The State of Network Neutrality Regulation

The Network Neutrality (NN) debate refers to the battle over the design of a regulatory framework for preserving the Internet as a public network and open innovation platform. Fueled by concerns that broadband access service providers might abuse network management to discriminate against third party providers (e.g., content or application providers), policymakers have struggled with designing rules that would protect the Internet from unreasonable network management practices. In this article, we provide an overview of the history of the debate in the U.S. and the EU and highlight the challenges that will confront network engineers designing and operating networks as the debate continues to evolve.BMBF, 16DII111, Verbundprojekt: Weizenbaum-Institut für die vernetzte Gesellschaft - Das Deutsche Internet-Institut; Teilvorhaben: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)EC/H2020/679158/EU/Resolving the Tussle in the Internet: Mapping, Architecture, and Policy Making/ResolutioNe

Comparative case studies in implementing net neutrality: a critical analysis of zero rating

This article critically examines the relatively few examples of regulatory implementation of network neutrality enforcement at national level. It draws on co-regulatory and self-regulatory theories of implementation and capture, and interdisciplinary studies into the real-world effect of regulatory threats to traffic management practices (TMP). Most academic and policy literature on net neutrality regulation has focussed on legislative proposals and economic or technological principles, rather than specific examples of comparative national implementation. This is in part due to the relatively few case studies of effective implementation of legislation. The article presents the results of fieldwork in South America, North America and Europe over an extended period (2003-2015). The countries studied are: Brazil, India, Chile, Norway, Netherlands, Slovenia, Canada, United States, European Union. Empirical interviews were conducted in-field with regulators, government officials, ISPs, content providers, academic experts, NGOs and other stakeholders from Chile, Brazil, United States, India, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Slovenia, Norway. It also explores the opaque practices of co-regulatory forums where governments or regulators have decided on partial private rather than public diplomacy with ISPs, notably in the US, Norway and UK. The article notes the limited political and administrative commitment to effective regulation thus far, and draws on that critical analysis to propose reasons for failure to implement effective regulation. Finally, it compares results of implementations and proposes a framework for a regulatory toolkit. The specific issue considered are the tolerance of zero rating practices, notably as deployed by mobile ISPs

Network Neutrality: A Research Guide

The conclusion in a research handbook should emphasise the complexity of the problem than trying to claim a one-size-fits-all solution. I have categorised net neutrality into positive and negative (content discrimination) net neutrality indicating the latter as potentially harmful. Blocking content without informing customers appropriately is wrong: if it says ‘Internet service’, it should offer an open Internet (alongside walled gardens if that is expressly advertised as such). The issue of uncontrolled Internet flows versus engineered solutions is central to the question of a ‘free’ versus regulated Internet. A consumer- and citizen-orientated intervention depends on passing regulations to prevent unregulated nontransparent controls exerted over traffic via DPI equipment, whether imposed by ISPs for financial advantage or by governments eager to use this new technology to filter, censor and enforce copyright against their citizens. Unraveling the previous ISP limited liability regime risks removing the efficiency of that approach in permitting the free flow of information for economic and social advantage. These conclusions support a light-touch regulatory regime involving reporting requirements and co-regulation with, as far as is possible, market-based solutions. Solutions may be international as well as local, and international coordination of best practice and knowledge will enable national regulators to keep up with the technology ‘arms race’

Net neutrality and audiovisual services

Net neutrality is high on the European agenda. New regulations for the communication sector provide a legal framework for net neutrality and need to be implemented on both a European and a national level. The key element is not just about blocking or slowing down traffic across communication networks: the control over the distribution of audiovisual services constitutes a vital part of the problem. In this contribution, the phenomenon of net neutrality is described first. Next, the European and American contexts are dealt with. The impact for audiovisual services is sketched in the analysis, including the question of whether net neutrality is a new phenomenon and whether parallels can be drawn with previous issues. In the conclusion, we refer to the necessity of seeing net neutrality as a value chain issue. In addition, existing and future regulatory intervention needs to take a more concrete approach to net neutrality

Intervention, net neutrality and European Union media policy

Net Neutrality was once in Europe thought to be a technically arcane subject with little policy relevance beyond the USA. However, its dominant articulation as the idea that Internet Service Providers should treat equally communication traffic of a broadly similar kind has emerged as a growing site for policy debate and contestation. Academic understanding of Net Neutrality is still in relative infancy and work on the subject from a European media policy – and specifically an EU - perspective is in particular need of development. This article argues that current dominant Net Neutrality perspectives and their policy complexities, whilst valuable, do not provide a comprehensive enough policy context within which to consider the future governance of electronic communication networks and services in a context of network convergence around the Internet. This is because debates on the idea of intervention, which sits at the core of Net Neutrality, have been under-addressed and narrowly focused. This is illustrated in the case of EU policy on Net Neutrality which the article finds has been tentative, often blandly rhetorical and, for the most part, focused on a narrow range of techno-economic matters

End(s) of the Harmonization in the European Union: Centrifuging or Engineering?

© 2021 Penn State University Press. All rights reserved. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY-NC-ND. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/The European Union (EU) harmonization has an evolving and dynamic nature. Different theoretical approaches (e.g., regulatory competition, coevolution, reflexive harmonization) are often echoed to delve into the EU harmonization. This article, going through these theories, endeavors to explain the harmonization discourse in the EU with a focus on the electronic communications sector. To understand the trajectory of the EU harmonization in this sector, two areas (“network access” and “spectrum regulation”) are selected as the subject-matter of the research. In conclusion, the legislative steps taken so far are found to restrict regulatory experimentation and innovation that this sector needs in the face of increasing challenges.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Mapping Digital Media: Net Neutrality and the Media

Outlines the arguments and design principles involved in the debate over changing the Internet and telecom architecture to prioritize and/or block certain kinds of traffic; approaches to securing net neutrality; and implications for the media

Bottom-up constitutionalism: The case of net neutrality

Net neutrality is no longer only a battle cry of a few Internet romancers but has evolved into a key value for contemporary society that is being institutionalised as a constitutional right. With the help of sociological systems theory, this text argues that the social and legal institutionalisation of constitutional rights need to be distinguished. Commonly, constitutional rights emerge from society before they are reformulated in the legal realm. Using the example of the United States, the paper shows empirically that net neutrality is about to emerge as a new fundamental value and right. Its constitutionalisation is happening bottom-up, driven by social movements, Internet activists and advocacy groups, and further, in an interweavement of civil society dynamics with the legal system. The question is whether constitutional structures have already become identifiable. The last section discusses the relationship between social and formal constitutional structures from a legitimacy and democracy perspective