In
a recent post, Susan Crawford
once again is railing against so-called “zero-rating” broadband plans which
allow consumers to access certain websites on a free or discounted basis.
Although these “zero-rating” and “sponsored data” plans have proven popular
with consumers, Professor Crawford claims that they are actually bad for
consumers. And she wants them banned pursuant to her understanding of what “net
neutrality” regulation should require.
Under
Professor Crawford’s vision of the way the Internet should work – or, I should
say be “modeled” or “planned” or “mandated” by government regulators – all broadband Internet providers’ plans
should be required to provide access to all
subscribers to all websites at all times. In other words, Internet
providers should not be allowed to offer, as T-Mobile and Sprint currently
offer, plans that provide wireless consumers access to a whole bunch of popular
music sites without the incurrence of data charges or access to a limited
number of popular websites (such as Facebook and Twitter) at deeply discounted
rates. And AT&T should not be allowed to offer its “sponsored data” plan under
which a content purveyor, say, ESPN, rather than the consumer, is billed for
data charges that otherwise would be incurred by the consumer visiting the
website.
Professor
Crawford claims these “zero-rating” and “sponsored data” plans are
“pernicious,” “dangerous,” and “malignant.” Frankly, I’m glad she thinks so. Because
her advocacy on this point just serves to illustrate the real pitfalls of net
neutrality advocacy run amok.
Or,
to put it another way, Professor Crawford’s opposition to any form of
“zero-rating” serves to illustrate how, in her view, the absolutist objective
of total access uniformity must prevail over any other business model that
consumers might find attractive, however slightly such model may diverge from
Professor Crawford’s notion of total access uniformity.
Or
to put it still one more way: Professor Crawford is cocksure she knows what’s best
for consumers regardless of whether they might disagree.
We
spilled considerable ink last year – I still like the ring of that as I “hunt
and peck” away – explaining why net neutrality advocates’ argument that the
government should ban “zero-rating” or “sponsored data” plans should be
rejected. I don’t want to repeat all of those arguments here, so below you will
find links to seven different pieces that address the subject in greater or
lesser fashion. I especially call your attention to the “It’s the Consumer, Stupid! – Part II” and “Net Neutrality v. Consumers.”
Here’s
what I said at the end of “Net Neutrality
v. Consumers”
about opposition to zero-rated plans:
“I maintain that the vast majority of
consumers, if asked the question in a fair way, would say they are pleased with
the additional choices they now have available under the Sprint and T-Mobile
plans. I suspect they would say they are not aware that self-designated
consumer representatives have opposed these very plans in their name.”
I
remain confident today that this is true.
Please
see:
- “It's the Consumer, Stupid! - Part II,” Randolph May, FSF Blog, January 12, 2014.
- “FSF Scholars React to DC Circuit's Net Neutrality Decision,” Randolph May, FSF Blog, January 15, 2014.
- “Net Neutrality v. Consumers,” Randolph May, Perspectives from FSF Scholars, August 26, 2014.
- “Thinking the Unthinkable: Imposing the 'Utility Model' on Internet Providers,” Randolph May, Perspectives from FSF Scholars, September 29, 2014.
- “Don’t Convert Internet Providers into Public Utilities,” Randolph May, Perspectives from FSF Scholars, October 3, 2014.
- “Thinking the Unthinkable - Part III,” Randolph May, FSF Blog, November 3, 2014.
- “New Survey: Consumers Value a Deregulated Wireless Broadband Market,” Michael Horney, FSF Blog, November 3, 2014.
And
if you care for more, Daniel Lyons’ Tech Policy Daily piece, published
yesterday, is a very good direct response to Professor Crawford.
Posts
