@Anonymous Coward — Not sure how the caching you talk about relates to net neutrality. Caching a file is different to charging different rates for different types of data (eg Youtube costing less than Vimeo) or purposely downgraded performance for business gain. Bit is bits is bits does not suggest that ISPs should not be making sure their networks perform at their peak; it means if I want to spend 400GB on Youtube or if I want to spend 400GB for P2P file-sharing then you shouldn't throttling me for the latter. The speeds I pay for up and down traffic should be the speeds I get whether I'm watching Youtube or using P2P file-sharing software.

When I read the article I presumed it was one of those sarcastic articles joking about how the internet will never become. What's tragic is I was wrong and you honestly think that could happen? Let me quote you: "ISPs are in the business of bits; and bits are bits are bits. There should be NO discrimination." What a WRONG assumption! Fact of the matter is it COSTS the ISP a ton more for international data than it does for local data. That's why larger ISP's cache a lot of things such as YouTube video, so they don't have to stream that same flick across international circuits more times than needed. Lets face it, you seriously need to do some research and get your facts straight! Tell me, why is the US imposing data caps? Is it because home users are pulling hundreds of gigs a month on games? Hell no, games use almost no bandwidth. So what about YouTube? Nah not really, again it's not the sort of thing you'll get a majority of users spending a lot of time on, and besides highly compressed video isn't that bad, especially when it's US-local. The reason why the US and Canada are imposing traffic caps (Some of around 400Gigs I might add) is to prevent P2P & illegal file-sharing from saturating their networks ultimately resulting in a poorer quality service for others who want to use their network for legitimate purposes. Research, time to do it before you fill the internet with more dribble that can only be summarized as FUD (That's Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in case you've not been around the internet long enough to know).

Duncan — Thank you for stopping by. I am glad to hear that Orcon is committed to a free and open internet. Let me repeat what I believe I have clarified in the comments; I don't believe the current offer is anti-net-neutral. I also believe that net neutrality is a fine line to walk. I can't myself yet figure out if there'd be any long term side effects if say, Youtube were paying for the bandwidth on your customers' behalf, as long as you still treated their packets the same as Vimeo's (the payment is just redirected so to speak.) I am sure though, that if you treated sella.co.nz's packets differently to trademe.co.nz's packets because TradeMe would pay you and sella wouldn't — that, I know is clearly wrong. My reference to Vodafone's TXT2000 plans was just that at the start we all thought it was amazing and didn't think of the consequences that on-net/off-net charges would lead to (i.e. being stuck on Vodafone.) Could the O-Zone be similar? I can't leave Orcon because of the O-Zone and leaving would make it FAR too expensive to consider changing? Currently I don't believe that's the case yet; I just want to make sure we talk about it along the way so we don't get to that point.

I just wanted to clarify a couple of things on this Ludwig: - In no way is there any commercial relationship between us and YouTube/Google in relation to this promotion. We receive no benefit from them for zero rating the YouTube content. - We are not blocking or restricting access to any site on the Internet. You are still free to choose to use your data cap as you see fit. - I think the comparison to Vodafone on-net mobile offerings is flawed. That is a tactic used to build community by introducing an incentive to encourage your friends to make sure that they are on the same network as you. As above, we have no commercial relationship with Google/YouTube when it comes to this promotion. We have no vested interest in encouraging you to use YouTube (in fact, the more you use it, the more it costs us in International bandwidth fees). We are commited to a free and open Internet. One of the greatest things about the Internet is the low barrier to entry, and the way that smart people with great ideas are able to get great cut through and constantly push the envelope of what is possible. We don't see what we have done with our limited time YouTube offer as a threat to this, more as a step toward the ultimate goal which is to remove usage caps for all broadband customers. Duncan Blair Head of Brand and Communications Orcon

So? Do I care - actually "NO"... as I think VIMEO sucks - (period)... & It was Youtube whom welcomed me with open arms & a 10minute limit.... unlike VIMEO ?
Whom ... strangely ?Wwhen I tried to "ask" how I could put audio with stills ON_SITE, as against a VIDEO (in mono) that I had no-way of making- at that time? VIMEO actively discourage "me" - by IMMEDIATELY_BLOCKING access to their site... (WOW - I had found a really big "internet" OSTERIDGRE- talk about STICKING the proverbrial HEAD in the sand - AND I WAS ONLY ASKING A QUESTION...)

So - Who did U say O-con was ??? ...Ii thought he was a singer - or something...!!!

Oh & I'm with TELECOM - better the devil I'm used to eh?

Nathaniel - Lower data caps are being introduced in the US as of late and this is something I don't have an issue with as long as the service I pay for I am guaranteed; this was not the case before which is why these caps are being introduced in the States. I have to say that right now, they are higher and probably cheaper than in NZ which sucks. Vincent & James - Look at the mobile space right now, specifically Vodafone. They have "standard rates" for SMS (20c) but in reality that's not what consumers pay for texting on Vodafone (they use TXT2000/4000 bundles which are VF–VF only.) Practically they are blocking you from texting Telecom as it is so much more expensive. Now any amount is data for at cost is much more expensive than free and if you can have it for free why pay for something similar albeit slightly different? What will happen to Stuff when NZers get access to TVNZ for free? Not much. What will happen to Trademe when you have to start paying *extra* to access it because Trade Me Ltd. *won't* play ball with ISPs and subsidise their bandwidth. What we have now is not YET the issue but what it could lead to. ISPs are in the business of bits; and bits are bits are bits. There should be NO discrimination.

It seems strange to complain about Orcon offering YouTube for free when the clearly don't have to do it. Would you suggest because Orcon is singling out a service or two (TVNZ is another they don't bill for, I like that!) they should now stop because it's not fair to all services? I disagree. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality (NZ has bandwidth caps that other nations like the US don't impose which is a much bigger and important issue) and everything to do with marketing.

Vincent - I agree with most of what you say, apart from the bit in capitals. What Ludwig is saying is that we are not free to choose, Orcon are installing an artificial cost to access one site as opposed to another. In essence this is not what the free market is about, this is a market operating as a form of cartel. However, I don't think these deals will eventually destroy net neutrality in the long run - unlimited data caps would make them redundant.

This is what the free market is about. A Business firm adapting its strategies to attract consumers. Offering free sites does not necessarily override existing consumer preferences as to which sites they would like to visit. I had never heard of Vimeo before today but You Tube is already popular and visited regularly. Also the impact of Free Sites will diminish as data caps increase as they probably will in the future. There is no Slippery slope as you're FREE TO CHOOSE.

Great article, this is a serious issue. Do we do nothing and let the free market decide, or do we hand over the keys to regulators. Good job increasing awareness about net neutrality, because once we've lost it, it's gone for good. Lots more sensibly minded articles like this please.