scholarly journals Positive net neutrality: Zero-rating and the material reduction of consumer choice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Leiser
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Consumer Choice ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
The Body ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Unique Challenge

Zero-rating is a permitted class of ‘positive’ net neutrality violations under the European Union’s ‘Net Neutrality’ Regulation. Conversely, ‘negative’ net neutrality violations, normally associated with the blocking and throttling of content that threatens an Internet Service Provider’s business model, are strictly prohibited. With the European Commission set for a public consultation on zero-rating, and The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications set to issue updated guidelines on the practice, the paper assesses the present state of zero-rating in Europe, focusing on differentiation cases to assess what types of positive net neutrality violations could result in a “material reduction on consumer choice” for mobile consumers. As zero-rating is generally limited to mobile subscriptions that include data caps, the Office of Economic Development has warned regulators to be vigilant against practices that could result in users constantly monitoring their data usage or limiting access to non-zero-rated services. The practice of ‘zero-rating’ in Europe poses a unique challenge to regulatory authorities keen to protect the principle of net neutrality. While consumers perceive free access to certain content, applications and programs as beneficial, zero-rating also contravenes the general aims of the Regulation: that Internet traffic is managed by Internet Service Providers in a non-discriminatory manner and that consumer choice is protected. While the practice might be seen to benefit consumers, zero-rating can also affect the number of providers entering the market and compromise the Regulation’s aim to “guarantee the continued functioning of the internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation”. The paper examines the state of zero-rating services, with specific emphasis on positive net neutrality violations across the European Union. We examine from both a normative perspective and by analysing rulings from National Regulatory Agencies empowered with supervision and enforcement duties by the ‘Net Neutrality’ Regulation. Drawing on behavioural economics and cognitive psychology literature, the paper suggests too much choice in zero-rating services can actually lead to less than optimal decision-making by consumers. Rational theory posits that more choice is good for consumers; yet, in reality, more choice can actually result in a less-informed decisions, inadvertently empowering more recognizable Content and Application Providers at the expense of lesser-known ones. From our critique of the rulings, we conclude with an overview or what amounts to permitted/prohibited zero-rating practices in the European Union and argue that a hybrid regulatory response – involving market- and principle-based regulation is needed alongside command-and-control rules to ensure zero-rating services do not amount to a material reduction in consumer choice

Ministerio Fiscal: Holding the line on ePrivacy: Case C-207/16 Ministerio Fiscal, EU:C:2018:788.

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-594
Author(s):  
Christopher Docksey
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

In Ministerio Fiscal the Court of Justice of the European Union has considered once again the criteria governing access by the authorities to data retained by electronic communications service providers permitted under Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 (the ‘ePrivacy Directive’), in particular the principle of proportionality and the concept of ‘serious crime’ as developed in the recent Digital Rights and Tele2 rulings.

Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v. Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Biros
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
The European Union ◽  
End User ◽  
Internet Applications ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Internet Regulation ◽  
User Access ◽  
Digital Sphere

An important ruling, with international implications regarding the increasingly fraught and unsettled realm of state regulation in the digital sphere, came from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on September 15, 2020. In its ruling in the case of Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke, the CJEU stepped in to make a strong defense of legislation intended to secure so-called “net neutrality”—the principle of internet regulation meant to ensure that internet service providers cannot unduly restrict end-user access to certain internet applications or services based solely on commercial considerations. The ruling continues the CJEU's strict legal interpretations in furtherance of EU regulation and protection of consumer and individual rights in the digital sphere, with a clear eye toward cementing Europe's position in the vanguard of digital regulation and in the hope that such principles will be replicated and upheld elsewhere.

scholarly journals (Why) Did EU Net Neutrality Rules Overshoot the Mark? Internet, Disruptive Innovation and EU Competition Law & Policy

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (18) ◽  
pp. 227-239
Author(s):  
Oles Andriychuk
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Disruptive Innovation ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Internet Service Providers ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Disruptive Innovations ◽  
The Eu

This essay raises a number of theses in support for a more liberalised approach to EU Net Neutrality rules. It offers a graded system of levels of regulatory intervention, arguing that soft Net Neutrality rules are capable of meeting all positive objectives of regulation without causing the problems generated by hard Net Neutrality rules, such as those currently in place in the EU. Hard Net Neutrality rules prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from making disruptive innovations. Meanwhile, they enable some Content and Application Providers (CAPs) to monopolise many markets via (disruptive) innovations, resulting in newly established dominant positions which have, in many instances, been abused. The hypothesis of the essay is that loosening the rules on Net Neutrality would create competition between ISPs and CAPs as well as (which is even more important) between different CAPs for limited premium speed traffic. Such newly established competition could remedy some antitrust conundrums faced by EU competition enforcers and sectorial regulators vis-à-vis disruptive innovators in the area of electronic communications.

