To see why freedom of speech protections will play a major role in the legality of toll-free / zero-rated software apps (stress -- apps only) in the EU please read "The Legal Regulation of Software Interoperability in the EU". http://jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/05/050701.pdf Of note: "...because software constitutes expression in the sense of Art. 10 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights]. This may come as a surprise, but one should bear in mind that source code is written in a language, and is a form of scientific expression and instructional literature (i.e. showing how to produce something). Exchanges in the form of source code amount to a search for ‘better' software through deliberation. Like mathematics for mathematicians, source code is the language of computer scientists. Scientific or instructional expression of this kind has always been at the core of the right embedded in Art. 10(1), as exemplified in Handyside, in which the prohibition to disseminate a schoolbook was at stake."
When free speech protections of coders bump into net neutrality issues pertaining to software apps resident on individual devices (i.e, outside control of carriers), free speech (Article 10) will trump net neutrality regulation every time IMO.
Not a robot ????. Just making a point generally about software code / apps being explicitly cited by the courts as a form free speech. The regulator's in the EU, India, and other jurisdictions will often look to US norms and precedents when making their own laws, so worth flagging.
On the issue of mobile zero-rating generally, there is another path that could avoid the conflict altogether. Mobile carriers could embrace simple, "network independent" toll-free apps and achieve the same benefits for themselves and their customers. This is because "autonomous" toll-free app tech is designed to prevent perceived forms of network induced prioritization / favoritism / price discrimination (intentional or accidental), and if implemented properly cannot violate net neutrality principles. With a network independent app, the carrier literally can't see whether the app requesting data from the network is subsidized or not by the app creator (the app acts to make the carrier "blind" as to which apps are / are not subsidized - ergo discrimination / app favoritism not possible). Also, the regulator's remit likely ends at the core network's edge -- not extending to the billions of independent apps (3rd party software, whether toll-free apps or otherwise) that already reside on phones after being installed at the sole discretion of the phone owner. Lastly, since software / apps are likely a First Amendment free speech protection issue (see Bernstein v. United States, Ninth Circuit), one will not wish to regulate where and how coders may or may not install their app creations as this too could limit publication freedoms for other forms of written expression. Many thanks.
Just think people should be free to choose their own economic path. If they choose wrong, they'll self correct quickly. If they choose a better model then the world is that much more better off. Just econ 101 stuff - and tech is a great accelerant in terms of making the system sort through / work out these unknowns / complexity.
Anyway, signing off now. Have a good weekend all. :-)
I think it fair to say that the main reason many don't experience competition is because there are only two or three parties battling it out for our patronage. If we open up the market to others willing to compete for our business (the hundreds of thousands of large and small businesses that seek to engage with us) we would see a renaissance of value creation for the connected consumer. So let's enable technologies that tear down these artificial walls and let the consumer freely exert their pricing power in the ecosystem. This is why people In other less regulated markets receive freeness / discounts - they can demand it from the companies that want to sell to them. Market restrictions more often then not hurt consumers and prop up entrenched businesses. Innovation and the freedom to adopt new models is what levels the playing field by improving transparency, and in the process removes bias and instills true individual freedom of choice. I would propose that we move away from delegates making decisions on our behalf - and instead let each individual cast their own vote using the super computer in their pockets (smartphone). The best connectivity models will flourish and the weaker ones wither away. Democracy in its most simple, untarnished form.
On the discrimination point, when a govt entity prevents me from freely choosing an app (subsidized or not), this is a freedom of speech and restraint of commerce issue for both myself and the app providers (there might even be due process issues, but let's leave that to the side for now). In the case of a toll-free app (a new type of tech / not fully explored), the restraint is made somewhat arbitrarily as well, as the decision to limit does not seem to fairly take into consideration the needs or wants of average users (including those of limited means / fixed incomes) who really do want a better value proposition in their accessing mobile services and content. Given this frame of reference, the proposed prohibition of zero-rated / toll free apps feels more like discrimination of those with more resources against those with less.
On the monopoly point, in a world where toll-free / zero-rated apps are merely available (not mandatory) and sit side-by-side with other app models and carrier bandwidth offerings (all you can eat vs. capped / faster pipes vs. slower / wireless vs. wireline / etc), there is by definition no degradation of competition between the carriers - but quite the opposite as diversity of choice abounds. Customers will gravitate to the highest and best value mix of free and paid services and both the carriers and app providers will need to respond in a more compelling fashion in terms of delivering value to their customers.
