Would Verizon’s 'sponsored data' plans violate net neutrality?

Verizon's 'sponsored data' program would allow wireless customers to access some services without counting against their monthly data caps, so long as those companies pay Verizon. But net neutrality advocates say this gives deep-pocketed companies an unfair advantage.

Dado Ruvic/Reuters/File
Verizon's "sponsored data" plan would allow companies to pay for customers to access their services without eating into their monthly data caps. Here, a man is silhouetted against Verizon and Vodafone logos in Zenica, Bosnia on September 3, 2013.

When you watch a video, listen to an album, or visit a website on a 3G or 4G network, you use up a little bit of your mobile data allotment – except when you don’t. A few wireless companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and now Verizon, have been experimenting with special “sponsored” plans in which certain services – such as Netflix or Spotify – wouldn’t count against customers’ monthly data caps.

And while lots of people might be excited about the chance to browse without worrying about how many megabytes they have remaining, there's little agreement about whether the plans violate net neutrality principles.

Verizon will begin testing a program this week under which companies can pay for Verizon Wireless customers to be able to see their content without using up their mobile data, Re/code’s Ina Fried reports.

“The capabilities we’ve built allow us to break down any byte that is carried across our network and have all or a portion of that sponsored,” Verizon executive vice president Marni Walden told Re/code in an interview.

That’s similar to so-called “zero rating” programs offered by other big wireless companies. AT&T began experimenting with sponsored data last year by charging content providers to deliver some content to wireless customers. AT&T also has a “Data Perks” application in which customers can sign up for various offers from big brands in exchange for more monthly data.

T-Mobile unveiled a feature last month called “Binge On,” under which video applications such as Netflix and Hulu can be streamed over mobile networks without counting against data caps. The company’s “Music Freedom” program, introduced last year, does the same thing for music services such as Apple Music and Spotify. 

Net neutrality advocates say zero rating plans are a problem because they give some companies an advantage over others. A big company might be able to pay Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile for customers to access its content without hitting their data caps, but a small company might not – meaning that customers are less likely to use or even know about its service.

“Imagine a world where everyone still used Friendster because a young Mark Zuckerberg never had enough money as a college kid to pay off carriers’ ‘sponsored data’ fees,” wrote Boy Genius Report’s Brad Reed. 

The Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet rules, passed earlier this year, say that providers of wired and wireless networks must be “non-discriminatory” in how they deliver content to customers. But neither the FCC nor the Federal Trade Commission, which sometimes handles telecom regulation, have argued that zero rating schemes violate this provision. After an FCC meeting last month, Chairman Tom Wheeler called T-Mobile’s “Binge On” program “highly innovative and highly competitive,” according to Ars Technica’s Jon Brodkin.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Would Verizon’s 'sponsored data' plans violate net neutrality?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today