19. In the context of the Annual Report published by ANACOM at the end of June 2017 (as referred to above), and in particular with regard to zero-rating and other commercial practices which may be somewhat equivalent, ANACOM concluded that, according to the information compiled from the IAS providers, the practices in question are evident in various tariffs of the mobile IAS, regardless of whether these are incorporated into bundled offers or are available on a standalone basis, and more prevalent in so-called "tribal" tariffs, specifically those designed for young people under 25 years of age.
20. Although strictly zero-rating practices and the other referenced practices may be subject to the same type of analysis, in certain cases, it must be considered that the latter have some associated particularities that set them apart from zero-rating practices, especially the requirement for a specific subscription (usually paid), and consequently, the availability of that offer to a set of subscribers that is likely more limited,
21. In the Annual Report, it was essentially concluded that there is a need for greater clarification regarding some particular aspects associated with the offers fitting the zero-rating category, especially with regard to the treatment given to traffic from applications/contents included in the practices of zero-rating when the general traffic cap of the retail offer is reached, so that these offers can be evaluated in terms of compliance with the TSM Regulation.