In sum, fostering the option of toll-free / zero-rated apps shifts a great deal of bargaining power back to the consumer, and this is the kind of "bottom up" democratization, empowerment, and disruption that technology innovation delivers (often replacing decades old "top down" centralized planning models). This is why I would like to see this tech at least made available to consumers for them to experiment with and/or embrace long term if they so choose. Let the consumers choose for themselves and let the law makers respect and support those choices. Thanks.
Not sure where your getting that particular scenario. With our toll-free app technology the end-user can theoretically start using mobile data for $0 on day one (ideally no need to even pay a deposit to a carrier for use of the sim) and conceivably never pay a cent for access to any site located anywhere (or use any app from any app provider). This is only possible if the process is monitored solely within the "four walls" of the app (as opposed to in-network deep packet inspection / DPI). It's a longer discussion though on the mechanics, but very doable.
The FCC is great, but it's better if you can create a open and competitive dynamic where large players seeking to engage with end-users (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc) compete with each other to give as much free bandwidth as possible - in perpetuity - to end-users in consideration for their valuable engagement (upward spiral of value creation for end-users). If done well I can envision a system where free and unlimited bandwidth is a reality for all those in need (no exaggeration). The key is to directly empower the end-user vis-a-vis a relationship with the sponsor (making the carrier far less relevant in the process). Thanks again / signing off for now - gotta run to a meeting. :-)
I am a small software developer / entrepreneur and do indeed have a dog in this fight (been working on this for 6 years now) which is why I have much to share with regard to carrier models, consumer needs, and legal requirements pertaining to zero-rating. But always open to other points of view and I believe the markets will find a way forward that enables and protects the best interests of the consumer.
I agree that for some consumers, paying a flat rate for unlimited / all you can eat data would make sense and is a very straight forward proposition. However, there are other parts of the low-income market where this won't work as well (here in the US and internationally) and that is where zero-rated / toll free apps come in. The vision is that through these types of market neutral mechanisms (toll-free apps) any person can get free data access to any site / app if need be -- regardless of their ability to pay for it. But this won't be appealing to all users, which is OK. We just want to have the option there for those who want to voluntarily make use of it.
If the carrier is not involved in creating the app features / can't speed up data delivery / can't slow down data delivery / can't block data use / can't promote data use / doesn't know which apps have free/subsidized features (coins, bandwidth, cash back, content, etc.), as a practical matter I think it safe to conclude they have no material influence in the process. This is simply sound engineering -- design a system where bad acts can't happen (self-fulfilling goodness).
As for the free speech point, if I choose to install a free app (freemium app) with free data features voluntarily that is a form of free expression. If an app provider writes app code and gives it to me for free that is also a form of free expression. If someone decides to subsidize the whole process that is freedom of commerce. These are all very well established Constitutional and economic principals in our country (e.g., not just seen in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's seminal case of Bernstein vs. DOJ), and if structured thoughtfully the carriers' intentions (good or bad) really should not figure into it.
For instance, I am currently using this Google provided Chrome browser to communicate with you on this particular issue and my carrier has no influence over my use of this piece of free Google software. They also don't know whether my bandwidth consumption activities are being paid (full or partial subsidy) by my employer, business, parent, school, spouse, or otherwise (btw - one of these parties is actually reimbursing me for the bandwidth I am consuming right now).
The problem of zero-rating flows not from the freeness it gives those who voluntarily choose it, but instead from the role the carriers might play in determining who gets the freeness (and on what terms). The simple solution of a toll-free / zero-rated app encourages the valuable data freeness for those who need it (e.g., unconnected, under-connected, low income) and simultaneously removes even the hint of carrier influence, and in the process avoids throwing the baby out with the bath water. Thanks for listening.
