Indian Internet and Mobile Association opposes zero-rating plans of any type, arguing this would harm online content
Indian Internet and Mobile Association opposes zero-rating plans of any type, arguing this would harm online content
European Parliament and Council reach political agreement on net neutrality and roaming charges, as part of Digital Single Market package
EDRI and civil rights groups argue that EU is trading off net neutrality for roaming charges with telecoms, based on Commissioner Oettinger statement that the Council is willing to move on end of roaming if Parliament engages on all open issues
The Internet’s success lies in its design, which is based on the principle of net neutrality. From the outset, the flow of all the content on the Internet was treated without discrimination. New entrepreneurs did not need permission or market power to innovate on the Internet. With the development of new digital services, especially the ones consuming high bandwidth such as high-quality video streaming, some Internet operators (telecom companies and ISPs) started prioritising certain traffic – such as their own services or the services of their business partners – based on business needs and plans, justifying such an approach with a need to raise funds to further invest in the network. Net neutrality proponents strongly fight back such plans arguing this could limit open access to information and online freedoms, and stifle online innovation.
The first discord in the interpretation of the principle of net neutrality focused on network traffic management practices. Since the early days of dial-up modem connection to the Internet, traffic management has been used to deal with a gap between available bandwidth and the users’ bandwidth needs. In order to address this challenge and provide quality service, Internet operators have used various traffic management techniques to prioritise certain traffic. For example, Internet traffic carrying Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services (e.g. Skype) should have priority over traffic carrying a simple e-mail: while we can hear delays in Skype voice chat, we won’t notice minor delays in an e-mail exchange. With the continuously increasing demand for high bandwidth (prompted by over-the-top (OTT) services such as Skype, Google Hangout, Hulu, or Netflix), traffic management is becoming increasingly sophisticated in routing Internet traffic in the most optimal way for providing quality service, preventing congestion, and eliminating latency and jitter.
In the debate over traffic management practices, net neutrality purists argued that ‘all bits are created equal’ and that all Internet traffic must be treated equally. Telecoms and ISPs challenged this view arguing that users should have equal access to Internet services and if this is to happen, Internet traffic cannot be treated equally. For example, if both video and e-mail traffic are treated equally, users won’t have good video-stream reception. Even net neutrality purists ceased to question this rationale.
During the past few decades, network operators have started to change their business models: in addition to providing Internet access, they have introduced their own VoIP or IPTV (television via Internet) services, video-on-demand, music or video download portals, etc. They are now competing not only with their counterparts for providing cheaper, faster, and better quality connections, but also with OTT service providers. In this new competitive environment, traffic management may be used for prioritising packages according to business-driven preferences. For instance, an operator may decide to slow down or fully ban the flow of data packages from a competing company to end-users through its network, while giving priority to data packages of its own in-house service .
Operators also argue that the demand for more bandwidth - spurred mostly by OTT services - require them to invest more in the basic infrastructure. In their view, since OTT service providers are the ones benefiting the most from the improved infrastructure, a multi-tiered network policy model requiring providers to contribute financially would guarantee the required quality of service for OTT consumers.
In an attempt to increase revenues, the industry has designed new business models.
Zero-rating services, offered to customers by mobile telecom providers, allow unlimited (free) use of specific applications or services. In some cases, access to such services does not count towards a subscriber’s data threshold, while in other arrangements, users are allowed access even without a data plan.
Although it is is increasingly present throughout the world, zero-rating has become a controversial subject. One of the main arguments in favour of zero-rating is that it lowers the cost of access to online information (when offered as part of a data plan), and gives access to (some) online information to users who cannot afford a data plan (when access is free of charge). Supporters consider that access to some information is preferable to no access at all. Opponents argue that zero-rating prioritises certain services over others, and, as such, challenges the net neutrality principle while harming market competition and innovation. Some also express concern over the implications that zero-rating could have on users’ human rights, in that such services can conflict with a user’s right to information.
Debates on zero-rating have become more intensive following the introduction of the Free Basics service in 2014. Offered by Facebook in several developing and less developed countries; the service allow users of mobile communications to access applications such as Wikipedia and AccuWeather (in addition to Facebook) without incurring data charges. These debates have led to the service being suspended in some of the countries where it had been previously introduced (India and Egypt). This map shows the current situation of Free Basics around the world: where the service was introduced and how countries are reacting to it.
Besides zero-rating services, telecoms also refer to ‘specialised services’ – such as HD video streaming that require higher bandwidths, or future e-health solutions – that may need to be offered and would require high quality and therefore special treatments.
In the meantime, the market has brought changes in the way the Internet works: in order to reduce transit costs and time, content providers have come closer to users by setting up Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) – caching servers placed close to regional Internet Exchange Point (IXP) hubs or within big regional telecoms. This has improved network performance and costs.
The consequences of violating net neutrality principles are not only economic. The Internet has become one of the key pillars of modern society linked to basic human rights, including access to information,, health, and education, and freedom of expression. Endangering Internet openness could thereby impact fundamental rights.
In addition, the ability to manage network traffic based on origin or destination, on service or content, could give authorities the opportunity to filter Internet traffic with objectionable or sensitive content in relation to the country’s political, ideological, religious, cultural, or other values. This opens possibilities for political censorship through Internet traffic management.
