[nathan_f77]

If you pay nothing for a service, then you are the product. Facebook and Google are already providing enormous value for free, if you have an internet connection. Now they want to provide it for free even if you don't pay for your internet connection. This arrangement changes nothing about the consumer relationship.

[wpietri]

Except that you no longer have access to information that they don't want you to see. For example, they won't be able to see you explaining that for Facebook and Google, users are the products.

[icebraining]

Doesn't the same happen in TV, radio, newspapers, etc? I understand why the Internet is different (and better, imho), but that doesn't mean we should ban other mediums. Just don't call this service Internet access.

[CoryG89]

I actually think this is one of the better ideas/solutions to this problem I have yet seen in this thread. If you don't label this service as access to "the internet" then there should be little concern as far as net neutrality goes. As long as it is made clear to customers that they are not getting the full internet, and instead are paying only for access to a handful of services then I dont think this should be considered a violation of net neutrality.

[wpietri]

I am flabbergasted that you're just going to define the problem away. But it certainly is easier. You can solve all net neutrality problems just by labeling things as other things.

For the rest of us, though, that doesn't work so well, because there are societal purposes to getting people access to the Internet. Democracy requires an informed citizenry, and there is no better tool for that than the Internet. Reducing multigenerational poverty similarly benefits from reducing the digital divide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide

[icebraining]

Why don't you try engaging the argument? I think we all agree that Internet access is important - I certainly do - but that does mean we should ban all other mediums? If not, what makes this one different?

That we should give people access to the Internet is a red herring here. The existence of this cellphone plan doesn't preclude us from doing so

Insteadof being outraged that this company dared to violate NN, why don't we try to understand why would people choose this instead of Internet access? If it's due to cost, then maybe the solution should be to provide more affordable Internet access, so that they don't feel the need to join this plan.

[wpietri]

I don't think we should ban other media, and I don't know why you think I'm obliged to defend that straw man.

New mediums come along rarely. It behooves us to be very careful in how we adopt them. That's especially true for the Internet, which I think is more powerful and likely to be more lasting than its historical competitors.

When television came along, there was enormous hope for its power. But its commercial structure, at least in the US, left it to become "the idiot box". For people who would like to pay a lot of money to constrain people to listen to their messages, TV still exists.

it's possible that Internet-- won't reduce prevent getting people proper Internet service, but when making major societal decisions, I think we deserve a higher standard than the possibility of not fucking things up for the next few hundred years.

I do note that in the US internet market, the reason most people's ISP is their old telco or cable company is that poor regulation let the old oligopoly players rebuild their oligopolies for a new medium through undercutting real competition. That now looks impossible to dislodge, which is why we need net neutrality regulation in the first place. So it seems plausible to me that letting quick hits of easy money determine who gets to see what on the Internet could establish long-term patterns that permanently undermine net neutrality.