The zero-rated apps themselves monitor their own consumption and report back the usage to a non-carrier third-party app servicing administrator. The administrator collects the payments from the sponsoring parties and remits payment to the carrier on behalf of the end-user. The carrier never knows which apps were free and which ones were not (and the carrier doesn't care since they get paid either way). But the end-user keeps getting free data in perpetuity. This is where things are going in India (see TRAI order permitting this type of zero rating activity). Essentially, competitive pressures drive more and more free data going to the end-user by the data sponsors for use in any capacity (e.g., use 10MB on Amazon and get 50MB paid for by Amazon to be used anywhere the end-user pleases - so literally a 40MB "profit" free to the end-user to go visit non-Amazon sites / services / start-ups / etc). In theory, this empowers low income consumers to get free data for life - and the carrier never had any say in the structuring whatsoever. Basically, it puts the end-user in the driver's seat as between the carrier and the party trying to engage with the end-user.
Nevertheless, due to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (our "operating manual" for how our free society operates) the carriers would almost certainly not have the right to legally block / impede my own personal use of apps (Google, Facebook, .gov, Amazon, etc.) running on my own device. And in all likelihood neither does the FCC (absent a very compelling state interest like national security, obscenity, etc. - which would not apply to something like subsidized data imo).
Now if Congress chose (a big if), they could regulate the types of interstate subsidies that an app offered if the Congress enacted specific laws to do so (this being the govt's prerogative under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution - the "Commerce Clause"). But without a compelling rationale it is highly unlikely to happen since it would more likely than not be deemed to stifle open and free competition (a vitally important consideration in terms of delivering value to citizens and society). To use a very simple app market analogy, it would be like the Congress creating a new law telling the FCC to restrict app developers from offering their mobile apps for free, and instead mandating that the developer had to charge a purchase fee for their software. In my opinion, this pricing decision (a dynamic exclusively between the app develop and the app end-user) absolutely should reside with the app developers -- not the govt.
Bottom line, I think the markets, law makers, regulators, and end-users will decide that they want unregulated "freeness" in as many software and technology enablement areas as possible -- so long as that freeness is offered in a transparent, non-discriminatory fashion, and where the end-user is the ultimate decider as to whether they accept the freeness offered or not.
Thanks for the article - you make some fair points.
However, on the issue of mobile toll-free / zero-rating generally, there is another "middle" path that could avoid the conflict altogether. Mobile carriers could embrace simple, "network independent" toll-free / zero-rated apps and achieve the same benefits for themselves and their customers. This is because "autonomous" toll-free app technology is specifically designed to prevent perceived forms of network induced prioritization / favoritism / price discrimination (whether intentional or accidental), and if implemented properly would not violate net neutrality principles. With a network independent app, the mobile carrier literally can’t see whether the app requesting data from the network is subsidized or not by the app creator (the app acts to make the carrier “blind” as to which apps are subsidized and which are not — ergo no discrimination / app favoritism is possible).
Also, as a practical matter, the FCC’s regulatory remit likely ends at the edge of the core network – not extending to the billions of network independent apps (third party software, whether toll-free apps or otherwise) that already reside on phones after being installed at the sole discretion of the phone owner / retail consumer. On this basis, I think few would argue that independent software providers should be restricted in creating and publishing their own apps that might also have commercial subsidy features (e.g., reward points, free data, free content) built-in for consumers who choose to take advantage of such subsidy. One could suppose there will be a few parties that think the software development community should forfeit their First Amendment free speech rights (see "Bernstein v. Department of Justice" where the Ninth Circuit ruled that computer code is speech, and is protected by the Constitution) and fall under FCC jurisdiction when it comes to writing and publishing their software apps, but I think the majority of industry participants (e.g., coders, Software Developers Association, Mozilla, Google, etc.) and even the FCC itself would prefer to maintain the developer community’s First Amendment freedoms from inadvertent regulatory censorship. Thanks for listening.
On the issue of “zero-rating”, this is all the more reason why carriers should embrace simple toll-free apps (www.freebyte.me). This type of tech won’t violate net neutrality since it is designed to prevent any form of network prioritization / favoritism / price discrimination. Also, the FCC’s regulatory remit likely ends at the edge of the core network – not extending to the billions of “network independent” apps (third party software) that merely reside on a phone after being installed therein at the sole discretion of the phone owner / retail consumer.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by FreeByte.