scholarly journals TO REGULATE OR TO OVERREGULATE? INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER LIABILITY: THE INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE BODY IN TERMS OF THE ECT ACT AND REGULATIONS

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans E Marx ◽  
Neil O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Industry Representative

The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 provides for the limitation of liability of Internet service providers against actions based on unlawful content placed on their websites. The legislature’s approach is to emphasize self-regulation of the Internet by providing in section 72 of the Act that only those service providers which belong to an Industry Representative Body (IRB), recognized by the Minister of Communications, will qualify for the protection accorded by the ECT Act. Such an IRB must then, through its Code of Conduct, regulate service providers belonging to it. This article evaluates the prerequisite of an IRB and investigates theguidelines for recognition of IRBs by the minister. The South African position is then compared with that in the European Union. The need for the existence of IRBs is questioned and the guidelines are criticized. It is argued that both the threshold requirements and IRB recognition requirements are unnecessary in the context of limited liability. It is submitted that these barriers to limited liability are needless and can possibly hamper the industry as a whole.

scholarly journals Network Neutrality: Anticompetitive Issues in Internet Legislation

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-188
Author(s):  
Lauri Rantakari
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Public Information ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Network Neutrality ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
The Us

This article seeks to illustrate current policies over the so-called network neutrality in the United States and in the European Union. In short, network neutrality, which lacks any exact definition and is under constantdebate, consists of principles that allow public information networks to treat all content, sites and platforms equally. In practice, hindrance or exclusion of certain types of lawful Internet traffic or content by the Internet service providers would be contrary to these principles. Due to the US-centric nature of the Internet, the US stance over network neutrality will also affect the Internet policies of the European Union as well. Thus, the aim of this article is to stimulate academic discussion about network neutrality in Finland. The focus of this descriptive article is on exemplifying network neutrality’s impact on technological development, the evolution of business models in the Internet space, and especially, potential antitrust issues. Finally, this article asks how network neutrality will be legislated in the future and whether it will survive as a network design principle.

Impact of Violation of Net Neutrality on Indian Society

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr Debarshi Mukherjee ◽  
Dr Sonia Dhir
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sections ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Indian Society ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Internet Service Providers ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
The Masses ◽  
Consultation Paper

The principle of net neutrality has gained much attention since 2006 and again in 2015 in India when Telecom Regulatory Authority of India released its consultation paper in which it invited public opinions with regard to the regulation of free availability and access of content (text, voice and media) on internet by various service providers. The topic gained much attention when the established telecom corporations started suggesting that they should be paid by the internet content providers like Facebook, You tube, Google etc, for providing them the network for reaching the masses. Telecom companies argue that the internet content providers have been making high profits from low investments while they are the ones to have made high investments in building the infrastructure for these service providers to operate, due to which the internet service providers should share their revenues with the telecom companies. The violation of net neutrality will take place if any kind of discrimination takes place in terms of providing any type of data to the consumers. This means their very right to free access to information from internet will be violated. Violation of net neutrality has generated much uproar around the world since telecom corporations like Airtel demanded that telecom companies like Airtel should be paid by the content providers like Google, Facebook, Amazon etc for letting them display their content on internet to the mass consumers and generating huge profits. This violation means that differential pricing is likely to be practiced by the telecom firms in terms of charging both the internet service providers and consumers. Currently there are no laws in India which govern net neutrality which means the content available on internet can be accessed by anybody without any kind of discrimination. This study seeks to fulfill the knowledge gap by empirically analyzing the various cross sections of the society which are bound to get affected by the violation of net neutrality.

