We have this in the UK too.
But I don't see this as an attack on Net Neutrality, you're just charged differently for what you use. Nobody will stop you using Facebook when you have a Music subscription, nothing is throttled.
But I don't see this as an attack on Net Neutrality, you're just charged differently for what you use. Nobody will stop you using Facebook when you have a Music subscription, nothing is throttled.
I'm from Portugal and the different telcos/ISP's don't see others offering this product as a chance to offer a better product they see it as a missed chance to get more while giving less so they don't compete they collude.
And this is just looking at it as a consumer. If I was trying to break the market with a new video service I'm pretty sure that favoring Youtube puts it in an unfair advantage.
Then I get a subscription with a bigger data cap.
The big problem with a lack of Net Neutrality is when there's a lack of competition and ISPs use their monopoly over their users as a product with which to strongarm the web services I want to use out of extra money. As long as they keep treating us as the customers and not the product, and make it clear what I'm paying for and what I'm getting for that, and I have to option to switch to a competitor that's more in line with what I want, then I'm fine.
It's true that favoring Youtube gives it an unfair advantage, but that's not as big a problem as treating paying customers as products.
You just summed up the exact situation in the US. Most areas have a giant ISP and some smaller ISPs serving more limited areas. There's effectively no choice for consumers though, since many of the smaller ISPs have to use infrastructure of the local ISP monopoly to deliver service.
Doesn't the OP show that you need to have the social media subscription to use facebook, implying it'd be blocked otherwise?
EDIT: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-in...
> But based on Meo’s website, this doesn’t look like buying cable channels for the internet. It’s an add-on to general-purpose mobile subscriptions, which let you access any service — including the ones above. The idea is apparently that if you’re into apps like Snapchat and Facebook (or... LinkedIn, I guess), you pay around $8 a month to specifically get more “Social” data, so you can use your regular allotment for everything else. It looks a lot like the “Vodafone Pass” service in the UK, where subscribers can pay for unlimited access to a similar stable of services.
This still seems awkward. I still don't understand why the endpoint being connected to matters at all. It's all data going over your lines. Essentially you're paying to "0-rate" a service, which just seems silly.
EDIT2:
Also, one of the main issues with not-net-neutrality is exactly this. If I make a slightly better social network, but it's not "0-rated" it's likely that people won't use it because it'll count against their quota. That's a problem.
The problem with this is that this creates an incentive for the operator to lower the regular allotment so they can sell more of these packages.
> I still don't understand why the endpoint being connected to matters at all.
It doesn't matter, it's just a way of extracting more money from customers.
> The problem with this is that this creates an incentive for the operator to lower the regular allotment so they can sell more of these packages.
The quote is from the linked article explaining the situation. I think 0-rating is a terrible idea for the reasons you said, among others.