tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post13245005221508887..comments2024-03-20T22:57:03.923+00:00Comments on Dean Bubley's Disruptive Wireless: EU Telecoms: Why the European Parliament needs to enforce clear Net Neutrality lawsDean Bubleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-87904432652811141932015-10-26T11:02:14.392+00:002015-10-26T11:02:14.392+00:00"Again, the “absolutist” lobby engages in str..."Again, the “absolutist” lobby engages in strawman arguments about telcos and ISPs “picking winners” via zero-rating of data traffic."<br /><br />Why do you consider "picking winners" to be a straw man argument? The telco/ISP does pick the services it includes in the zero rating package. Even if the zero rating itself does not pick the market winner, zero rating does influence the consumer which service to prefer. Clearly there will be a cost differential between services, as the zero rated service will cost only the monthly subscription fee while the non-zero rated service will cost the monthly fee plus any data charges. This cost differential can become quite large with streaming services. <br /><br />It is also quite clear that the telco/ISP is "picking winners" when choosing which service providers to include. Non-entities, non-contenders and non-participant are clearly at a disadvantage compared to the service providers who manage to get on the short list. <br /><br />Obviously zero rated does not equal market winner, but the "picking winners" term is a convenient shorthand to illustrate the concept and consequences even if it not strictly speaking 100% accurate. <br /><br />Are you opposing "picking winners" due to it's inaccuracy or some other reason? And if "picking winners" is a straw man, what is the correct argument to be rebuffed?NNednoreply@blogger.com