Showing posts with label free data. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free data. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

California's Net Neutrality Law Threatens Veterans' Telehealth

On March 30, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I published an op-ed in Real Clear Markets that calls attention to how  the VA Video Connect App is jeopardized by California's bad "net neutrality" regulation. The state's law flatly bans all "sponsored data" and "free data" plans that include specific websites or apps rather than to entire "categories." As we discuss in our op-ed, California's law jeopardizes the VA's app for providing telehealth to low income and rural veterans free of data usage charges. For more on the unwise and anti-consumer effects of California's law, be sure to check out our op-ed -- which has been republished at Multichannel News

Thursday, March 18, 2021

The borderless Internet + a Bad CA State Law = Harm to AT&T Consumers Nationwide

Earlier this week, in a Perspectives from FSF Scholars addressing the flurry of legislative activity on data privacy at the state level, I once again made the case for a preemptive federal law. One of the arguments I put forth was based on the fact that, "[b]y design, Internet traffic recognizes no political boundaries, national or international."

Yesterday's news that AT&T, in light of California's so-called "net neutrality" law (SB 822), no longer will "zero rate" access to HBO Max and its other streaming video services for all U.S. customers underscores this point in an unfortunate and anti-consumer fashion.

California hasn't just adopted SB 822, it also was the first state to pass comprehensive data privacy legislation, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). As I explained in "Inconsistent State Data Privacy Laws Increase Confusion and Costs," when the CCPA went into effect at the beginning of 2020, many businesses – 60 percent, according to one survey – made the rational decision "to comply with its provisions nationally rather than take on the risk associated with attempts to identify which of their customers are and are not California residents."

AT&T is taking a similar approach with respect to the data used by its customers to access its video streaming services, including HBO Max and AT&T TV.

Prior to the recent decision by a federal district court denying plaintiffs' request to stay the effectiveness of SB 822, AT&T did not count access to its video apps toward the data caps that apply to some of its service packages. This feature, which AT&T markets as "Data Free TV," clearly is pro-consumer.

SB 822, however, prohibits fixed and mobile broadband providers from (1) "[e]ngaging in zero-rating in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise, from a third party" and (2) "[z]ero-rating some Internet content, applications, services, or devices in a category of Internet content, applications, services, or devices, but not the entire category."

According to a press report, on Wednesday AT&T communicated to its customers that, because "the Internet does not recognize state borders," its new policy will apply nationwide. AT&T stated further that "[a] state-by-state approach to 'net neutrality' is unworkable" and "[a] patchwork of state regulations, many of them overly restrictive, creates roadblocks to creative and pro-consumer solutions."

Free State Foundation Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow Seth L. Cooper posted yesterday to highlight tweets that he and FSF President Randolph J. May authored regarding the consumer harm that will result from SB 822's zero-rating ban. Mr. May also co-wrote a Perspectives from FSF Scholars criticizing SB 822 shortly after it was passed by the California state legislature in 2018, making the point that:

Zero-rated services, or "free data plans," are popular, consumer-friendly offerings that allow consumers to have unlimited access to specific websites or applications without such access counting towards monthly data caps or thresholds. Consumers, and particularly low-income consumers, benefit from accessing "free data" without paying a monetary fee.

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

California-Style Net Neutrality Regulation Hurts Wireless Consumers

Below are tweets from today by Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I regarding the negative consequences for everyday wireless consumers from CA SB 822 -- California's state restrictive "net neutrality" law. 

Keep in mind that no major broadband Internet service provider blocks or degrades its subscribers' connections to legal content of their choice. Rather, dozens and dozens of broadband ISPs pledge, in their terms of service, not to do those things. Under the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order, broadband ISPs' anti-blocking and anti-degrading pledges are legally enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission. California's law appeals to Big Tech players like Google and Facebook -- who delete, disclaim, and shadow-ban content all the time, and in seemingly arbitrary and ideologically-driven fashion. But SB 822 isn't making wireless and other broadband consumers any better off.  