With the network neutrality debate, one of the major challenges regulators face is whether to act preemptively (ex-ante), in order to prevent possible breaches of the network neutrality principle, or to respond based on precedents (ex-post) once (and if ) the breach occurs. Another challenge that legislators and policymakers face is whether the problem should be dealt with, with ‘hard law’ – encoding the principles into legislation – or if ‘soft law’ (guidelines and policies) would be sufficient.
In the USA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted, in 2015, a set of rules in favour of net neutrality. Entered into force in June 2015, the rules ban three practices seen as harming the open Internet: blocking of lawful content, applications, services or devices; impairing or degrading lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, or service (throttling), and paid prioritisation of certain content, applications or services. Starting January 2017, when a new FCC chairman was appointed, there have been concerns that the net neutrality rules would undergo serious review.
At EU level, Regulation 2015/2120 sets out the obligation for providers of Internet access services to treat all traffic equally, when providing Internet access services, without discrimination, restriction or interference, and irrespective of the sender and receiver, the content accessed or distributed, the applications or services used or provided, or the terminal equipment used. The regulation also deals with the concept of ‘specialised services’, allowing operators to offer ‘services other than internet access services which are optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, where the optimisation is necessary in order to meet requirements of the content, applications or services for a specific level of quality’. The regulation was followed by a set of implementation guidelines, issued by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC).
Brazil, Chile, Slovenia, and the Netherlands protect net neutrality by national legislation. Norway, on the other hand, has chosen a soft-law approach, with the national regulatory authority issuing a set of guidelines for network neutrality (drafted in collaboration with various industry players and consumer protection agencies).
The latest edition of glossary, compiled by DiploFoundation, contains explanations of over 130 acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations used in IG parlance. In addition to the complete term, most entries include a concise explanation and a link for further information.
This study presents an assessment of the benefits and costs of zero rating services.
The book, now in its sixth edition, provides a comprehensive overview of the main issues and actors in the field of Internet governance and digital policy through a practical framework for analysis, discussion, and resolution of significant issues. It has been translated into many languages.
This paper discusses the possible impact of zero rating services on increasing connectivity in developing countries.
The report, prepared by the Global Commission on Internet Governance, outlines a series of recommendations to policy makers, private industry, the technical community and other stakeholders on modalities for maintaining a ‘healthy Internet’. It tackles aspects such as: the promotion of a safe, open and secure Internet, human rights for digital citizens, the responsibilities of the private sector, safeguarding the stability and resiliency of the Internet’s core infrastructure, and improving multistakeholder Internet governance.
This paper discusses pross and coins of zero rating, and looks at the impact of such servuces in South Africa.
This paper outlines Access's views on net neutrality, price discrimination, and zero-rating schemes, and looks at what improvements would be needed to bring them in line with the stated goal of connecting millions of people to the Internet.
The debate on net neutrality and zero-rating continued at iGF 2016, with a focus on policy approaches (Internet Fragmentation: Net Neutrality - WS173). The concept of rights, openness, access, and multistakeholders was brought into discussion; balancing these principles should be key to ensuring a universal Internet (Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality). The notion that there should be no ‘Internet for the poor’ enjoyed widespread agreement, with zero-rating practices being criticised.
As often happens at the IGF, an issue emerged as the hot topic of the week. A couple of years ago, in Bali, it was online surveillance. This year, it was zero rating. Zero rating is the practice of not charging customers for specific applications or services they use. The most famous example is Facebook’s internet.org, now rebranded ‘Free Basics’. The Free Basics service provides free access to content and applications to populations in a number of developing countries, with the aim of providing some level of Internet service to people who otherwise would have no service at all.
However, for critics of zero rating, this ‘walled garden’ approach conflicts with any rational policy of social development through innovation, as panellists from Can Internet Rights and Access Goals be Reconciled? (WS 126) said.
While zero rating in developed markets may have stronger implications for competition and unfettered access to information, in an undeveloped market, where there is otherwise very limited or no access to the Internet, does the provision of some services through zero rating actually empower, rather than disempower, users?
One idea discussed during the Dynamic Coalition for Net Neutrality’s meeting is the existence of alternatives to zero rating that may be more sustainable in fostering Internet access and interconnectivity, among which are community networks that provide a decentralised alternative.
Some have asked whether we are witnessing a new ‘cyber’ imperialism, where the well-resourced tell the non-resourced that it is better for them to remain non-resourced until they have full resources rather than enjoy partial resources. On one hand, as speakers in Zero-rating and Neutrality Policies in Developing Countries (WS 156) said, users in least developed countries might prefer some access over no access. But as another speaker said (in WS 126), ‘If you want to give us access, don’t give us these tricks, give us real access. Don’t give us condescending statements like you’re too poor. Just deal with it. Give us real access.’
As with the two previous IGF hot topics, it may be that this IGF is the initial brainstorming phase of the zero rating discussion, with all parties passionately telling each other what they think without listening quite as intensely to each other’s viewpoints. As with online surveillance and human rights, perhaps IGF2016 will see a more focused and mature discussion on zero rating – possibly as part of the wider discussion on how to bring access to all.