For broadband 'zero rating,' it doesn't have to be all or nothing

[Commentary] "I don't always complain about companies giving things away for free. But when I do, it's when they give free stuff to poor people." That might be how Dos Equis beer's "Most Interesting Man in the World" would sum up the opposition to so-called "zero rating" — where content from selected websites does not count against data caps on a subscriber's (typically wireless) broadband plan. More accurately, and less glibly, some groups contend that programs like Facebook's Free Basics violate net neutrality by treating content differently based on whether the site participates in the program. But the economics are clear: Giving people an additional option for accessing websites they value at a lower price — zero in this case — makes them better off. And while it would be naive to think that Facebook has purely altruistic motives, it makes sense that a program to bring the poorest online would focus on a service like Facebook, for which there is extraordinary demand, at least at a nominal price of zero.

At its heart, net neutrality is about how best to provide access to networks. It's a debate that's been going on for more than a century, back to the days of the railroad barons, and probably will continue for another century. Part of the answer will depend on the goal society is pursuing in the context of the service or product. But policymakers should allow content and infrastructure providers to experiment with business models, especially when those business models focus on encouraging new connections. To ban such a practice outright would mean a lost opportunity.

[Wallsten is a senior fellow and vice president for research at the Technology Policy Institute]