Why 'zero rating' is the new battleground in net neutrality debate

Re:Why 'zero rating' is the new battleground in net neutrali... by mcbridematt on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @08:05AM (#9333325)

To give some context, zero rating in Australia came about as a response by smaller ISPs to the 'Gang of Four' 'cartel' of large telcos, who have settlement-free domestic peering between themselves[1], and until ~2009-2010, had a monopoly over international transit (via ownership of submarine cables to the US)

Australia is a country which imports the majority of its content (submarine cables are not cheap), so smaller ISPs have an incentive to direct eyeballs to 'friendly' content sources - those who peer at major peering exchanges locally, or directly.

At least with the independent providers, this has been used for good - unmetered Linux mirrors, Steam, Netflix - as these providers do not have any content of their own, unlike Telstra (who holds 50% of Foxtel, alongside Newscorp).

[1] this 'cartel' was created under pressure of the competition regulator/ACCC in the late '90s, ironically. The criteria isn't based on any merit, just the largest market share holders at the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why 'zero rating' is the new battleground in net neutrali... by marcosscriven on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @10:56AM (#9334468)

I lived and worked in Sydney for a year or so, and used iiNet while I was there. They had a mirror of free software, and also zero-rated most iTunes content. With most ISPs there having caps (mine was just 100GB), it was difficult to not see this as a benefit, but overall of course it's far from ideal.

The other problem was just terrible speeds; best I could get in a central district was ADSL2+, with about 16/0.8 mbit d/u, and that's not including the terrible latency issue you had to deal with for a whole host of US and EU based websites and services.

Then again, I'm back in London now with a 150/15 mbit d/u connection for under £30, no caps in sight.

[ Parent | on HN ]