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Verizon Gives Consumers More Options for Unlimited Data

Earlier this week, Verizon unveiled three new options for unlimited data plans: Go Unlimited, Beyond Unlimited, and Business Unlimited. Go Unlimited starts at $75 per month and video is “DVD-quality” – standard-definition on phones (480p) and high-definition (HD) on tablets (720p). Beyond Unlimited starts at $85 per month and supports HD for phones and tablets (720p for phones and 1080p for tablets). Go Unlimited and Beyond Unlimited both provide monthly discounts for each additional line, but the Business Unlimited plan gives customers flat monthly rates. Verizon is also introducing an unlimited option for customers on prepaid plans. (See the chart below.)
Some people are criticizing Verizon for limiting the video quality in some of the new plans, but Verizon is upfront and transparent about the details of each offering. In response to pro-regulatory advocates who state that Verizon’s new plans violate net neutrality principles, Free State Foundation President Randolph May stated:
"Whether the new plans violate 'net neutrality' depends of course on who defines how strictly and in what context the plans are offered. Aside from definitional constructs, I'd say that this type of differentiation is good for consumers, considered overall, and what is expected in a competitive marketplace. This is also a good example of why the FTC should handle these issues that really relate to how plans are marketed to consumers."
Many pro-regulatory advocates also have criticized mobile providers for offering free data services instead of offering unlimited data plans. But as I stated in a February 2017 blog, it was not until FCC Chairman Ajit Pai ended the investigation of free data services and established an environment of permissionless innovation that mobile providers were willing to offer unlimited data plans. Of course, with permissionless innovation in a dynamically competitive marketplace, Verizon has tripled its consumer-friendly options for unlimited data plans.
In general, more options for unlimited data plans, as well as free data services, give consumers the freedom to choose the option which best fits their preferences and cost allocations. This type of marketplace freedom spurs consumer demand for online content and encourages additional innovation and investment in broadband networks.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Maryland’s Broadband Privacy Bill Was a Solution in Search of Problem

On April 4, 2017, the Maryland State Senate allowed for the late introduction of the Internet Consumer Privacy Rights Act of 2017. The bill was introduced just days before the legislative session ended, purportedly as a response to President Trump signing the repeal of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) unnecessary and overly burdensome Broadband Privacy Order. The Maryland bill showed that Maryland policymakers misunderstand how Internet service providers (ISPs) and edge providers, like Google and Facebook, use the advertising business model to offer innovative and consumer-friendly services.
Fortunately, the bill went nowhere during the legislative session. Nevertheless, because it was introduced, it’s worth examining why the effort was misguided.
Consumers expect consistent, common sense rules throughout the entire Internet ecosystem. Had the FCC’s broadband privacy regulations gone into effect, there would have been asymmetric privacy regulations between ISPs and edge providers, like Google. The FCC’s Broadband Privacy Order would have enabled Google and Facebook, which currently dominate over 60% of the online advertising market, to capture an even larger share of the market by creating additional privacy regulations for only ISPs. One Maryland Senator called the repeal of the Broadband Privacy Order an “emergency.” But the status quo regarding broadband privacy did not change with the repeal because the FCC’s rules never actually went into effect. And given that ISPs only have access to 30% of consumer data, it was not an emergency before the FCC adopted the Broadband Privacy Order, and it is not an emergency now that Congress and President Trump have repealed those unnecessary regulations.
The Maryland bill would have banned ISPs in Maryland from displaying “certain advertisements to a consumer” and refusing “to provide services to a consumer because the consumer refuses to take a certain action.” In an August 2016 Perspective from FSF Scholars entitled “FCC Privacy Rules Would Harm Consumers by Creating Barriers for ISP Advertising,” I explained how ISPs and edge providers use the advertising business model as a means of offering, without charge, innovative services to consumers.
ISPs cannot offer free data and sponsored data services and businesses often cannot offer public WiFi without ISPs collecting consumer data. The advertising revenue that ISPs generate from these services is the incentive they have to offer free services and content. Maryland’s bill would have banned ISPs from refusing to offer services and content to consumers who choose not to share their consumer information, which, literally, is the business model that enables consumers to enjoy free services. Had the Maryland legislation been adopted, ISPs may well have stopped offering free data services and businesses might well have stopped offering public WiFi to any consumers in Maryland, because the law would have heavily restricted ISPs from delivering targeted advertising.
Many practical questions would have arisen about the enforcement of these rules because the Internet economy does not end at state borders. What makes the relationship between a consumer and an ISP a Maryland or state-level issue? If a person has a home address in Maryland but accesses the Internet elsewhere, do the rules apply to that individual? If a Maryland resident travels to Virginia or Pennsylvania and uses his or her mobile device, do the rules no longer apply? If ISPs refused to offer innovative services to Maryland consumers because of these burdensome regulations, this may have pushed residents and businesses into neighboring states where they could connect to free data services and offer public WiFi with tailored advertising.
In a March 2017 Perspectives from FSF Scholars entitled “The Right Way to Protect Privacy Throughout the Internet Ecosystem,” Daniel Lyons, a member of FSF’s Board of Academic Advisors, discussed how, in the short term, the FCC should enact privacy rules that mirror existing Federal Trade Commission (FTC) practices, adjudicating privacy matters on a case-by-case basis. And in the long run, he says that repealing the Title II common carrier classification in the FCC’s Open Internet Order would “return privacy jurisdiction back to the FTC, where it belongs.”
Thankfully, the Maryland privacy bill died a quick death. That’s the right result for Maryland residents and businesses who value the availability of innovative Internet services, along with information they want without charge. 

