Remember what happened when Facebook launched its zero rating offer in India in early 2015. Disguised as a philanthropic enterprise under the «Internet.org» domain, Facebook was part of Zuckerberg`s master plan to bring millions of new users online, leading them to believe that Facebook and the Internet are the same thing. «The European Union`s wireless airlines and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which, for example, do not use video at zero tariffs, offer customers eight times more data at the same price as those that do.» The zero-rating debate is crucial in the Western context, as the Research of Epicenter.works points out, but it is even more important in developing countries, where the internet is less accessible and more expensive. How will regulators consider zero ratings to be admissible? At first glance, zero-rating offers look like a soft business for consumers and a noble effort to connect the world, but beyond appearance, they are just an evil business practice that distorts competition and cripples Internet access in developing countries. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has reviewed providers` zero rating practices as possible violations of net neutrality rules from 2015 and ends in 2016 with the end of the Obama administration. Under the Trump administration, Ajit Pai, the new FCC commissioner, halted the investigation. With respect to the current letter, zero assessment is currently a common practice. Zero rating is the practice of not using customers for data on certain websites and services provided by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Mobile Operators (MSPs). When a service provider offers its customers the ability to use an application on a zero rating formula, it discriminates 2/18. And obviously, only large companies (such as Facebook or Netflix) are generally able to maintain zero rating agreements with ISPs.
The study, which compared 30 European countries, gives rise to an ongoing debate on zero rating systems. That depends. There are different types of zero-rating practices, some of which are more problematic than others. The ORECE guidelines look at several examples and indicate the extent to which they could be considered admissible by regulation. Commentators who discuss zero rating often present them in the context of net neutrality.  While most sources indicate that the use of zero rating is contrary to the principle of net neutrality, proponents of net neutrality have differing views on the extent to which people can benefit from zero rating programs while maintaining the protection of net neutrality.  Zero-rating advocates argue that it allows consumers to make decisions to access more data, which means more people are using online services, but critics believe that zero rating exploits the poor, creates opportunities for censorship and disrupts the free market.  ORECE guidelines state that certain practices are clearly prohibited — those in which all applications are blocked or slowed down as soon as the data ceiling is reached, with the exception of the zero-assessment application (n) .
Others are less clear and need to be evaluated by RNAs on the basis of a set of criteria set out in the guidelines. We now know that there is another reason to hate zero valuation: ISPs end up charging you more. The United States has not officially made a decision on the regulation of zero rating providers; to take a «wait-and-see» approach to this issue.