The EU Has Free Speech Protections That Cover Software Code
To see why freedom of speech protections will play a major role in the legality of toll-free / zero-rated software apps (stress -- apps only) in the EU please read "The Legal Regulation of Software Interoperability in the EU". http://jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/05/050701.pdf Of note:
"...because software constitutes expression in the sense of Art. 10 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights]. This may come as a surprise, but one should bear in mind that source code is written in a language, and is a form of scientific expression and instructional literature (i.e. showing how to produce something). Exchanges in the form of source code amount to a search for ‘better' software through deliberation. Like mathematics for mathematicians, source code is the language of computer scientists. Scientific or instructional expression of this kind has always been at the core of the right embedded in Art. 10(1), as exemplified in Handyside, in which the prohibition to disseminate a schoolbook was at stake."
When free speech protections of coders bump into net neutrality issues pertaining to software apps resident on individual devices (i.e, outside control of carriers), free speech (Article 10) will trump net neutrality regulation every time IMO.
Zero-Rated Apps Are Likely Protected Speech
Not a robot ????.
Just making a point generally about software code / apps being explicitly cited by the courts as a form free speech. The regulator's in the EU, India, and other jurisdictions will often look to US norms and precedents when making their own laws, so worth flagging.
Zero-Rated Apps Are Likely Protected Speech
On the issue of mobile zero-rating generally, there is another path that could avoid the conflict altogether. Mobile carriers could embrace simple, "network independent" toll-free apps and achieve the same benefits for themselves and their customers. This is because "autonomous" toll-free app tech is designed to prevent perceived forms of network induced prioritization / favoritism / price discrimination (intentional or accidental), and if implemented properly cannot violate net neutrality principles. With a network independent app, the carrier literally can't see whether the app requesting data from the network is subsidized or not by the app creator (the app acts to make the carrier "blind" as to which apps are / are not subsidized - ergo discrimination / app favoritism not possible). Also, the regulator's remit likely ends at the core network's edge -- not extending to the billions of independent apps (3rd party software, whether toll-free apps or otherwise) that already reside on phones after being installed at the sole discretion of the phone owner.
Lastly, since software / apps are likely a First Amendment free speech protection issue (see Bernstein v. United States, Ninth Circuit), one will not wish to regulate where and how coders may or may not install their app creations as this too could limit publication freedoms for other forms of written expression. Many thanks.
Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
Just think people should be free to choose their own economic path. If they choose wrong, they'll self correct quickly. If they choose a better model then the world is that much more better off. Just econ 101 stuff - and tech is a great accelerant in terms of making the system sort through / work out these unknowns / complexity.
Anyway, signing off now. Have a good weekend all. :-)
Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
I think it fair to say that the main reason many don't experience competition is because there are only two or three parties battling it out for our patronage. If we open up the market to others willing to compete for our business (the hundreds of thousands of large and small businesses that seek to engage with us) we would see a renaissance of value creation for the connected consumer. So let's enable technologies that tear down these artificial walls and let the consumer freely exert their pricing power in the ecosystem. This is why people In other less regulated markets receive freeness / discounts - they can demand it from the companies that want to sell to them. Market restrictions more often then not hurt consumers and prop up entrenched businesses. Innovation and the freedom to adopt new models is what levels the playing field by improving transparency, and in the process removes bias and instills true individual freedom of choice. I would propose that we move away from delegates making decisions on our behalf - and instead let each individual cast their own vote using the super computer in their pockets (smartphone). The best connectivity models will flourish and the weaker ones wither away. Democracy in its most simple, untarnished form.
Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
On the discrimination point, when a govt entity prevents me from freely choosing an app (subsidized or not), this is a freedom of speech and restraint of commerce issue for both myself and the app providers (there might even be due process issues, but let's leave that to the side for now). In the case of a toll-free app (a new type of tech / not fully explored), the restraint is made somewhat arbitrarily as well, as the decision to limit does not seem to fairly take into consideration the needs or wants of average users (including those of limited means / fixed incomes) who really do want a better value proposition in their accessing mobile services and content. Given this frame of reference, the proposed prohibition of zero-rated / toll free apps feels more like discrimination of those with more resources against those with less.
On the monopoly point, in a world where toll-free / zero-rated apps are merely available (not mandatory) and sit side-by-side with other app models and carrier bandwidth offerings (all you can eat vs. capped / faster pipes vs. slower / wireless vs. wireline / etc), there is by definition no degradation of competition between the carriers - but quite the opposite as diversity of choice abounds. Customers will gravitate to the highest and best value mix of free and paid services and both the carriers and app providers will need to respond in a more compelling fashion in terms of delivering value to their customers.
In sum, fostering the option of toll-free / zero-rated apps shifts a great deal of bargaining power back to the consumer, and this is the kind of "bottom up" democratization, empowerment, and disruption that technology innovation delivers (often replacing decades old "top down" centralized planning models). This is why I would like to see this tech at least made available to consumers for them to experiment with and/or embrace long term if they so choose. Let the consumers choose for themselves and let the law makers respect and support those choices. Thanks.
Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
Hi Zonker,
Not sure where your getting that particular scenario. With our toll-free app technology the end-user can theoretically start using mobile data for $0 on day one (ideally no need to even pay a deposit to a carrier for use of the sim) and conceivably never pay a cent for access to any site located anywhere (or use any app from any app provider). This is only possible if the process is monitored solely within the "four walls" of the app (as opposed to in-network deep packet inspection / DPI). It's a longer discussion though on the mechanics, but very doable.
Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
Hi Nasch & John,
The FCC is great, but it's better if you can create a open and competitive dynamic where large players seeking to engage with end-users (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc) compete with each other to give as much free bandwidth as possible - in perpetuity - to end-users in consideration for their valuable engagement (upward spiral of value creation for end-users). If done well I can envision a system where free and unlimited bandwidth is a reality for all those in need (no exaggeration). The key is to directly empower the end-user vis-a-vis a relationship with the sponsor (making the carrier far less relevant in the process). Thanks again / signing off for now - gotta run to a meeting. :-)
Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
Hi Nasch,
I am a small software developer / entrepreneur and do indeed have a dog in this fight (been working on this for 6 years now) which is why I have much to share with regard to carrier models, consumer needs, and legal requirements pertaining to zero-rating. But always open to other points of view and I believe the markets will find a way forward that enables and protects the best interests of the consumer.
Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
I agree that for some consumers, paying a flat rate for unlimited / all you can eat data would make sense and is a very straight forward proposition. However, there are other parts of the low-income market where this won't work as well (here in the US and internationally) and that is where zero-rated / toll free apps come in. The vision is that through these types of market neutral mechanisms (toll-free apps) any person can get free data access to any site / app if need be -- regardless of their ability to pay for it. But this won't be appealing to all users, which is OK. We just want to have the option there for those who want to voluntarily make use of it.
Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
If the carrier is not involved in creating the app features / can't speed up data delivery / can't slow down data delivery / can't block data use / can't promote data use / doesn't know which apps have free/subsidized features (coins, bandwidth, cash back, content, etc.), as a practical matter I think it safe to conclude they have no material influence in the process. This is simply sound engineering -- design a system where bad acts can't happen (self-fulfilling goodness).
As for the free speech point, if I choose to install a free app (freemium app) with free data features voluntarily that is a form of free expression. If an app provider writes app code and gives it to me for free that is also a form of free expression. If someone decides to subsidize the whole process that is freedom of commerce. These are all very well established Constitutional and economic principals in our country (e.g., not just seen in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's seminal case of Bernstein vs. DOJ), and if structured thoughtfully the carriers' intentions (good or bad) really should not figure into it.
For instance, I am currently using this Google provided Chrome browser to communicate with you on this particular issue and my carrier has no influence over my use of this piece of free Google software. They also don't know whether my bandwidth consumption activities are being paid (full or partial subsidy) by my employer, business, parent, school, spouse, or otherwise (btw - one of these parties is actually reimbursing me for the bandwidth I am consuming right now).
The problem of zero-rating flows not from the freeness it gives those who voluntarily choose it, but instead from the role the carriers might play in determining who gets the freeness (and on what terms). The simple solution of a toll-free / zero-rated app encourages the valuable data freeness for those who need it (e.g., unconnected, under-connected, low income) and simultaneously removes even the hint of carrier influence, and in the process avoids throwing the baby out with the bath water. Thanks for listening.
Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
The zero-rated apps themselves monitor their own consumption and report back the usage to a non-carrier third-party app servicing administrator. The administrator collects the payments from the sponsoring parties and remits payment to the carrier on behalf of the end-user. The carrier never knows which apps were free and which ones were not (and the carrier doesn't care since they get paid either way). But the end-user keeps getting free data in perpetuity. This is where things are going in India (see TRAI order permitting this type of zero rating activity). Essentially, competitive pressures drive more and more free data going to the end-user by the data sponsors for use in any capacity (e.g., use 10MB on Amazon and get 50MB paid for by Amazon to be used anywhere the end-user pleases - so literally a 40MB "profit" free to the end-user to go visit non-Amazon sites / services / start-ups / etc). In theory, this empowers low income consumers to get free data for life - and the carrier never had any say in the structuring whatsoever. Basically, it puts the end-user in the driver's seat as between the carrier and the party trying to engage with the end-user.
Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
Again, fair points.
Nevertheless, due to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (our "operating manual" for how our free society operates) the carriers would almost certainly not have the right to legally block / impede my own personal use of apps (Google, Facebook, .gov, Amazon, etc.) running on my own device. And in all likelihood neither does the FCC (absent a very compelling state interest like national security, obscenity, etc. - which would not apply to something like subsidized data imo).
Now if Congress chose (a big if), they could regulate the types of interstate subsidies that an app offered if the Congress enacted specific laws to do so (this being the govt's prerogative under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution - the "Commerce Clause"). But without a compelling rationale it is highly unlikely to happen since it would more likely than not be deemed to stifle open and free competition (a vitally important consideration in terms of delivering value to citizens and society). To use a very simple app market analogy, it would be like the Congress creating a new law telling the FCC to restrict app developers from offering their mobile apps for free, and instead mandating that the developer had to charge a purchase fee for their software. In my opinion, this pricing decision (a dynamic exclusively between the app develop and the app end-user) absolutely should reside with the app developers -- not the govt.
Bottom line, I think the markets, law makers, regulators, and end-users will decide that they want unregulated "freeness" in as many software and technology enablement areas as possible -- so long as that freeness is offered in a transparent, non-discriminatory fashion, and where the end-user is the ultimate decider as to whether they accept the freeness offered or not.
Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
Thanks for the article - you make some fair points.
However, on the issue of mobile toll-free / zero-rating generally, there is another "middle" path that could avoid the conflict altogether. Mobile carriers could embrace simple, "network independent" toll-free / zero-rated apps and achieve the same benefits for themselves and their customers. This is because "autonomous" toll-free app technology is specifically designed to prevent perceived forms of network induced prioritization / favoritism / price discrimination (whether intentional or accidental), and if implemented properly would not violate net neutrality principles. With a network independent app, the mobile carrier literally can’t see whether the app requesting data from the network is subsidized or not by the app creator (the app acts to make the carrier “blind” as to which apps are subsidized and which are not — ergo no discrimination / app favoritism is possible).
Also, as a practical matter, the FCC’s regulatory remit likely ends at the edge of the core network – not extending to the billions of network independent apps (third party software, whether toll-free apps or otherwise) that already reside on phones after being installed at the sole discretion of the phone owner / retail consumer. On this basis, I think few would argue that independent software providers should be restricted in creating and publishing their own apps that might also have commercial subsidy features (e.g., reward points, free data, free content) built-in for consumers who choose to take advantage of such subsidy. One could suppose there will be a few parties that think the software development community should forfeit their First Amendment free speech rights (see "Bernstein v. Department of Justice" where the Ninth Circuit ruled that computer code is speech, and is protected by the Constitution) and fall under FCC jurisdiction when it comes to writing and publishing their software apps, but I think the majority of industry participants (e.g., coders, Software Developers Association, Mozilla, Google, etc.) and even the FCC itself would prefer to maintain the developer community’s First Amendment freedoms from inadvertent regulatory censorship. Thanks for listening.
The Easier Zero-Rating / Toll-Free Path
On the issue of “zero-rating”, this is all the more reason why carriers should embrace simple toll-free apps (www.freebyte.me). This type of tech won’t violate net neutrality since it is designed to prevent any form of network prioritization / favoritism / price discrimination. Also, the FCC’s regulatory remit likely ends at the edge of the core network – not extending to the billions of “network independent” apps (third party software) that merely reside on a phone after being installed therein at the sole discretion of the phone owner / retail consumer.