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Free Market Orientation Spurs Unlimited Data Plans

Unlimited data plans are back with all four major mobile providers in the United States. In my view, it is no coincidence that announcements regarding such unlimited plans were made shortly after FCC Chairman Ajit Pai indicated his disposition for relying on free market-oriented communications policy approaches.
On February 3, 2017, Chairman Pai announced that the FCC would close its investigation into mobile providers’ free data offerings. On February 12, 2017, Verizon announced that it was launching a number of unlimited data plans. A day later, T-Mobile updated its existing unlimited plan to include high-definition video streaming. A day after T-Mobile’s announcement, Sprint announced very similar updates to its existing unlimited plan. And then two days after Sprint’s updates, AT&T expanded the reach of its unlimited data plan to all consumers, which was previously available to only U-Verse and DirecTV subscribers.
During his keynote speech at the Mobile World Congress on February 28, 2017, Chairman Pai summed up the mobile market’s response to his decision to end the FCC’s investigation:
Earlier this month, for example, we ended the FCC’s investigation into so-called “zero-rating,” or free data offerings. Free data plans have proven to be popular among consumers, particularly those with low incomes, because they allow consumers to enjoy content without data limits or charges. They have also enhanced competition. Nonetheless, the FCC had put these plans under the regulatory microscope. It claimed that they were anti-competitive, would lead to the end of unlimited data plans, or otherwise limit online access. But the truth is that consumers like getting something for free, and they want their providers to compete by introducing innovative offerings. Our recent decision simply respected consumers’ preference.
The best evidence of the wisdom of our new approach is what happened afterward. In the days following our decision, all four national wireless providers in the United States announced new unlimited data plans or expanded their existing ones. Consumers are now benefiting from these offers—offers made possible by a competitive marketplace. And remember: Preemptive government regulation did not produce that result. The free market did.
Some critics of Chairman Pai’s policies say that the recent announcements regarding unlimited data plans are not related to the FCC’s decision to end the investigation of free data programs. Instead, they claim that competition is responsible for the emergence of these plans. But I think it is both.
In this instance, the emergence of free data programs and unlimited data plans are direct results of dynamic competition and permissionless innovation. Unlimited data plans are only profitable when mobile providers are able to effectively manage their networks and efficiently deliver data to consumers. The reestablishment of unlimited data plans over the last month is an indication that mobile providers recognize that the FCC, under Chairman Pai’s leadership, will not be monitoring and second-guessing every decision they make experimenting with new business models as they seek to be responsive to consumer demands.
The use of unlimited data plans will increase significantly the amount of data consumers use. And while mobile providers are updating their networks constantly to improve the speeds and quality of connections, the emergence of these plans does not improve automatically the capacity of mobile networks. So as long as there is a shortage between the amount of data consumers demand and the amount of spectrum allocated for private use, mobile providers will need to engage in network management techniques in order to allocate data efficiently to all consumers. (See this February 2017 blog regarding the projected growth in consumer demand and mobile data traffic.)
Unfortunately, network management practices could violate the Network Neutrality rules established in the Open Internet Order. Before the adoption of the Open Internet Order and soon thereafter when the Order was under appeal, the uncertainty of its imposition discouraged broadband providers from making major network investments. Chairman Pai opposed the adoption of the Open Internet Order while he was Commissioner in February 2015 and recently reiterated that the Order had a direct negative impact on broadband capital investment. Preemptive regulations often have unintended consequences that increase the costs of performing day-to-day business practices, like network management. While the Open Internet Order includes an allowance of “reasonable network management,” if the FCC construes the scope of its review for reasonableness too broadly, and divorces from marketplace realities, then innovative business models like unlimited data plans will be chilled.
But despite that the Open Internet Order is still in effect, Chairman Pai’s statements and actions have created more certainty among broadband providers that the new Commission will not burden ISPs unnecessarily with more costly regulations. As a result, providers are willing to bear the costs of network management that come with offering unlimited data plans because they are less concerned about being hit with enforcement actions for performing such day-to-day business practices.
Free data offerings and unlimited data plans give consumers multiple cost-effective options for accessing more mobile data and online content. But these innovative offerings would not have emerged if not for permissionless innovation and dynamic competition in the mobile broadband market. Of course, the Open Internet Order still needs to be curtailed substantially to avoid further uncertainty and to lessen the regulatory costs that may discourage providers from creating new and innovative services. Also, regulatory barriers at the state and local levels should be reduced or eliminated to encourage additional broadband investment.
All that said, in my view, it is no coincidence that mobile broadband providers now are willing to offer consumers unlimited data plans as Chairman Pai leads the new FCC toward a free market-oriented approach to communications policy.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Kudos to Commissioner Clyburn!

