. "What do you mean I'm not entitled to life-long free updates after I paid you $0.9 for your app? I AM A PAYING CUSTOMER AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!"

Happens a lot. I write books, here is a lovely email I got from somebody who spent a whopping $7:

Please refund me this purchase immediately. I cannot believe you are selling a product that is obsolete. React no longer uses [mixins] and we are already on React 0.14 RC-1. Considering that this product is effectively ONLY 35 pages, I would have expect you to have kept the code current. I will contact my credit card company today to ensure a credit was issued. Ed Post Script: I have perused your website before and was hesitant. Today, I took the plunge and am very disappointed!

I never get that sort of behavior from people who buy the $59 package.

;)

01Michael10• 11 years ago

Curious... Link to the product you offer? $35 page book for $7?

Animats• 11 years ago

We do. It's called phone bill cramming.

Premium phone services are almost as dead as premium Minitel tiers. It's an idea that's definitely been tried.

zanny3• 11 years ago

Its obviously against net neutrality completely to give fast lanes to netflix. Thats there is even a question about it is a sign of deep corruption in the FCC, that the move earlier this year about title 2 might have just been a feel good campaign with no substance if T-Mobile can get away with this bullshit.

LTE had the potential to revolutionize digital communication by dramatically reducing the cost of last mile links. One cell tower could provide an entire suburb with 100MB/s Internet. Nothing about the design of the spec should mean you need caps. The only policy rule that matters is that when you have congestion on the line those who have used less so far get priority over those who have already gotten more.

caseysoftware• 11 years ago

This is not "giving fast lanes" to anyone, it's not counting that data against the users' data cap. It's not remotely the same though it can (and probably will) result in changing user behavior towards those services.

The more subtle distinction here is that they're playing the customer in the best way possible. Get users used to "free" for some thing and if the FCC comes back to slap them, T-Mobile says "well, we want to give you free data but the FCC wants us to charge you for it."

And then people continue using more data and upgrades their plans (or pays for overages) making them more money or people throw a fit at the FCC.

Either way, T-Mobile wins.

eli2• 11 years ago

It's not the same thing, but I do think it's in the same ballpark: the ISP is favoring one type of traffic over another. And it's based on their business relationship with certain providers. Not a fastlane, but still counter to the spirit of net neutrality.

zanny3• 11 years ago

Its the ultimate fast lane. Your slow lane here is literally everyone not in the fast lane as soon as you run out of data. Except rather than it being slow it literally stops.

More appropriately T-Mobile wants to bribe content providers and screw over everyone else by offering the persistently overpriced data rates all these cell providers try shoving down your throat.

netneutralish6• 11 years ago

Great explanation. T-Mobile wins provided they can keep this up. At some point, for the most popular content, they're going to need to address network congestion and service impacts. Even if people opt-out, network congestion from the more popular zero-rated services will affect everybody. Who knows - maybe that's their end goal so they can then "legally" manage their network as they see fit? I'll remove my tinfoil hat now.

xlayn3• 11 years ago

Free is a problem per se: the thing is that it's a concept that represents an idea with no possible physical representation; you can't have something for nothing in short due to 1st law of thermodynamics. Things happen as a result of an effort, a work performed; and economy works on the basis of profitable actions, if you match those two you get a redefinition of free as a bobby trap: your info, your time, your attention or your freedom.

cgio2• 11 years ago

In your redefinition of free as a bobby trap, and out of the options you give which may not be exhaustive, I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom. Therefore, free does not mean get something out of nothing, or get something for nothing. Free is not even an attribute of the good per se; it is an attribute of the relationship between good and "consumer". What you do with a good and the amount of energy you have to expend to make use of it is an expression of freedom rather than a price. Price is conditioning and not characterising the relationship between good and consumer but the relationship between "producer/owner" and "consumer", you have to pay it before getting any relationship with the good.

How would you see the same definition with regards to free software? Of course, you may choose to spend time on contributing, but that does not mean that you have to, and obligation is one of the components of price. In the case of electronic content, the thermodynamics laws are respected perfectly as we can all see by the operation of the network/path that transfers something, no need for an additional layer of finance to have physics working.

EDIT: changed my high level definition of free

xlayn3• 11 years ago

"I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom" The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search).

"free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it.

TeMPOraL2• 11 years ago

Free is not a problem here, because we're talking "free" in economical sense. Thermodynamics does not need dollars to exist. Society has been dealing with (economically) free since long before the invention of money. Things like doing one a favour, or giving away for public good, means free on the receiving end.

And before someone mentions reciprocation - yes, it exists, but it always works implicitly. If you expect an explicit reciprocation, then you're doing trade and not a favour.

xlayn3• 11 years ago

We may be getting of-topic but address this part: "or giving away for public good", in this case for public good and someone performed a work for whatever was gave away; in the same line favors most of the time are a social contract of/for enhancing relationships with someone else; by reduction to absurd you can't do it endlessly, because it has a cost and someone has to pay it.

rhino3695• 11 years ago

This isn't really free. More like "included" in your current plan. You are still paying Tmo like 50 bucks a month for a single line.

massysett• 11 years ago

Better headline: "why 'Net Neutrality' and bureaucrats who think they know best can be a problem on the Internet". Because Tom Wheeler obviously should determine that mobile customers shouldn't get free Youtube.

null000• 11 years ago

What I want to know is: Why is this suddenly a problem now? It was already done when T-mobile made Pandora/a few other music services not count against your data cap - everyone seemed happy about it then, and much of the press enthused over T-mobile's innovativeness and daring.

