Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Economics
Industrial Organization

Network Neutrality Through the Lens of Network Economics

Profile image of Guenter KniepsGuenter Knieps

2019, Review of Network Economics

https://doi.org/10.1515/RNE-2019-0025
visibility

…

description

36 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Network neutrality for the Internet has been a fiercely debated topic for more than 15 years. Arguably spurred by recent regulatory actions in the US and the tremendous ecosystem evolution as characterized by the emergence and growing importance of global cloud platforms as well as the Internet of Things, the debate has recently seen a resurgence. This paper describes the origins and development of the regulatory stance towards network neutrality in the US and the EU. Against the background of the diverse evolutionary forces that shape the ecosystem, we examine network neutrality regulation through the lens of network economics. In doing so, we describe a series of challenges and misconceptions associated with current regulations and expound the requirement for a market-driven understanding of network neutrality.

Related papers

The Fallacies of Network Neutrality Regulation
Patrick Zenhäusern

Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 2008

In this paper, historical functionalities of the traditional Internet are contrasted with today's Internet functionalities of the “smart” Internet architecture. It is shown that network neutrality regulation prohibiting congestion management and traffic quality differentiation is contrary to economically founded allocation mechanisms. By regulation of remaining monopolistic bottleneck components within the local loop the transfer of market power from the telecommunications infrastructure into the complementary Internet access service markets can be avoided. Regulation between access service providers and Internet application service providers is not only superfluous but detrimental.

View PDFchevron_right
The state of network neutrality regulation
William Lehr

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review

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.

View PDFchevron_right
Net Neutrality: Economic Evaluation of Market Developments
tim tardiff

Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2015

On February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued new regulations for the Internet. A significant stated motivation for these regulations is the protection and promotion of the quality of Internet service. This paper provides information about the evolution of the quality of Internet service, providing context for this central stated motivation of Internet regulation, including the merits of rules restricting payments by content providers for priority treatment of certain Internet traffic. The history of the FCC's Internet regulations (or lack thereof) is reviewed, the main arguments for and against imposing ex ante price regulation on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are outlined, and data on industry performance, particularly subscribership levels in general and at substantially increasing speeds in particular, are described. This experience indicates that apparent insufficiencies in competitive alternatives at the fastest available speeds have been ameliorated in fairly short order by new offerings by multiple ISPs. These findings strongly suggest that basing new restrictions on a putative dearth of competition for recently available service levels and transmission speeds is likely to be overtaken by technological and market developments, rendering such ex ante rules superfluous, at best, and counterproductive to competition and innovation, at worst.

View PDFchevron_right
Network neutrality and the nature of competition between network operators
Viktoria Kocsis

The neutral architecture of the Internet is being challenged by various parties, such as network operators providing the connections to end-users, who are interested in gaining control of the information exchanged over the Internet. What are the effects on competition and welfare of such practices? Currently, there exists very little economic theory on network neutrality. This paper provides a preliminary analysis of the type of economic modeling that can address network neutrality, as well as of the type of results that can be expected.

View PDFchevron_right
Understanding the Net Neutrality Debate
IJIREM JOURNAL

This paper will serve as an introduction to the concept of net neutrality and as a note to highlight the recent growing interest on this issue. We show that the standard principles organizing the functioning of the Internet, since its invention, are the main roots of neutrality that guarantee competition and innovation. Different perspectives in the net neutrality debate are discussed taking into account the changing uses and the growing traffic. Moreover, the key principles for policy decisions are identified and it is explained how regulation can preserve neutrality while allowing the commercialization of services and applications that are latency sensitive and bandwidth consuming.

View PDFchevron_right
[Special Section on Net Neutrality] Scenarios for the Network Neutrality Arms Race
William Lehr

International Journal of Communication, 2007

Several factors suggest that meaningful network neutrality rules will not be enshrined in near-term U.S. telecommunications policy. These include disagreements over the need for such rules as well as their definition, efficacy and enforceability. However, as van Schewick (2005) 1 has demonstrated in the context of the Internet, network providers may have economic incentives to discriminate in welfare-reducing ways; in addition, network operators may continue to possess market power, particularly with respect to a terminating monopoly. 2 On the other hand, the literature on two-sided markets, 3 the challenge of cost-recovery in the presence of significant fixed and sunk costs, and the changing nature of Internet traffic all provide efficiency-enhancing rationales for

View PDFchevron_right
Economics of Network Neutrality
Patrick Maillé

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe), 2011

Under the current regime for Internet access, "network neutrality," parties are billed only by the Internet service provider (ISP) through which they connect to the Internet; pricing is not contingent on the content being transmitted. Recently, ISPs have proposed that content and applications providers pay them additional fees for accessing the ISPs' residential clients, as well as fees to prioritize certain content. We analyze the private and social implications of such fees when the network is congested and more traffic implies greater delays. We derive conditions under which network neutrality would be welfare superior to any feasible scheme for prioritizing service.