As regular readers know, I don't always -- or even mostly -- agree with FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn's positions. But I respect her good faith in arriving at those positions, and I've always been pleased to have Commissioner Clyburn participate at Free State Foundation conferences to explain and advocate her views.

But the point here is to commend Commissioner Clyburn for her statement this week, speaking before the FCC's Consumer Advisory Committee, that she would refuse to vote to ban or eliminate so-called "sponsored data" plans. She stated that they offer “an affordable way for people to stream and connect with content” and because they could inhibit valuable product differentiation.

According to the report in the October 14 TR Daily, Commissioner Clyburn said she favored the FCC taking "a case-by-case approach” on sponsored-data offerings.  She also said , correctly in my view, that such offerings “could be the way for the next creative content provider that can’t get on the legacy platforms to do so.”

I've expressed views similar to these for years now, perhaps going further than Commissioner Clyburn, in explaining why T-Mobile's, Sprint's, and AT&T's various "zero-rated" or "sponsored data" plans, and others like Facebook's Free Basics program, are popular and, more importantly, pro-consumer. And, as Commissioner Clyburn no doubt appreciates, these plans are especially appealing to low-income persons who otherwise might not be able to get -- or stay -- online.

So, kudos to Commissioner Clyburn for her statement that she would refuse to ban or vote to eliminate pro-consumer sponsored data plans.  

Thursday, September 08, 2016

AT&T Exempts DirecTV and U-verse Content from Data Caps

On September 7, 2016, AT&T announced that its mobile consumers could access content from the DirecTV application and the U-verse application without the data counting towards consumers' monthly data caps. Zero-rated programs, also known as free data programs, are very popular among consumers. In dynamically competitive markets, such as the video and mobile broadband markets, these innovative offerings give consumers additional choices and often provide low-cost options for low-income consumers.