It also bothers me that I haven't seen any arguments that explain why this is bad in light of the fact that it's supposed to be based on infrastructure requirements, rather than payments, company affiliation, or otherwise. Instead of being used to squeeze small guys out of the picture, it looks more like a platform for getting more exposure and traffic than you would otherwise. It doesn't really pose a threat (except in slippery slope-esque situations) to the things that net neutrality claim to be protecting.

Can't we all just be happy that, in a world of data caps, there's a company trying to chip away at the things you have to choose between spending data on? Does everything REALLY have to be a direct threat to the internet? Admittedly, I'd much rather see "no data caps ever" (there are plans for that, and they are pretty cheap on t-mobile) but I'm generally against letting perfect get in the way of good.

throwaway2048• 11 years ago

The most eloquent explanation of the problem of incentives this creates I've seen is that it dosen't incentivise your isp to provide the fastest, best service. Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment.

Eg, they will keep data caps tiny, because its better for them if every service with a lot of data usage comes to them to pay for a bypass. This is categorically massively punishing to smaller players without money and connections.

In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company.

Perfect isn't being the enemy of good in this case, "good enough" is being the enemy of things meaningfully improving, ever.

netneutralish6• 11 years ago

Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment.

This is a valid concern when the carrier asks for money in exchange for "enhanced" fast lane service. However, in this case T-Mobile is undermining that argument completely by offering "any website or mobile app that offers streaming video [to] opt into its program with no charge. And T-Mobile users can turn off Binge On at any time." (Emphasis mine.)

I generally agree with you about non-competing cartels of any stripe, but this particular case seems like it was designed to be consumer-friendly to T-Mobile's short-term financial detriment. Perhaps additional two data points will help:

1) Carriers (both fixed and wireless) that are not #1 in market share will sometimes engage in loss-promotions or tactics to gain subscriber share. The question often turns into "how long can X sustain this strategy, and how many subscribers will they lose when they're forced to downgrade offerings?"

2) American carriers are at war with each other, to the benefit of end subscribers.

ocdtrekkie• 11 years ago

It isn't "suddenly a problem now". Many of us said the exact same thing when T-Mobile announced their music plan. But we were drowned out by the excitement of people who didn't seem to know any better.

It's unpopular to say this but "unlimited data" is not necessarily a consumer-friendly policy. We talk about data caps like it's a way to extort more money. But corporations have budgets they need to fill. If not data overages, they'd just raise your base plan pricing or add more fees. Unlimited data doesn't really reduce how much consumers pay.

The difference... is how that money is distributed. For unlimited data plans, everyone pays the same. Which means the dude who torrents 50 gigs over 4G pays the same as my great aunt, who barely knows how to dial her phone. (But data plans are required for smartphones.)

Tiered data is the first step towards making people who use their service more, pay a larger share of the money that, let's face it, our carrier is going to collect from us anyways. It's just hard for many of us in the tech circle to accept that. Because we're 1%ers. We use a disproportionately larger segment of data than everyone else. Should we pay more than people who barely use their phones? Absolutely.

I'm not saying carriers don't overcharge, I'm not saying carriers don't add a lot of unnecessary fees. I'm not saying we don't have scary ISP monopolies in places where the government really should step in. But what I am saying is that metered data vs. unlimited data isn't the fight we want to pretend it is. And "unlimited data" plans with their restrictions against hosting a server on wire lines or against tethering on wireless is distinctly opposed to the values of net neutrality. And setting aside what services are free to use and not free to use furthers that not net neutral goal.

rhino3695• 11 years ago

Net neutrality has always been a solution in search of a problem. The theory has always been that the big bad ISPs will destroy the internet for the little guy.

Any FCC implementation of net neutrality should make sure customers are being harmed or some other anti-competitive actions are occuring.

But telling Tmobile they can't allow free video on their network is an unwarranted intrusion into their business model. Should the government tell Google they have to charge for Gmail?

jsprogrammer3• 11 years ago

Should the government tell Google they have to charge for Gmail?

Mis-analogize much? Google isn't exactly an ISP like TMobile is. Also, email is text based and uses near-to-no bandwidth compared to video.

erose1• 11 years ago

Their business model is supposed to be to provide access to all data, not to act as a gatekeeper and decide what sort of data people should consume. I don't think your comparison to Google is at all analogous to what is going on here.

Dylan168075• 11 years ago

"Free video" is not really a problem, as long as it applies to all video.

But let me ask you something. Do you think the rules that force telephone companies to connect to everyone are a bad thing? I think the way that's been handled is good, and that forcing data caps to apply equally is pretty similar.

Nyetan• 11 years ago

Behold, the problem net neutrality has searched for: Bell Mobility circa 2013 [1]. For $5, you could buy either 10 hours of Bell Mobile TV™ or ~1.5 hours of Netflix (not including your subscription) [2]. Assumptions below. The story has a happy ending, in that the Canadian equivalent of the FCC wound up forcing them to change their pricing after four or five years [3]. Whoo. What's a few million dollars between friends.

Make up your own mind as to whether you want this to be your future.

Assumptions:

1 Mbit/s video streams

Data purchased in 5GB ($35) chunks. Note that, if purchased in 500 MB chunks, one can watch 15 minutes of Netflix, which is laughable and therefore not presented due to shock value.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121220034331/http://www.bell.c...?

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130102055752/http://www.bell.c...

[3] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bell-denie...

Why Free Can Be a Problem on the Internet

Related Stories