A netsemlegesség - definíciók, törvényhozói, tartalomszolgáltatói, internetszolgáltatói és felhasználói olvasatok

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Zoltán Szűts ◽  
Jinil Yoo
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Social Communication ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Internet Service Providers ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Free Competition ◽  
Theoretical Insight

Tanulmányunk témája a netsemlegesség. Először magát a fogalmat definiáljuk többféle módon, majd a netsemlegességgel kapcsolatos törvényhozói, internet- és tartalomszolgáltatói, valamint felhasználói kihívásokat, problémákat és válaszokat mutatjuk be. Számos szerző szerint az internet legnagyobb, immár tradicionális értéke a nyíltság, sokszínűség, tartalomgazdagság, tértől és időtől független társadalmi és perszonális kommunikációba való szabad belépés és a szabad verseny lehetősége. A netsemlegesség mellett és ellen felhozott érvek bemutatását is ezek a szempontok alapján tesszük. Kiemelt szerepet kap a netsemlegesség megsértésének kategorizálása is. Tanulmányunkban közlünk egy törvényalkotási kronológiát, mely az USA-ra, az EU-ra és Kelet-Ázsiára fókuszál, illetve ismertetjük a BEREC 2011-es felmérésének az EU-ban alkalmazott, internetszolgáltatói gyakorlatra vonatkozó eredményeit. A munkát az Internet.org kezdeményezést vizsgáló esettanulmány zárja, végül ezt követik a jövővel kapcsolatos kérdések, és néhány lehetséges válasz. --- Net neutrality - definitions and the standpoints of legislators, content providers, Internet service providers and users This article examines the topic of net neutrality. Firstly, it provides us with a theoretical insight and several definitions. Then it presents the issues and challenges legislators, ISP’s, content providers and users face. Several authors state that the biggest virtue and value of Internet lies in open access, diversity, richness of content, free competition, and low barrier entry for users in order to participate in personal social communication. Our presentation of arguments pro and cons net neutrality will be built on the basis of these considerations. Priority will be given to the introduction of several categories of net neutrality violations. In our paper we will present a legislative chronology in the topic focusing on USA, EU and Korea-Japan as well as the findings of the 2011 BEREC survey. Finally we examine the Internet.org project. In the conclusion, the article offers several more issues to be discussed and provides some possible answers.

scholarly journals Revenue-Maximizing Radio Access Technology Selection with Net Neutrality Compliance in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Elissar Khloussy ◽  
Yuming Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
Blocking Probability ◽  
Heterogeneous Wireless Networks ◽  
Technology Selection ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Access Technology ◽  
Radio Access Technology ◽  
Radio Access

The net neutrality principle states that users should have equal access to all Internet content and that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not practice differentiated treatment on any of the Internet traffic. While net neutrality aims to restrain any kind of discrimination, it also grants exemption to a certain category of traffic known as specialized services (SS), by allowing the ISP to dedicate part of the resources for the latter. In this work, we consider a heterogeneous LTE/WiFi wireless network and we investigate revenue-maximizing Radio Access Technology (RAT) selection strategies that are net neutrality-compliant, with exemption granted to SS traffic. Our objective is to find out how the bandwidth reservation for SS traffic would be made in a way that allows maximizing the revenue while being in compliance with net neutrality and how the choice of the ratio of reserved bandwidth would affect the revenue. The results show that reserving bandwidth for SS traffic in one RAT (LTE) can achieve higher revenue. On the other hand, when the capacity is reserved across both LTE and WiFi, higher social benefit in terms of number of admitted users can be realized, as well as lower blocking probability for the Internet access traffic.

‘Losing Leverage’ in the Neighbourhood: A Cognitive Frame Analysis of the European Union Migration Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-323
Author(s):  
Jyri J. Jäntti ◽  
Benjamin Klasche
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cognitive Frames ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Power Shift ◽  
Security Problem ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU)–Turkey deal consolidated a shift in the EU’s migration policy. The deal is the culmination of the dominance of the security frame and depicts the continuous externalization of the EU’s responsibility of asylum protection and burden sharing. The strengthening of the security frame has weakened the humanitarian norms that previously dictated EU’s behaviour. This has led to the EU losing some of its comparative advantages in negotiations. Simultaneously, the instrumentalization of the value of asylum, paired with an increased number of asylum seekers, has given negotiation leverage to the neighbouring countries turned service providers. These changes in perception and norms have created a power shift, at the disadvantage of the EU, creating a more leveled playing field for negotiations between the parties. This article tracks the historical shifts in the global refugee regime to explain how today’s situation was created. Hereby, the existence of two competing cognitive frames—humanitarian and security—is assumed, tracked and analysed. While looking at the EU–Turkey deal, the article shows that the EU has started treating refugees as a security problem rather than a humanitarian issue, breaking the normative fabric of the refugee regime in the process. The article also displays how Turkey was able to capitalise on this new reality and engage with negotiations of other neighbouring countries of EU that point towards a change of dynamics in the global refugee regime.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document