S.20.1-7: Zero-Rating Act (ZRA) [Statute]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Zero-Rating Act (ZRA):

Section 1 (Definitions):
i."Zero-rating" is defined as "the practice of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) allowing customers to access certain content without that traffic count against their data caps."
ii."Zero-rated content" is defined as the "content which ISPs do not count against customer's data caps."

Section 2 (Permissible Zero-Rating):
i. The Southern Region shall permit the practice of zero-rating, provided that ISPs determine which content is zero-rated according to technical requirements (i.e. bandwidth, video resolution, etc.), and do not discriminate against content which meets those technical requirements.
ii. ISPs offering zero-rated plans in the Southern Region shall publish the technical requirements used to determine which content can be zero-rated under their plans.

Section 3 (Waivers):
i. ISPs with less than 1/10th market share in the Southern Region can apply for a waiver to exempt themselves from the content non-discrimination requirement
ii. ISPs with greater than 1/10th market share in the Southern Region are prohibited from applying for waivers from the content non-discrimination requirement, and any pre-existing waivers are voided within a year of companies attaining greater than 1/10th market share

Section 4 (Enforcement):
i. the Attorney General is empowered to enforce this act by reasonable means, and initiate civil suits against ISPs found to be violating any provisions of this law

sponsor: Reagente

[reagente]

I am sponsoring this bill to promote innovation in data provider services in the South. I believe it gives nascent data providers a means to make their content more attractive to consumers, while establishing safeguards to prevent the abuse of market power through vertical integration.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Come on delegates!

Not even a "I agree with this idea" or a "This looks good to me"?

How about "I respectfully disagree with this bill"?

Not even a "this bill bad"?

[West_Midlander]

The large majority of this bill looks to me to be fair, sound legislation.

I am curious how the 1/10th of the Southern market figure was chosen. I am concerned that the 10% (1/10th) threshold may be too high. I could only find national figures but assuming (roughly) the same % market share within the Southern region, Verizon at 6.2% market share and CenturyLink at 4.4% market share would apply for waivers for the non-discrimination requirement.

Unless the 1/10th number was chosen for a specific, convincing reason, I urge the Delegates of this Chamber to amend this bill to a lower threshold for waivers, perhaps 4.2%, 4.0%, or lower.

I suggested the figures I did so name-brand ISPs like Verizon Communications and CenturyLink are excluded from the non-discrimination waivers to make way for (only) smaller ISPs to take advantage of this benefit [the waivers].

Source for market share %s: Telegeography

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I'm not terribly well versed in this specific subject, but this has my tentative support. I'd like the sponsor to go into more detail about what exactly this does before we head to a final vote.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I'm not terribly well versed in this specific subject, but this has my tentative support. I'd like the sponsor to go into more detail about what exactly this does before we head to a final vote.

[reagente]

The large majority of this bill looks to me to be fair, sound legislation.

I am curious how the 1/10th of the Southern market figure was chosen. I am concerned that the 10% (1/10th) threshold may be too high. I could only find national figures but assuming (roughly) the same % market share within the Southern region, Verizon at 6.2% market share and CenturyLink at 4.4% market share would apply for waivers for the non-discrimination requirement.

Unless the 1/10th number was chosen for a specific, convincing reason, I urge the Delegates of this Chamber to amend this bill to a lower threshold for waivers, perhaps 4.2%, 4.0%, or lower.

I suggested the figures I did so name-brand ISPs like Verizon Communications and CenturyLink are excluded from the non-discrimination waivers to make way for (only) smaller ISPs to take advantage of this benefit [the waivers].

Source for market share %s: Telegeography

I am open to amending the market share threshold, but I'll explain my reasoning with 10%. My idea with the 10% threshold for a data non-discrimination waiver wasn't to per se benefit smaller ISPs at the expense of larger name-brand ISPs, but to prevent a future potential monopoly (or a firm with significant market power) from using the non-discrimination waiver to try to benefit a service it has vertically integrated with. I figured that firms under 10% market share do not wield enough individual market power to use vertical integration in a way that would appreciably harm consumers, regardless of the size of the company. There's some speculation in the tech world that having 3 or fewer providers starts to reach a point where market power can potentially adversely impact consumers, so I chose 10% as a safe enough figure to always exclude the top three providers, so they cannot discriminate on data, except insofar as meeting technical requirements.

I'm not terribly well versed in this specific subject, but this has my tentative support. I'd like the sponsor to go into more detail about what exactly this does before we head to a final vote.

Sure. Basically, some internet service providers have found that an effective way to differentiate themselves from competitors is to offer certain kinds of services without charge. It's difficult for a nascent ISP to challenge a more established incumbent with regards to speed, but some consumers are willing to trade a little bit of speed, if say, they get YouTube videos for free regardless of how much data they use.

This principle does violate the concept of Net Neutrality, because it does treat certain kinds of data differently, but from what I've encountered in the literature, even many advocates of Net Neutrality are open to making some sort of exception for Zero-rating.

One background concern with Zero-rating is that ISPs will privilege only the content that they, or their subsidiaries own. That is why I have proposed that only technical requirements can be used as a means to discriminate data for firms with above 10% market share (i.e. you can say a video must be at a certain resolution, or certain file size, or whatever - but you can't say the video must be certain content). I have omitted this requirement for smaller ISPs that obtain a waiver as a means to further consumer choice, since there is less concern about those smaller ISPs using market power in a bad way.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

this bill seems reasonable enough to me, should it come to a final vote I would vote aye.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Motion for a final vote.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Motion for a final vote.

I second the motion.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Final vote. 48 hours.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Aye

[PragmaticPopulist]

Aye

[Senator-elect Spark]

Aye

[reagente]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Delegate reagante's reasoning for the 10% threshold is convincing and sound, in my view. I will sign this legislation once the vote closes (since it already has four aye votes).

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Aye

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

5 ayes, 0 nays. This bill passes.

[West_Midlander]

5 ayes, 0 nays. This bill passes.

x West_Midlander