Friday, May 13, 2016

Zero-Rating Promotes Upward Mobility for Minority and Low-Income Consumers

The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) published a May 2016 white paper entitled “Understanding and Appreciating Zero-Rating: The Use and Impact of Free Data in the Mobile Broadband Sector.” The paper discusses how zero-rated services positively impact consumers, particularly minority and low-income individuals. The consumer benefits of zero-rated services deserve close attention. Regrettably for consumers, the FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a Title II service in its February 2015 Open Internet Order has created concerns that zero-rated services could be regulated out of existence.
Zero-rated services are also known as “free data” services. These pro-consumer services are mobile broadband offerings which allow consumers to access curated online content with an exemption from monthly data caps. Typically, that means consumers can access unlimited curated online content at no additional cost. MMTC’s paper explores five positive impacts of zero-rated services on the Internet ecosystem: lessening the digital divide, increasing the ability of smartphone-only consumers, driving innovative mobile broadband business models, spurring innovation within the entire mobile ecosystem, and empowering consumers.
The digital divide is characterized as the gap between individuals who are online and those who are not. For non-adopters who have little interest in a broadband connection, zero-rated programs can help bridge the gap by offering unlimited video or music content, for example. For non-adopters who believe mobile broadband is too expensive, free data services allow for more Internet usage at a lower cost than a traditional mobile broadband subscription.
As the white paper states:
Free data helps to address these barriers by enhancing the value proposition for non-adopters. The ability to stream as much video and music content as possible – activities that are among the most popular wireless uses across every user group – could become an enticing on-ramp for non-users: if they come to wireless broadband for unlimited Netflix streaming, they may very well stay online and use their connections for additional, more meaningful uses. For those who perceive broadband of any kind – wired or wireless – to be too expensive, the promise of free data could allow them to purchase more basic plans with lower data caps, which would deliver significant monthly cost-savings.
There is a national trend among consumers of all income levels of substituting mobile broadband for fixed broadband. This trend is especially pronounced among minority and low-income consumers. Free data services allow smartphone-only consumers to accomplish more on the Internet without exceeding their monthly data caps. Because streaming video does not count towards data caps under zero-rated services like T-Mobile’s “Binge On,” smartphone-only consumers can allocate data for other uses, such as finding directions, reading a news article, or taking a political survey.
Zero-rated programs are innovative business models designed to benefit the individual consumer. A recent CTIA survey says that 65 percent of American adults are likely to sign-up with a new wireless provider offering free data, so providers are using these services to compete with each other. The MMTC white paper says that consumers find the personalization of zero-rated programs attractive:
These programs have been voluntary from the start – depending on the service provider, subscribers are free to either opt in or opt out at any time. This builds on the modularity inherent in the modern wireless sector, where users have significant freedom to customize their user experience by, for example, picking and choosing which apps to install, which handset to purchase, which network to use, and which service option best matches their data needs.
As the number of mobile devices and connections increases and as mobile networks upgrade to 5G over the next several years, innovation in zero-rated services could lay the groundwork for other personal data consumption. Although zero-rated services are used primarily for entertainment purposes, these offerings likely will expand into new (and arguably more important) spaces within the mobile ecosystem. Health, energy, and dietary monitoring are becoming popular tools among mobile broadband consumers. MMTC says that zero-rated programs could offer critical, time-sensitive, and life-enhancing services:
For example, zero-rating certain health-related mobile tools could prove enormously beneficial for African Americans, who, as a group, are more likely to develop chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Left unaddressed, these kinds of ailments incur significant healthcare costs. But when treated in a preventative and real-time manner, there is evidence to suggest that health outcomes in these communities improve while also helping to realize cost-savings for patients and healthcare providers alike. These benefits inure not just to communities of color but to everyone.
Zero-rated services provide enhanced value and choice, especially to low-income consumers. Because providers are offering free data services in competition with each other and because those services allow consumers to opt in/opt out at any time, consumers have the freedom to choose which offerings benefit them the most. MMTC states that “this overall trend toward greater consumer empowerment, of which free data is the most recent example, benefits all consumers in many ways – but for communities of color and low-income households, these benefits are especially impactful given their above-average use of mobile broadband.”
The FCC has scrutinized zero-rated services because many critics say they violate network neutrality principles. However, in the Open Internet Order, zero-rated services do not expressly fall under the definition of a “broadband Internet access service,” and therefore are not subject to Title II regulations. (At least that is the way it was presented during the D.C. Circuit Oral Argument in December 2015, but we are still waiting on a decision.)
During a “Fireside Chat at Free State Foundation’s Eighth Annual Telecom Policy Conference, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn called it a “good thing” that zero-rated services were not discussed in the Open Internet Order. Commissioner Clyburn also acknowledged the pro-consumer aspects of zero-rated services. Commissioner Clyburn explained:
One of the reasons I was honestly very vocal inside of our house about not abandoning or not eliminating outright the other possibility for sponsored data or zero-rated plans was because when it comes to product differentiation and the like, it could be a good thing. It could be a worrisome thing too when it’s used in a way which we did not envision. And that's why we said we will look at these things on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Clyburn’s observations surely cut against simplistic claims of critics that zero-rated services categorically violate principles set out in the Open Internet Order. Even so, agency scrutiny of zero-rated services – whether based on a vague “general conduct” standard or some other unknown standard – results in a state of regulatory uncertainty. Innovative and pro-consumer service offerings are stymied when market providers cannot discern or predict what the agency's rules are and whether their new offering will be permitted.
MMTC Vice President and Chief Research and Policy Officer Nicol Turner-Lee stated during the Hot-Topic Communications Issues Panel at FSF’s conference that the FCC consistently fails to take into account minority groups and diversity within the communications industry. As this white paper clearly outlines, free data services are innovative business models that benefit diverse groups across the United States, particularly minority and low-income consumers. Any intervention from the FCC to regulate or prohibit such offerings would show little consideration for diversity within the communications space and would hinder upward mobility for low-income consumers.
FSF scholars have written frequently about the positive economic impacts of zero-rated services and the scrutiny they have received from the FCC and foreign government agencies. See the following selection below: