Talk:Zero-rating/Archives/2017

Existing programs
Would it make sense to add a table of the most widely known and discussed examples of Zero-rating services and in which countries (and with which telecom provider) these services currently exist? In particular, I would think Wikipedia Zero Mobile Partnerships and Internet.org's Where We Launched would be good starters for this table. Gkrieshok (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Canada has also banned zero rating
Chile is mentioned in the article for having banned the practice, in Canada the CRTC has also done this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/crtc-zero-rating-differential-pricing-decision-videtron-net-neutrality-2017-1.4077717 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.96.53 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition is wrong: Not all zero-rating relates to "specific applications or internet services"
There are examples, such as the "Hayai Zone" which the ISP Hayai provide{s,d}, which is not an example of "sponsored" or "toll-free" data, yet is an example of zero-rating. This blog post makes it clear that "Hayai does not zero-rate any particular site, service or network because they pay us to...", and hence the words "sponsored" or "toll-free", which implies compensation are wrong.

Hence it is wrong to write (also called toll-free data or sponsored data), since toll-free data or sponsored data are specific kinds of zero-rating. --sol (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There are examples of zero-rating such as Jana mCent (which includes both service-specific free data as well as service-agnostic free data has been referred to as "zero-rating" by people like Rohin Dharmakumar, by news portals like Tech in Asia, MIT Technology Review, Forbes, Heise, and others), and Mavin's Gigato app (which offers free data rebates which can be used to surf any Website or use any Internet service, has been called zero-rated data app by its Director of Engineering, and options like Opera Web Pass (which "lets users access any website through the Opera Mini browser at zero data costs, but only for a limited time") have also been called zero-rating.

Thus, it is incorrect to say that zero-rating is the practices of not "charg[ing] end customers for data used by specific applications or internet services through their network". --sol (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not right to put words in people's mouth.
 * Rohin Dharmakumar hasn't defined zero-rating in his linked tweet.
 * MIT Technology Review: "Facebook is confronting controversy in India over its Internet.org app, which would use a concept called “zero rating” to give people free access to Facebook and selected other websites, such as Wikipedia, through one carrier".
 * Tech in Asia: "Often this involves offering free data – also called “zero-rated” data - to access services in exchange for being exposed to ads. In variations of the concept, data costs are covered through brand sponsorships or subsidies."
 * Forbes: "A quick and dirty solution is setting up deals with carriers to build zero-rating systems, where Internet companies cover the cost of accessing their sites."
 * Heise: "Ein Zero Rating soll künftig für jeden App-Entwickler möglich werden, der sich bereiterklärt, die Kosten für Download und Nutzung zu übernehmen."
 * Vinay Bhardwaj: "The correctly implemented Zero-Rated-Data as a concept helps us build a better future by offering “Mobile Internet for all.”" (suggesting he is trying to produce a new concept)


 * Opera Web Pass has not been called zero-rating. It just comes in an article titled "5 apps that offer free internet in exchange for ads".


 * I suggest that rather than extrapolating the idea from related paragraphs, you find out sources which clearly say "zero rating is not service-specific" an example of which is your own article (which you can't use here because of a COI) --asdofindia (talk) 25 August 2015 (UTC), signed later


 * Rohin has called mCent and Gigato "zero-rating". Gigato is not service-specific.  QED.
 * Even the citations currently being used don't define zero-rating the way it is defined in the article. Most of the citations talk of "mobile operator", whereas the definition talks of "Internet service providers".  If there is no single authoritative definition used by all sources, then the definition must either be a) a composite one including what different references are referring to as "zero-rating", or b) must indicate that there are differences between the various definitions being used.  To state that only one definition — which isn't to be found in any of the citations — is authentic is not compliant with WP:NPOV.  For instance, why isn't the Tech in Asia definition of zero-rated data being used?
 * Citing oneself is not COI as long as it is relevant, follows WP:SELFPUB, and isn't excessive. I have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, with regard to this page, any more than you do as an interested participant in the discussions around these concepts. sol (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Rohin is a prolific tweeter and I don't think tweets should be taken very seriously. Also, just because someone calls A B in a tweet doesn't mean that A falls under the definition of B. For example, calling poverty as a state of mind doesn't mean that the definition of "states of mind" should be expanded to include economic states too.
 * I believe the current definition is an amalgamation of various citations. Mobile operators were relevant in US. ISPs became relevant in India. Definitions from US focus on Mobile operators and in India focus on all service providers. Maybe this can be separated. But that'll only be like, when asked for what you had for breakfast, saying "I had bread for breakfast. I had butter for breakfast." instead of "I had bread and butter for breakfast." But still, since ISPs cover mobile operators also (does it?) it might be a good idea to remove mobile operators and just keep ISPs.
 * Please read the link you posted about citing yourself. It says "should not place undue emphasis on your work". WP:UNDUE says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia".
 * If you can find out 3 reliable sources which defines zero-rating as it is defined in your own article, I myself will edit the article to include your definition as alternate viewpoint, for the sake of NPOV. --asdofindia (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this viewpoint )from Tech in Asia) covered in the article's definition?: "Often this involves offering free data – also called “zero-rated” data – to access services in exchange for being exposed to ads. In variations of the concept, data costs are covered through brand sponsorships or subsidies.  What makes apps with zero-rated offerings controversial is that they typically use slogans like “free internet access for the next billion people,” and target low-income populations across the globe, while downplaying their marketing, upselling, and data-collecting objectives. However, there are key differences in how these models operate, depending on who carries the cost, how much data is included, which sites and services can be accessed, and at which point and in which form an ad or an upsell occurs."  If the services that the zero-rated data allows you to access aren't a subset of Internet services, but all Internet services, could that be called "service-specific"?  Is the Opera Web Pass form of zero-rating considered "zero-rating" as per the current definition?  No, since it needn't be 'specific' (i.e., limited to set of Web sites)j, it probably wouldn't.  However, it is being called zero-rating by Opera and by other tech websites as well.
 * I'd earlier used the word ISP, since that covers the provision of Internet services through any technology. Further, it is wrong to say that definitions in India (which ones?) focus on all service providers, since even in India the majority of the zero-rating debate is about mobile service providers (Internet.org and Airtel Zero).  However, what the controversial aspects are do not go to determine what the definition is.  The Indian Department of Telecom's Panel report on Net Neutrality states: "However, it may be mentioned here that not all zero rating plans are controversial or against the Net Neutrality principles. Free wi-fi or free internet coupons are some such examples." (p. 66).  It also quotes Wikipedia! :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol~enwiki (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The original definition covered only MNOs and was expanded to MVNOs (which doesn't really changes much) and to ISPs (on Jul 17 by an anonymous contribution) together with a link to Praneshs extensive paper, which I find quite interesting, but have not fully read, yet. From my perspective it still is a more MNO focused topic. Assuming you are right about the ISP perspective in India, maybe we could frame this in an Indian context here, as I'm not aware of this generalization elsewhere and India is a very important market in the context of zero-rating. With regards to services, I'm not convinced that the broad definition as in Praneshs paper (all kinds of subsidized and paid-for variations) is widely shared. From my perception, it is the nature of zero-rating that the service provider (MNO, Facebook, etc.) makes the specific selection of subsidized (free) services. I wouldn't call my German DSL flat-fee or a free Wifi hot-spot zero-rated, either. Summary: lets frame ISP in an Indian context and keep the definition narrow. But great points and thanks for the contributions. --Aeroid (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed Facebook source
I removed the citation to the "Is Connectivity a Human Right?" post.



