The Internet is a remarkable, international communications medium. Marketplace developments and government reactions in one country inevitably impact those in another - often very rapidly. Because the U.S. is a global leader in private Internet infrastructure deployment and applications development, actions of the U.S. government regarding communications policy naturally tend to be influential.

 

Indeed, U.S. actions are likely to be influential abroad with respect to so-called zero-rated services, whereby Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and applications providers allow, in various ways, customers "free" access to some Internet content. Governments in other countries have been mixed in their reactions to Internet regulation, including zero-rating and similar programs, such as Facebook's "Free Basics" program.

 

Current FCC "fact-finding" investigations concerning the lawfulness of certain zero-rated services are raising the specter of potential U.S. regulation, even though the FCC has refused to adopt a blanket prohibition of such services and the FCC Chairman previously praised T-Mobile's Binge On. Even the pendency of this "fact-finding" mission creates unwelcome speculation domestically and internationally concerning harmful regulatory intervention, particularly since these inquiries tend to remain open for months if not years.

 

The different ways in which countries have approached zero rating to date shows the potential for U.S. influence. Some countries have adopted prohibitions whereas others have performed more careful economic analyses. An unfortunate case in point is India. Just this year India stymied efforts of Facebook's Free Basics program that was designed to expand Internet usage in the country, which presently has a broadband penetration rate of only 22 percent of the population.

 

Various zero-rating offerings can benefit consumers, improve broadband adoption, provide application and content providers more customers, and contribute to network infrastructure investment. Because of U.S. influence abroad regarding telecom policy matters, the U.S. government must be doubly cautious before intervening with regulatory restraints that adversely impact the Internet subscribership and infrastructure deployment. This caution applies not only to ISP offerings but, as well, to programs offered in conjunction with ISPs like Facebook's Free Basics program in India.

 

Chrysler ex-chairman Lee Iacocca once provided sage advice that we could apply to zero-rated and similar "free" data services that exempt certain content from charges that might otherwise apply: lead, follow, or get out of the way. It is time for the U.S. government to lead by getting out of the way of a form of Internet innovation that benefits consumers, most certainly including low-income consumers.

The U.S. government should realize that maintaining U.S. leadership regarding Internet policies depends on encouraging the marketplace to drive innovation and consumer choice, not imposing government restrictions. Proper market-driven U.S. policies can benefit all consumers globally by demonstrating marketplace "facts on the ground" that encourage foreign governments to follow suit.

 

Even the pendency of zero-rating "fact-finding" - the regulatory "raised eyebrows" approach - by the FCC likely will have an unfortunate impact on the international scene, impeding efforts such as Facebook's Free Basics program to facilitate increased access in places with low penetration rates.

 

The FCC should lead by getting out of the way of market-driven policies that lead to increased consumer choice, innovation, and investment.