{"id":338501,"date":"2017-04-17T01:20:36","date_gmt":"2017-04-16T17:20:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/techcrunch.com\/?p=1465561"},"modified":"2017-04-17T01:20:36","modified_gmt":"2017-04-16T17:20:36","slug":"wtf-is-zero-rating","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/people.utm.my\/asmawisham\/wtf-is-zero-rating\/","title":{"rendered":"WTF is zero rating?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Whenever you watch a video, post a picture, or send a message, the bytes that make up that item are analyzed and tallied by your internet provider. Once enough of them pile up, you\u2019ve reached your data cap \u2014 annoying, right?<\/p>\n

But what if some of those data-heavy apps and services just didn\u2019t count towards that cap? That\u2019s what\u2019s called \u201czero rating,\u201d and while it sounds good in theory, it\u2019s rather problematic in practice. So how does it work, who does it, and why do people think it\u2019s such a big deal?<\/p>\n

Many will first have heard the term zero rating relatively recently, in the form of programs like T-Mobile\u2019s \u201cBinge On,\u201d which exempts certain streaming video and music services from data counts. That way, people don\u2019t blow through their data caps while, say, watching Netflix on the bus to work every day.<\/p>\n

On a technical level, zero rating is a pretty simple process. The packets of data that go to and fro on the internet (wireless and wired) are all labeled with their origins and destinations; that\u2019s how the routers and switches know where to send them, or who to notify if they didn\u2019t get there.<\/p>\n

All an internet provider needs to do is write a bit of code that notes when a packet is going to or coming from a certain place on the internet\u2014 for example, a range of IP addresses designating a service like YouTube. It treats those packets the same as any others and sends them on their way, only once that\u2019s done, it doesn\u2019t enter them into the official ledger saying how much data you\u2019ve used. Those packets are on the house.<\/p>\n

Sure enough, Binge On and its zero rating ilk have proven popular \u2014 though it helped that every subscriber was opted into it \u2014 and no doubt people have avoided overage fees through Binge On and its equivalents on other carriers and providers.<\/p>\n

But when things sound too good to be true, they usually are. Think about it for a minute, and problems start to appear.<\/p>\n

Packet problems<\/h2>\n

For example, what if the provider decided to zero-rate its own services to give itself a competitive advantage? That\u2019s exactly what Comcast did with its \u201cStream TV\u201d on-demand video service; shows watched on it didn\u2019t count towards the ISP\u2019s data caps, while competitors like Netflix and YouTube did. (The company\u2019s justification for this was that the other services came over the cable-powered internet<\/em>, while Stream TV came over the internet-powered cable<\/em>; you may judge for yourself the quality of this argument.)<\/p>\n

Or perhaps that provider might require a service, say a music streaming site, to pay a significant upfront fee to get into the zero rating club. While a big company like Spotify might be able to spare the cash, an upstart service looking to break into the space might not. Consumers would hardly pick the service that ate up a big piece of their data allowance, even if it was better.<\/p>\n

Or, maybe the company isn\u2019t completely honest about how the system works. T-Mobile was guilty of this, saying that for certain sites, the price for unlimited streaming was a reduction in video quality to 480p. Only it turned out that they were reducing the quality of all<\/em> video on their network, regardless of whether the site was a Binge On partner or not. Good thing someone checked, right?<\/p>\n

And of course, even if zero rating services were to remain relatively innocent, it\u2019s very simple once consumers get used to the idea to begin charging for it. That\u2019s a bait-and-switch tactic that\u2019s been used since the dawn of time \u2014 \u201cThe first one\u2019s free\u201d \u2014 and ISPs are notorious for having opaque and shifting fees and restrictions.<\/p>\n

Those are ways that malicious or incautious use of zero rating can be anticompetitive. But subtler issues are possible, too.<\/p>\n

Facebook likely had the best of intentions when it proposed its Free Basics program in India, which would have zero-rated a number of internet resources: Wikipedia, local news and weather, job boards, and\u2026 you guessed it, Facebook. While the company saw this as a way to get people connected with what it considered critical online tools, others saw as an American megacompany swooping in to choose what low-income mobile subscribers would be permitted to access \u2014 and in the process, a play to get them hooked on the ubiquitous social network.<\/p>\n

So while basic zero rating practices may not be in themselves highly harmful, they\u2019re part of a class of conduct that\u2019s against the principles of net neutrality: choosing certain bits and bytes to treat differently from others. It\u2019s simpler and more effective to make sure this never happens in the first place than to waste everyone\u2019s time scrutinizing every method, business model, and motive.<\/p>\n

Highly illogical<\/h2>\n

On top of all that, it is worth noting that the whole zero-rating model is based on a lightly camouflaged logical fallacy that carriers are counting on consumers not to spot. Think about it:<\/p>\n