Reasons why include that this is a difficult document to read, as it is broken into multiple parts which must be viewed at multiple URLS and is not compiled as a single publication. Also, there is no stable URL for this, as since it was published it has moved. To read the official version of this one must have a Facebook account and be logged in. Also the author has taken controversial positions on the matter and has a reputation of being a non-objective source of information on the topic of net neutrality. This essay is not cited for any crucial information, but rather as a side mention of a fact which can come from elsewhere. Still - I wanted to make a note here about why I removed it.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Consistence with the core principles of the Net Neutrality
Right now it's stated that "an "app-centric" approach to provisioning free or subsidized data appears consistent with core principles of Net Neutrality." Who made this claim? Who has decided that this approach appears to be consistent with the core principles of Net Neutrality? The provided citations are not sufficient since they don't talk about the app-centric approach, at least directly. I see the word "appears", but without sourcing it looks like a mere opinion of a Wikipedia contributor. 31.130.6.206 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As described below, I deleted this in the "Deleted toll-free section" thread below.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  02:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite of the lead
I re-wrote the lead. Here is how it was before -

Zero-rating (also called toll-free data or sponsored data) is the practice of mobile network operators (MNO), mobile virtual network operators (MVNO), and Internet service providers (ISP) not to charge end customers for data used by specific applications or internet services through their network, in limited or metered data plans. It allows customers to use provider-selected content sources or data services like an app store, without worrying about bill shocks, which could otherwise occur if the same data were normally charged according to their data plans and volume caps. This has especially become an option to market 4G networks, but has also been used in the past for SMS or other content services.

In combination with zero-rating some services, MNOs are typically setting relatively low volume caps for open internet traffic or conversely, over-pricing open internet data volumes. Choosing to zero-rate existing third-party services trending among an attractive audience for the mobile network operator allows the MNO to increase or defend its market share for the target segment. This price discrimination works also in favour of the chosen third party service.

Building their own services and delivering them at a zero-rate if bundled with their mobile contracts has also been a common practice among mobile operators. In this scenario, network operators can optimize their service together with their network to deliver an optimal service. Together with the existing billing relationship, this can be an important factor to compete with third party services or take control over volume-heavy services.

Here is the new version which I am presenting.

Zero-rating is the practice of providing Internet access without financial cost under certain conditions, such as by only permitting access to certain websites or by subsidizing the service with advertising. Commentators discussing zero rating often present it as a subtopic of net neutrality. While most sources report that use of zero-rating is contrary to the principle of net neutrality, there are mixed opinions among advocates for net neutrality about the extent to which people can take some benefits from zero-rating programs while not sacrificing net neutrality protections. Typical supporters for zero rating include commercial companies selling data service or advertising. Those supporters argue that zero-rating enables consumers to make choices to access more data and leads to more people using online services. Typical opposition against zero rating includes consumer protection groups and net neutrality advocates. That opposition argues that zero-rating exploits the poor, creates opportunities for censorship or restrictions on freely accessing information, and that it disrupts the free market which net neutrality protects.

Discussion

 * The previous text cited many weak sources which were not a good fit for the statements being backed with citations. This new text cites a stronger source which took input from many perspectives and stakeholders.
 * The old text used more jargon terms which were not essential for explaining the issues. I tried to make the new text plain language.
 * The old text neither described a controversy nor presented the major perspectives. The new text acknowledges that there are two major sides in discussing this issue, a side for and a side against.

Thoughts from others?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  02:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted toll-free section
I deleted the toll-free section.


 * 1) It cited no reliable sources
 * 2) It makes controversial claims, including one questioned in another section on this talk page
 * 3) It gives undue weight what is either a fringe aspect of zero-rating, or at least an aspect which is not addressed in sources which I am finding

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  02:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)