Zero-rating

Last updated
Portuguese company MEO gives zero-rated access to their own service "MEO cloud". Even though it does not provide unlimited mobile data, it offers packages to give zero-rated access to other applications and services. Contrary to popular belief it does not prevent the usage of said applications while using the regular unused data, but instead offers packages where applications and services within said package are not counted towards the data consumed. + Smart Net - advertisement offering service packages.png
Portuguese company MEO gives zero-rated access to their own service "MEO cloud". Even though it does not provide unlimited mobile data, it offers packages to give zero-rated access to other applications and services. Contrary to popular belief it does not prevent the usage of said applications while using the regular unused data, but instead offers packages where applications and services within said package are not counted towards the data consumed.

Zero-rating is the practice of providing Internet access without financial cost under certain conditions, such as by permitting access to only certain websites or by subsidizing the service with advertising or by exempting certain websites from the data allowance. [1] [2]

Contents

Commentators discussing zero-rating present it often in the context of net neutrality. [2] While most sources report that use of zero-rating is contrary to the principle of net neutrality, there are mixed opinions among advocates of net neutrality about the extent to which people can benefit from zero-rating programs while retaining net neutrality protections. [2] Supporters of zero-rating argue that it enables consumers to make choices to access more data and leads to more people using online services, but critics believe zero-rating exploits the poor, creates opportunities for censorship, and disrupts the free market. [2]

Existing programs

Internet services like Facebook, Wikipedia and Google have built special programs to use zero-rating as means to provide their service more broadly into developing markets. The benefit for these new customers, who will mostly have to rely on mobile networks to connect to the Internet, would be a subsidised access to services from these service providers. The results of these efforts have been mixed, with adoption in a number of markets, sometimes overestimated expectations and perceived lack of benefits for mobile network operators. [3] In Chile, the national telecom regulator ruled that this practice violated net neutrality laws and had to end by June 1, 2014. [4] [5] The Federal Communications Commission did not ban zero-rating programs, but it "acknowledged that they could violate the spirit of net neutrality". [6]

Since June 2014, U.S. mobile provider T-Mobile US has offered zero-rated access to participating music streaming services to its mobile internet customers. T-Mobile launched its plan called “Music Freedom” which would exempt users of T-Mobile from having to pay premium prices for access to music content; additionally, this content access would not count as part of an individual's cap, which is the limit they can reach before they are charged for data. [7] [8] In November 2015, T-Mobile US expanded zero-rated access to video streaming services. [9]

In January 2016, Verizon joined AT&T by creating its own sponsored data program, FreeBee Data, which "enables content providers to pay a wireless provider to allow its subscribers to engage with or consume a piece of content without it counting against the customers' monthly allotments". [10] Sponsored data on behalf of content providers through AT&T or Verizon covers the costs for the viewers and attracts more consumers. Some people have characterized this as ISPs having created a toll-free service for online users.

Advocates of net neutrality state that sponsored data "allows well-heeled content providers to pay for placement to the disadvantage of smaller companies that can't afford the same luxury". [11] Verizon's FreeBee Data program which allows its own customers to access certain content, like ESPN and its video streaming service, for free along with any other relevant app access and the data will not count against their monthly caps. In this way, big ISPs discriminate against data and content from those who do not pay to have their content included in the FreeBee or other sponsored programs.

Similarly, mobile network operators are also able to use the underlying classification technology like deep packet inspection to redirect enterprise-related data charges for employees using their private tablets or smartphones to their employer. [12] This has the benefit of Toll-free / zero-rated applications allowing employees to participate in bring your own device (BYOD) programs.

In education, and as a response to the closure of school buildings due to the COVID-19 pandemics, Colombian government has created a learning resources platform for mobile phone (movil.colombiaaprende) and "published a decree requesting mobile operators to provide zero-rating conditions for access to specific education services and websites (both voice and data). The government reached an agreement with mobile and Internet operators ensuring all inhabitants have access to educational content and guidelines, in particular lower income households, with a cap at about USD 20." [13]

Reception and impact

Zero-rating certain services, fast lanes and sponsored data have been criticised as anti-competitive and limiting open markets. [14] It enables internet providers to gain a significant advantage in the promotion of in-house services over competing independent companies, especially in data-heavy markets like video-streaming. A service provider, who is offering unlimited access to their service, will naturally seem more favourable to consumers over one where usage is limited. If the first provider is the one restricting access, they are creating a considerable advantage for themselves over their competition, thereby restricting the freedom of the market. As many new internet and content services are launched targeting primarily mobile usage, and further adoption of internet connectivity globally (including broadband in rural areas of developed countries) relies heavily on mobile, zero-rating has also been regarded as a threat to the open internet, which is typically available via fixed line networks with unlimited usage tariffs or flat rates. [15] [16] Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation have been specifically criticized for their zero-rating programs, to further strengthen incumbent mobile network operators and limit consumer rights to an open internet. [17]

