"Zero rating is the opposite of net neutrality, the notion that all data on the internet should be treated equally," digital rights group Access Now previously explained. (Photo: Tim Carter/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
'Huge Victory for Net Neutrality': Top EU Court Rebuffs Zero-Rating Schemes
The open internet win comes from the Court of Justice of the European Union's first-ever interpretation of the EU's 2015 net neutrality law.
The European Union's highest court on Tuesday said that so-called "zero-rating" plans that prioritize certain Internet data are "incompatible" with the net neutrality regulations of the 27-country bloc.
Nikolas Guggenberger, executive director the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, called the decision a "huge victory for net neutrality."
"The requirements to protect internet users' rights and to treat traffic in a non-discriminatory manner preclude an internet access provider from favouring certain applications and services by means of packages enabling those applications and services to benefit from a 'zero tariff' and making the use of the other applications and services subject to measures blocking or slowing down traffic," the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said in a statement (pdf) about its landmark interpretation of the 2015 net neutrality law.
As Reuters explained, "The European court's judgment came after a Hungarian court had sought guidance in a case involving Hungarian mobile telecoms operator Telenor Magyarorszag which offers its customers preferential or so-called zero-tariff access packages which meant that the use of certain applications did not count towards consumption."
Forbes has more on the background:
At the time of the law's passage, net-neutrality advocates were deeply concerned that loopholes would allow operators to get away with practices that prioritize some traffic over other traffic, for commercial rather than technical reasons. Zero-rating was a particular worry, because the law did not specifically mention it. Therefore, it seemed operators might be able to get away with blocking or slowing down customers' general Internet use once they reached their data caps, while still allowing favored services to run unimpeded.
In fact, zero-rating is "at the heart of the current debate over the future of the free and open internet" and is "antithetical to net neutrality," according to digital rights group Access Now. As the group previously explained:
Zero rating is the opposite of net neutrality, the notion that all data on the internet should be treated equally. Net neutrality is central to maintaining the internet's potential for economic and social development, and to the exercise of human rights such as the right to free expression. Its principles help ensure that that anyone, anywhere in the world, can receive and impart information freely over the internet, no matter where they are, what services they use, or what device they operate. Seen in this light, zero rating is a form of "network discrimination"--it deliberately sets up a system where "the internet" you get is different for different people.
Zero rating programs manifest in different forms, the most frequent being "sub-internet" offers, where only a part of the internet is offered for "free," and what we're calling the "telco" model, where a telco prioritizes either its own content or that of third parties. All forms of zero rating amount to price discrimination, and have in common their negative impact on users' rights.
In light of those threats, Access Now called the CJEU's decision "great news."
"We welcome this decision," the group tweeted, "and hope that it will help bring an end to *all* zero-rating offers in the EU."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The European Union's highest court on Tuesday said that so-called "zero-rating" plans that prioritize certain Internet data are "incompatible" with the net neutrality regulations of the 27-country bloc.
Nikolas Guggenberger, executive director the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, called the decision a "huge victory for net neutrality."
"The requirements to protect internet users' rights and to treat traffic in a non-discriminatory manner preclude an internet access provider from favouring certain applications and services by means of packages enabling those applications and services to benefit from a 'zero tariff' and making the use of the other applications and services subject to measures blocking or slowing down traffic," the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said in a statement (pdf) about its landmark interpretation of the 2015 net neutrality law.
As Reuters explained, "The European court's judgment came after a Hungarian court had sought guidance in a case involving Hungarian mobile telecoms operator Telenor Magyarorszag which offers its customers preferential or so-called zero-tariff access packages which meant that the use of certain applications did not count towards consumption."
Forbes has more on the background:
At the time of the law's passage, net-neutrality advocates were deeply concerned that loopholes would allow operators to get away with practices that prioritize some traffic over other traffic, for commercial rather than technical reasons. Zero-rating was a particular worry, because the law did not specifically mention it. Therefore, it seemed operators might be able to get away with blocking or slowing down customers' general Internet use once they reached their data caps, while still allowing favored services to run unimpeded.
In fact, zero-rating is "at the heart of the current debate over the future of the free and open internet" and is "antithetical to net neutrality," according to digital rights group Access Now. As the group previously explained:
Zero rating is the opposite of net neutrality, the notion that all data on the internet should be treated equally. Net neutrality is central to maintaining the internet's potential for economic and social development, and to the exercise of human rights such as the right to free expression. Its principles help ensure that that anyone, anywhere in the world, can receive and impart information freely over the internet, no matter where they are, what services they use, or what device they operate. Seen in this light, zero rating is a form of "network discrimination"--it deliberately sets up a system where "the internet" you get is different for different people.
Zero rating programs manifest in different forms, the most frequent being "sub-internet" offers, where only a part of the internet is offered for "free," and what we're calling the "telco" model, where a telco prioritizes either its own content or that of third parties. All forms of zero rating amount to price discrimination, and have in common their negative impact on users' rights.
In light of those threats, Access Now called the CJEU's decision "great news."
"We welcome this decision," the group tweeted, "and hope that it will help bring an end to *all* zero-rating offers in the EU."
The European Union's highest court on Tuesday said that so-called "zero-rating" plans that prioritize certain Internet data are "incompatible" with the net neutrality regulations of the 27-country bloc.
Nikolas Guggenberger, executive director the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, called the decision a "huge victory for net neutrality."
"The requirements to protect internet users' rights and to treat traffic in a non-discriminatory manner preclude an internet access provider from favouring certain applications and services by means of packages enabling those applications and services to benefit from a 'zero tariff' and making the use of the other applications and services subject to measures blocking or slowing down traffic," the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said in a statement (pdf) about its landmark interpretation of the 2015 net neutrality law.
As Reuters explained, "The European court's judgment came after a Hungarian court had sought guidance in a case involving Hungarian mobile telecoms operator Telenor Magyarorszag which offers its customers preferential or so-called zero-tariff access packages which meant that the use of certain applications did not count towards consumption."
Forbes has more on the background:
At the time of the law's passage, net-neutrality advocates were deeply concerned that loopholes would allow operators to get away with practices that prioritize some traffic over other traffic, for commercial rather than technical reasons. Zero-rating was a particular worry, because the law did not specifically mention it. Therefore, it seemed operators might be able to get away with blocking or slowing down customers' general Internet use once they reached their data caps, while still allowing favored services to run unimpeded.
In fact, zero-rating is "at the heart of the current debate over the future of the free and open internet" and is "antithetical to net neutrality," according to digital rights group Access Now. As the group previously explained:
Zero rating is the opposite of net neutrality, the notion that all data on the internet should be treated equally. Net neutrality is central to maintaining the internet's potential for economic and social development, and to the exercise of human rights such as the right to free expression. Its principles help ensure that that anyone, anywhere in the world, can receive and impart information freely over the internet, no matter where they are, what services they use, or what device they operate. Seen in this light, zero rating is a form of "network discrimination"--it deliberately sets up a system where "the internet" you get is different for different people.
Zero rating programs manifest in different forms, the most frequent being "sub-internet" offers, where only a part of the internet is offered for "free," and what we're calling the "telco" model, where a telco prioritizes either its own content or that of third parties. All forms of zero rating amount to price discrimination, and have in common their negative impact on users' rights.
In light of those threats, Access Now called the CJEU's decision "great news."
"We welcome this decision," the group tweeted, "and hope that it will help bring an end to *all* zero-rating offers in the EU."