# Approximate Networking for Universal Internet Access
## 5 Discussion Issues  
### Zero Rating and Net Neutrality  
In recent times, the idea that Internet access is a human right is gaining increasing traction (as shown by a recent global Internet survey conducted by the Internet Society [71]. There have been recent efforts that have strived to make basic Internet access accessible to everyone. One approach that has been adopted is the concept of zero-rating through which various mobile companies are offering cheaper (or free) access to selected websites and applications. While the idea at its surface appears noble and harmless, it has become controversial due to its relationship with net neutrality--the idea that all content on the Internet is equal and should be treated such. One way of provisioning an approximate Internet experience is to curate a _walled garden_. In such an approach, a company or service provider provides access to a limited set of approved sites and services through its platform, typically at a reduced rate or even free. Facebook has adopted the walled garden approach for its _Free Basics_ program. This project has however become controversial with India recently ruling that program and others like it infringe the principles of net neutrality. Critics of the program have criticized that Facebook is violating the tenets of net neutrality project and that such a project leads to an unfair market (since in this project, a for-profit company Facebook adopts a position where it can decide which service qualifies as an essential service). What's Better: Approximate or Zilch? It has been discussed that how users are often willing to trade-off fidelity for convenience; this would seem to imply that users will be happy with accessible approximate networking solutions when conveniently available. People are divided over the utility of zero rating with one group asserting that zero rating programs can help as a helpful ad-hoc arrangement while others argue that these programs create a tiered Internet ecosystem that is still not able to bridge the digital divide [72]. The net neutrality and zero rating debate is not only a rational debate but also an emotional and moral one. In some cases, people may prefer no networking service to an approximate networking service. Research on the experience of users has however shown that while it is true that \"some access is better than none\", users are not always thrilled at being limited to a vastly limited subset of the Internet [73]. To understand why users may turn something for nothing, it is instructive to refer to the classical game-theoretic \"_ultimatum game_\". In this game, the first player receives a sum of money and proposes a sharing offer to the second player. The second player can either choose to accept or reject this offer. If the second player accepts, the money is split as proposed, otherwise, neither player gets anything. Under rational economic theory assumptions, the second player should accept any offer since something is better than nothing in utility. However, a number of experiments have shown that typically the responder will not accept \"unfair\" divisions and will deprive the proposer by rejecting the offer (in the process losing his money as well). This game demonstrates the nuance of the question \"what's better: approximate or none?\". Notwithstanding the problems that current zero-rated approaches are facing, we believe that the goal of democraticizing Internet service is worthwhile. Researchers agree that more research is needed to fully access the impact of specific zero rating initiatives as well as the potential impact of zero rating more generally on Internet adoption in the developing world and in rural and low-income regions [72]. In particular, more research is required to study user preferences regarding limited access to the complete Internet vs. unlimited access to an incomplete Internet.