This is next level stuff, I say your comment is taking bits and pieces of my comment instead of addressing the whole thing, so you take bits and pieces of your own comment to prove that you're not taking bits and pieces of mine?
Let me just spell out what's wrong with your original comment then:
>>You are committing so obvious fallacies it's just not really believable that you aren't aware.
Great start. Really, I wish the internet had never learned the word "fallacy" to insert it at the drop of a hat
--
>> They assume "If Spotify is free, they must be baking the cost into non-Spotify data". Which is not true.
>>So, how is that data paid for then? Or are you saying that there are no costs associated with providing that service? Does it not cost anything to operate the cell towers that transmit the spotify data?
Well if you kept reading I spell that out:
Zero rating lets ISPs allow usages that would otherwise turn people away from data completely, while still charging from uses that are incidental. You'll be more likely to use your phone's data if you also have it on while in the car to stream music, the sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total.
Again. The sum for the ISP is less money per MB on average, but more MBs in total.
--
>> Zero rating lets ISPs allow usages that would otherwise turn people away >>from data completely,
>>So, let's compare two scenarios that only differ in whether there is zero >>rating involved:
>>1. The customer has a data cap of 100 GB for n $/month.
>>2. The customer has a data cap of 10 GB plus an average (across customers, not enforced for individual customers) 90 GB of bandwidth that is limited to specific services for n $/month.
What advantages/additional usages does the limitation to specific services in the latter case allow that the former does not?
Now you also need to also actually know how zero rating is being used, they give you unlimited to those services, but they're allowed to limit the quality of service. They're allowed to form partnerships with the zero rated services. They're allowed to use their own services. These are all factors that add up to either saving cost or generating additional revenue over normal data usage.
I take it that a person genuinely interested in net neutrality understands some context of it's real world effects so I didn't think I'd have to spell that about but apparently not.
--
And I'll mention the one part of your second comment that isn't just restating your first comment:
>>Yes, a minute of video takes much more bandwidth to transfer than a minute of text to read, in that sense, that's true, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand.
It's not relevant because it doesn't support your point of view...
The peak bandwidth and total bandwidth needed to let people consume the internet increases if the media the internet is composed of requires... more peak bandwidth and total bandwidth.
You could read 1990s style HTML and ultra compressed low res JPEG for a year and not use as much data as 4k Netflix does in an hour. That's extremely relevant when suddenly all your customers want to be able to do that.