Net Neutrality :What Do You Prefer, Zero Ads or Zero Plans

In the '90s and late' 00s most dotcom lacked a revenue model (beyond an IPO). But they were making a lot of money for cable companies / phone. People around the world were registering for Internet connections to consume all that content "free" line. And while they did the lion's share of the benefits of the Internet industry, the Internet service providers (ISPs) were happy to support idealistic notions such as net neutrality; the idea that all data on the internet is treated equally. For a time, the ISP actually went along with the radical notion that consumers are not ISPs should determine what consumers should see.

Today, cable companies / phone have a serious case of Silicon Valley envy. ISPs are making increasing amounts of Internet subscriptions. For example Comcast made $ 3B in Q1 '15, + 15% YoY selling Internet connections. However, Google did almost $ 18B. And Facebook $ 3B is growing at 46% a year earlier. And it's not just ads. Netflix makes more than $ 1B room. Skype's revenues are in the billions and investors dream of a time when millions of subscribers WhatsApp to start paying $ 1 a year. And if these 'dotcom' will make billions on the Internet, the style Godfather, lack of ISP "taste".

The latest attempt is a proposal by European mobile operators to block most advertising on their networks. The plan is to install ad-blocking software at the network level, so that web pages are displayed without 'ad' (social network feeds are unaffected). According to the Financial Times, an executive of mobile operator was open about this being a measure of Internet publishers ad particularly Google. Ads lock 'only for an hour or day, "he reasoned, they would bring Google to the negotiating table to share some of your cake $ 60B annual revenue with service providers.

In view of ISP in the world, the Internet service is a two-sided market. When consumers pay your Internet bill, buying access to ISP servers but can not access content. ISP would then like to turn around and charge Internet publishers to access the ISP servers so that publishers can reach consumers with its contents.

Common sense will tell you that the ISP view is a lot of BS. Consumers pay for access to content not servers. Editors ISPs charge for access to consumers is blatant double dip. And this double dipping is especially irritating when the same Internet providers are offering Internet services at 10% the speed of consumers are already paying.

However, this logic was two-sided market that allowed Comcast to extract tolls from Netflix. Comcast first restricted access Netflix customers download speeds Comcast 'strangulation'. Speeds were restored when Netflix agreed to pay for direct connections to the servers of Comcast, ie, access to Comcast customers. Likewise European ISPs want the Googles and FBs in the world to pay a toll to be allowed to serve ads to users ISP.

Ab-lock is in itself an interesting ethical question. Much of the content on the Internet is free, because it can be monetized through ads. A consumer ad blocking is 'parasitism' to consume the content but active prevention compensation creator. Moreover, the rampant proliferation of pop-ups, toolbars and ad-injectors means that consumers are forced to use an ad blocker to avoid abusive ads.

However ISPs do not even bother to dress your proposal as an effort to protect the consumer. They have been vocal in their frustration with the editors of Internet and make little pretense that publishers can avoid ad-block for a fee. It is an open "stick-up" on the Internet superhighway process. And there is no net-neutrality laws currently prohibit such actions in most of Europe.

India had its own introduction to network neutrality debate after a telecommunications lobbyist inspired by TRAI paper. However, in India, the discussion centered around not blocking content, but all the schemes 'zero-rating' that allowed Internet publishers to pay the ISP for data charges incurred by users of the publisher . Meanwhile the zero rate and ad-blocking is two net-neutrality violations, serve to illustrate that all violations are not equal.

In a scheme of zero, no content is blocked as they do today, consumers still have the ability to consume any content they choose and can afford. In schemes such as ad-blocking or throttling ISPs effectively censor speed publishers do not pay toll, separating them from consumers. Zero-rating encourages ISPs to expand services to areas where people can not afford Internet services, because publishers are now paying the internet bill. Blocking ISP simply allows publishers to display ads charge / content to consumers while providing no benefit to the consumer. Under zero, while ISPs are paid, there is also a benefit to the consumer of data charges subsidized by the editors. But in the face of protests around zero Twitter qualification now looks a non-starter in India. In contrast, in the US, despite the new rules of net neutrality by the FCC, ISPs can continue to charge publishers for direct connections to prevent strangulation

The truth is that complete neutrality of the network, the complete separation of publishers and service providers is a fantasy. Google is trying to become either an ISP (fiber) and mobile operator (Fi Project). Verizon, the largest US mobile operator just buy AOL as an entry in the business of online advertising. Internet.org Facebook is a great driver to get connected Africa. The separation of two closely related sectors such as Internet service and Internet publishing is not realistic.

When consumers rise of net neutrality, usually we stand against censorship by ISPs and consumer choice. But the unconditional support of net neutrality leads us to ignore the nuances and ignoring shades means that overreaching and open the possibility of regulatory 'backdoors'. One example is the recent new FCC regulations that mandate a "neutral network" but ignore the issue of ISPs charge for direct connections. In terms of protection through legislation is complicated, since nobody wants selectively block content as well as governments.

We might be better off with zero as reasonable compromises that offer some benefit to the consumer for ISP increase their margins. Outright censorship and blocking content should remain bright lines that neither the publisher nor the service providers must be able to cross. And regulators will be crucial in monitoring that line. But in a still fluid as the Internet industry, a hint is requested as new business models emerge all the time. In a changing industry, the market is probably a better regulator than government.