Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Net neutrality discourses: comparing advocacy and regulatory arguments in the United States and the United Kingdom

By Alison Powell and Alissa Cooper

Abstract

Telecommunications policy issues rarely make news, much less mobilize thousands of people. Yet this has been occurring in the United States around efforts to introduce "Net neutrality" regulation. A similar grassroots mobilization has not developed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe. We develop a comparative analysis of U.S. and UK Net neutrality debates with an eye toward identifying the arguments for and against regulation, how those arguments differ between the countries, and what the implications of those differences are for the Internet. Drawing on mass media, advocacy, and regulatory discourses, we find that local regulatory precedents as well as cultural factors contribute to both agenda setting and framing of Net neutrality. The differences between national discourses provide a way to understand both the structural differences between regulatory cultures and the substantive differences between policy interpretations, both of which must be reconciled for the Internet to continue to thrive as a global medium

Topics: DA Great Britain, E151 United States (General), HE Transportation and Communications
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2011
DOI identifier: 10.1080/01972243.2011.607034
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:39024
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2006). 11). 'Net neutrality' will create endless litigation. Patriot News.
  2. (2006). 14). Net Neutrality: Battle for a New World Order or Much Ado about Nothing? Presented at the Communications Research Networks (CRN) Workshop. Retrieved from 29 http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2006/12/14/communications-research-networkscrn-workshop/
  3. (2010). 15). Key regulatory challenges: the content economy. Retrieved from http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2010/01/15/speechoutline-lse-meccsa-plenarykey-regulatory-challenges-the-contenteconomy/
  4. (2006). 15). Senator spoofed for lapse in lingo; 'Tubes' Flub Puts Author of 'Net' Bill on the Spot. San Jose Mercury News.
  5. (2009). 21). Rep. Marsha Blackburn says net neutrality is 'fairness doctrine for the Internet'.
  6. (2006). 23). 'Network neutrality' sparks debate among telecom, Internet firms.
  7. (2010). 3). Cable Congress 2010, Speech on Net Neutrality.
  8. (2007). 5). What impact will net neutrality have in the UK? Total Telecom.
  9. (2007). 7). Net neutrality advocates hail AT&T's concessions; To get approval for BellSouth acquisition, company agrees to provisions it had fought. San Francisco Chronicle.
  10. (2005). A Look at Agenda-setting: past, present and future. doi
  11. (1991). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do And Why They Do It. doi
  12. (2004). Civil Society and the Shaping of Communication-Information Policy: Four Decades of Advocacy -. doi
  13. (2007). Comments of Hands Off the Internet In the Matter of Broadband Industry Practices, WC Docket No. 07-52. Hands Off the Internet. Retrieved from http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2007/06/15/5514681134.html
  14. (2007). Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media. doi
  15. (1999). Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of doi
  16. (2007). Democratizing Global Communication? Global Civil Society and the Campaign for Communication Rights in the Information Society.
  17. (2007). Does Europe Need Network Neutrality Rules?
  18. (2007). Economists' Statement on Network Neutrality Policy, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/litan/200703jointcenter.pdf
  19. (2003). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions Sawhney, doi
  20. (2010). Internet Architecture and Innovation.
  21. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. doi
  22. (2010). Net Neutrality: Towards a Co-Regulatory Solution. London: doi
  23. (2006). Network Neutrality is the New Common Carriage. doi
  24. (2010). New technologies in light of the old: Metaphors, precedents, and law. Presented at the International Communications Association,
  25. (2009). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket 09-191; Broadband Industry Practices,
  26. (2006). Ofcom Response to the European Commission Consultation on Content Online in the Single Market. Ofcom. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/other_actions/contributions/ofcom_col_e n.pdf Ofcom.
  27. (2007). Presented at the Cable Congress 2010. Retrieved from http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2010/03/03/cable-congress-2010-speech-onnet-neutrality-3-march-2010/?lang=cy Ridley,
  28. (2010). Retrieved from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/netneutrality/summary/netneutrality.pdf Ofcom.
  29. (2007). Speech Rights in America: The first amendment, democracy, and the media. Chicago: doi
  30. (2007). Statement of Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate Regarding Broadband Industry Practices, Notice of Inquiry,
  31. (2009). Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps Regarding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
  32. (1992). Talking Politics. Cambridge: doi
  33. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. doi
  34. (1990). The Battle for the U.S. Airwaves, doi
  35. (2004). The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace. doi
  36. (1993). The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas. doi
  37. (2010). The network neutrality debate in the USA and Europe: Economic growth, citizenship and regulatory responses. Presented at the International Association of Media and Communication Researchers,
  38. (2007). The problem of internationalizing media and communication research. doi
  39. (2006). Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation.
  40. (2004). Would Mandating Broadband Network Neutrality Help or Hurt Competition - A Comment on the End-to-End Debate.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.