{"id":77375,"date":"2015-07-22T09:18:24","date_gmt":"2015-07-22T14:18:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ict-pulse.com\/?p=77375"},"modified":"2017-04-07T20:01:13","modified_gmt":"2017-04-08T01:01:13","slug":"freeness-caribbean-vigilant-rating-net-neutrality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ict-pulse.com\/2015\/07\/freeness-caribbean-vigilant-rating-net-neutrality\/","title":{"rendered":"Freeness: why the Caribbean ought to be vigilant about zero rating net neutrality"},"content":{"rendered":"

A discussion zero rating net neutrality and why the Caribbean ought to vigilant about it.<\/em><\/p>\n

For those who have been with us from the beginning, you may recall that one of our earliest articles here on ICT Pulse was on Internet (net) neutrality, and we have been keeping tabs of the debate over the years. Since our launch in 2011, net neutrality has escalated in importance, and recently, there was a landmark ruling by the United States (US) Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in support of net neutrality.<\/p>\n

Essentially, the US ruling, which to varying degrees is consistent with that adopted by a number of developed countries worldwide, bans practices that could harm an Open Internet, such as blocking, throttling and paid prioritisation (Source: FCC<\/a>). All of those actions can be construed as \u201cnegative discrimination\u201d \u2013 where a telecoms carrier penalises specific customers or service providers, and not others. However, many of the regulatory rulings to date have been silent on what should obtain when positive discrimination \u2013 in the net neutrality context \u2013 has occurred.<\/p>\n

This positive discrimination, which is also known as \u201czero rating net neutrality\u201d has been a grave point of concern in the net neutrality debate. Though it might appear innocent, it has been argued that it still undermines net neutrality by giving select parties a distinct advantage over others.<\/p>\n

What is zero rating net neutrality?<\/h3>\n

Unlike \u201cfast lane discrimination\u201d, where telecoms carriers charge content providers (for example) a premium for increased bandwidth and\/or priority access, \u201czero rating\u201d speaks to customers accessing to certain services for free, usually on a mobile\/cellular device. Hence use of those specific services, for which special arrangements would have been established between the carrier and the content provider, would not consume any data under a subscriber\u2019s mobile\/cellular data cap allowance, whilst other similar services would not enjoy the same privilege.<\/p>\n

In the Caribbean, some of our mobile\/cellular carriers have established preferred arrangements with content providers. A prominent example is the fact that Digicel\u2019s mobile Internet customers across the region enjoy free access to Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Wikipedia and Twitter, thus freeing up their data cap allowance be used to access other sites and content.<\/p>\n

It is free, what is the problem?<\/h3>\n

At first glance, it could be argued that Digicel has done a good thing by permitting free access to certain online properties. There are still large portions of our population across the region who cannot truly afford mobile\/cellular Internet service; hence free access to select content can stimulate interest, and provide an opportunity to experience the benefits of being online.<\/p>\n

Although the argument could be made that this free access is narrowing the digital divide, the difficulty lies in its effect on the wider ecosystem:<\/p>\n