The United States has not officially made a decision on the regulation of zero-rating providers; instead, adopting a “wait-and-see” approach to the matter. The FCC has therefore elected to examine on a case-by-case basis under a “general conduct rule” that “prohibits unreasonable interference with end users’ ability to select content and content providers’ ability to reach end users”. [18] Days before the Trump inauguration, the Obama administration FCC issued a report expressing concerns with T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T and their sponsored data programs. The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau found issues in wireless broadband services that vertically integrate their own affiliated programming, along with service providers allowing unaffiliated content providers to sponsor data. The report concluded that vertically affiliated broadband providers that zero-rate affiliated content most likely violate the general conduct rule. [19]

In the EU, specific cases such as those of Portugal were under scrutiny by national and EU regulators as of 2017, following the BEREC regulation on net neutrality. [20]

In addition to commercial interests, governments with a cultural agenda may support zero-rating for local content. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wireless broadband</span> Telecommunications technology

Wireless broadband is a telecommunications technology that provides high-speed wireless Internet access or computer networking access over a wide area. The term encompasses both fixed and mobile broadband.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Communications Commission</span> Independent U.S. government agency

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet service provider</span> Organization that provides access to the Internet

An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides a myriad of services related to accessing, using, managing, or participating in the Internet. ISPs can be organized in various forms, such as commercial, community-owned, non-profit, or otherwise privately owned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Net neutrality</span> Principle that Internet service providers should treat all data equally

Network neutrality, often referred to as net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, offering users and online content providers consistent rates irrespective of content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.

Bandwidth throttling consists in the limitation of the communication speed, of the ingoing (received) or outgoing (sent) data in a network node or in a network device such as computers and mobile phones.

A data cap, often erroneously referred to as a bandwidth cap, is an artificial restriction imposed on the transfer of data over a network. In particular, it refers to policies imposed by an internet service provider in order to limit customers' usage of their services; typically, exceeding a data cap would require the subscriber to pay additional fees based on whether they have exceeded this limit. Implementation of a data cap is sometimes termed a fair access policy, fair usage policy, or usage-based billing by ISPs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Xfinity</span> American cable provider

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, doing business as Xfinity, is an American telecommunications business segment and division of Comcast Corporation. It is used to market consumer cable television, internet, telephone, and wireless services provided by the company. The brand was first introduced in 2010; prior to that, these services were marketed primarily under the Comcast name.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in the United States</span> Overview of the Internet in the United States of America

The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in India</span> Overview of the internet in India

Internet in India began in 1986 and was initially available only to the educational and research community. General public access to the internet in India began on 15 August 1995. By 2023, India had more than 900 million Internet users. It is reported that in 2022 an average mobile Internet consumption in India was 19.5 GB per month and the mobile data usage per month rose from 4.5 exabytes in 2018 to 14.4 exabytes in 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius Genachowski</span> American lawyer and businessman

Julius Genachowski is an American lawyer and businessman. He became the Federal Communications Commission Chairman on June 29, 2009. On March 22, 2013, he announced he would be leaving the FCC in the coming weeks. On January 6, 2014, it was announced that Genachowski had joined The Carlyle Group. He transitioned from Partner and Managing Director to Senior Advisor in early 2024.

<i>Comcast Corp. v. FCC</i> 2010 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case

Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, is a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over the content delivery choices of Internet service providers, under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over network management policies and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

Tiered service structures allow users to select from a small set of tiers at progressively increasing price points to receive the product or products best suited to their needs. Such systems are frequently seen in the telecommunications field, specifically when it comes to wireless service, digital and cable television options, and broadband internet access.

The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order of 2010 is a set of regulations that move towards the establishment of the internet neutrality concept. Some opponents of net neutrality believe such internet regulation would inhibit innovation by preventing providers from capitalizing on their broadband investments and reinvesting that money into higher quality services for consumers. Supporters of net neutrality argue that the presence of content restrictions by network providers represents a threat to individual expression and the rights of the First Amendment. Open Internet strikes a balance between these two camps by creating a compromised set of regulations that treats all internet traffic in "roughly the same way". In Verizon v. FCC, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated portions of the order that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers.

Internet bottlenecks are places in telecommunication networks in which internet service providers (ISPs), or naturally occurring high use of the network, slow or alter the network speed of the users and/or content producers using that network. A bottleneck is a more general term for a system that has been reduced or slowed due to limited resources or components. The bottleneck occurs in a network when there are too many users attempting to access a specific resource. Internet bottlenecks provide artificial and natural network choke points to inhibit certain sets of users from overloading the entire network by consuming too much bandwidth. Theoretically, this will lead users and content producers through alternative paths to accomplish their goals while limiting the network load at any one time. Alternatively, internet bottlenecks have been seen as a way for ISPs to take advantage of their dominant market-power increasing rates for content providers to push past bottlenecks. The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has created regulations stipulating that artificial bottlenecks are in direct opposition to a free and open Internet.

Net bias is the counter-principle to net neutrality, which indicates differentiation or discrimination of price and the quality of content or applications on the Internet by ISPs. Similar terms include data discrimination, digital redlining, and network management.

Facebook Zero is an initiative undertaken by social networking service company Facebook in collaboration with mobile phone-based Internet providers, whereby the providers waive data (bandwidth) charges for accessing Facebook on phones via a stripped-down text-only version of its mobile website. The stripped-down version is available online only through providers who have entered the agreement with Facebook. Photos are not loaded by default. Users may still choose to view them by clicking through but regular data charges apply to photo use.

<i>Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC</i> (2014)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. The case was initiated by Verizon, which would have been subjected to the proposed FCC rules, though they had not yet gone into effect. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

Mechanisms for establishing rules ensuring Net neutrality in India, are at present mainly enforced by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). At present, there are no specific legislation regarding Net Neutrality in India.

Net neutrality law refers to laws and regulations which enforce the principle of net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

References

  1. ↑ "Jan Krämer, Martin Peitz: A fresh look at zero rating" (PDF). www.cerre.eu. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Bates, Samantha; Bavitz, Christopher; Hessekiel, Kira (5 October 2017). "Zero Rating & Internet Adoption". cyber.harvard.edu. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society.
  3. ↑ Morris, Anne (January 11, 2014). "For zero-rated deals, OTT providers can no longer assume the carrier will pay". Fierce Wireless Europe. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
  4. ↑ Mirani, Leo (May 30, 2014). "Less than zero – When net neutrality backfires: Chile just killed free access to Wikipedia and Facebook". Quartz. Retrieved July 2, 2014.
  5. ↑ McKenzie, Jessica (June 2, 2014). "Face Off in Chile: Net Neutrality v. Human Right to Facebook & Wikipedia". Archived from the original on July 5, 2014. Retrieved July 2, 2014.
  6. ↑ "Wolverton: Battle for net neutrality isn't over". www.mercurynews.com. 5 February 2016. Retrieved 2016-02-29.
  7. ↑ Ziegler, Chris (June 18, 2014). "T-Mobile's 'Music Freedom' is a great feature — and a huge problem". The Verge. Retrieved 2018-05-30.
  8. ↑ "T-Mobile's latest 'Un-carrier' feature: Rhapsody Unradio, an odd streaming music service". June 18, 2014. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
  9. ↑ "T-Mobile Stops Counting Netflix, HBO, Hulu, And Other Video Streams Against Your Data Usage". November 10, 2015. Retrieved December 30, 2015.
  10. ↑ Tonner, Andrew (21 January 2016). "Verizon Joins AT&T in This Controversial Net Neutrality Practice -- The Motley Fool". The Motley Fool. Retrieved 2016-02-29.
  11. ↑ Tonner, Andrew (21 January 2016). "Verizon Joins AT&T in This Controversial Net Neutrality Practice – The Motley Fool". The Motley Fool. Retrieved 2016-02-29.
  12. ↑ Fitchard, Kevin (January 6, 2014). "AT&T launches "Sponsored Data," inviting content providers to pay consumers' mobile data bills". Gigaom. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
  13. ↑ "OECD-EI Report – Effective and Equitable Educational Recovery – 10 Principles, 28 April 2021 – OECD". www.oecd.org. Retrieved 2021-05-16.
  14. ↑ Drossos, Antonios (April 26, 2014). "Forget fast lanes. The real threat for net-neutrality is zero-rated content". Gigaom. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
  15. ↑ Gillmor, Dan (June 6, 2014). "A government ruled for net neutrality. Too bad it wasn't your government". The Guardian. Retrieved July 25, 2014.
  16. ↑ Reardon, Marguerite (February 26, 2016). "Can unlimited video really be that bad?" . Retrieved March 10, 2016.
  17. ↑ MacDonald, Raegan (August 8, 2014). "Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality: Wikimedia turns its back on the open internet". access. Retrieved August 15, 2014.
  18. ↑ 2015 Open Internet Order, supra note 13, at 5666–69 paras. 151–53.
  19. ↑ FCC, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Report: Policy Review of Mobile Broadband Operators’ Sponsored Data Offerings for Zero-Rated Content and Services. Jan. 11, 2017.
  20. ↑ Andrei Khalip & Agnieszka Flak (2017-12-15). "False paradise? EU is no haven of Net neutrality, say critics". Reuters.
  21. ↑ Taylor, Kate (5 May 2017). "Is exempting Cancon from data charges the best way to promote it?". The Globe and Mail . Retrieved 6 May 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.