View PDFchevron_right
[Special Section on Net Neutrality] Introduction: The State of the Debate on Network Neutrality
William Lehr

International Journal of Communication, 2007

The debate over “network neutrality” has recently emerged as the single most important communications policy issue—at least within the United States—that is now being debated around the world. The resolution of this debate may greatly influence what applications and content are available to Internet users, which business models are successful for service providers, which modes of social communication develop, and which technical designs are effective. As applications move to become Internet Protocol (IP)-based, the reverberations will also reach those sectors that build on or compete with the Internet, including the telephone, television, radio, and electronic commerce sectors. The magnitude of this issue demands careful consideration by policymakers. The papers in this special issue can serve as a valuable basis for such consideration.

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction to a Special Issue on Network Neutrality
Marius Schwartz

Review of Network Economics, 2000

Network neutrality" encompasses a wide-ranging debate over what limits, if any, should be placed on network providers in pricing or managing Internet traffic. The articles in this volume tackle various aspects of this debate: Have other transportation networks been truly "neutral"? Should broadband providers be allowed to charge content providers for connecting with end users? How much price discrimination is appropriate and is it confined to network operators? How large are the potential costs of constraining traffic management practices? What are the tradeoffs from mandated loop unbundling to deter discrimination and what market power threshold justifies interventions?

View PDFchevron_right
Net Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-Sided Market Analysis
Nicholas Economides

SSRN eLibrary, 2007

We discuss net neutrality regulation in the context of a two-sided market model. Platforms sell Internet access services to consumers and may set fees to content - and application providers on the Internet. When access is monopolized, for reasonable parameter ranges, net neutrality regulation (requiring zero fees to content providers) increases the total industry surplus as compared to the fully private optimum at which the monopoly platform imposes positive fees on content providers. However, there are also parameter ranges for which total industry surplus is reduced. Imposing net neutrality in duopoly with multi-homing content providers and single-homing consumers increases the total surplus as compared to duopoly competition with positive fees to content providers.

View PDFchevron_right

References (125)

  1. Abbate, J. (1999) Inventing the Internet, Cambridge, MA and London, UK: MIT Press.
  2. Ai, Y., M. Peng and K. Zhang (2018) "Edge Computing Technologies for Internet of Things: A Primer", Digital Communications and Networks, 4(2):77-86.
  3. Anderson, T., L. Peterson, S. Shenker and J. Turner (2005) "Overcoming the Internet Impasse through Virtualization," Computer, 38(4):34-41.
  4. Antonello, R., S. Fernandes, C. Kamienski, D. Sadok, J. Kelner, I. Gódor, G. Szabó and T. Westholm (2012) "Deep Packet Inspection Tools and Techniques in Commodity Platforms: Challenges and Trends," Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35(6):1863-1878.
  5. Ash, G., A. Morton, M. Dolly, P. Tarapore, C. Dvorak and Y. El Mghazli (2010) "Y.1541-QOSM: Model for Networks using Y.1541 Quality-of-Service Classes," RFC 5976. available: https:// tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5976 [accessed 6 August 2019].
  6. Bauer, J. M. (2005) "Unbundling Policy in the United States Players, Outcomes and Effects," Communications & Strategies, 57(1):59-82.
  7. Bauer, J. M. and G. Knieps (2018) "Complementary Innovation and Network Neutrality," Telecommunications Policy, 42(2):172-183.
  8. Bauer, J. M. and J. A. Obar (2014) "Reconciling Political and Economic Goals in the Net Neutrality Debate," The Information Society, 30(1):1-19.
  9. Baumgartner, J. (2014) "Netflix to Pai: 'Open Connect Is Not a Fast Lane': Responds to FCC Commissioner's Concern About Private CDN Program," Multichannel NEWS, 11 December. available: http://www.multichannel.com/news/tv-apps/netflix-pai-open-connect-not-fast- lane/386236 [accessed 12 July 2019].
  10. Begen, A. C. and C. Timmerer (2017) "Adaptive Streaming of Traditional and Omnidi- rectional Media," ACM SIGCOMM Tutorial, 21-25 August. Los Angeles, CA, avail- able: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2017/files/tutorial-adaptive- streaming.pdf [accessed 12 July 2019].
  11. Bender, B., S. Surdock and A. Dhamdhere (2017) "The Internet is Flat: Revisited -A Small Tran- sit Provider Case Study," Presentation at NANOG 70, 5-7 June. Bellevue, WA, available: https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG2019/1833/20180921_Bender_ The_Internet_Is_v2.pdf [accessed 12 July 2019].
  12. BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) (2012a). Differentiation Practices and Related Competition Issues in the Scope of Net Neutrality. Draft Report for Public Consultation, BoR (12) 31, 29 May.
  13. BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) (2012b). BEREC Guidelines for Quality of Service in the Scope of Net Neutrality. Draft Report for Public Consultation, BoR (12) 32, 29 May.
  14. BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) (2012c). An Assessment of IP-Interconnection in the Context of Net Neutrality, Draft Report for Public Consultation. BoR (12) 33, 29 May.
  15. BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) (2016). BEREC Guide- lines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules, Guidelines. BoR (16) 127, 30 August.
  16. BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) (2018). BEREC Report on the Outcome of the Consultation on the Evaluation of the Application of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and the BEREC Net Neutrality Guidelines. Report, BoR (18) 245, 6 December.
  17. Berger-Kögler, U. and J. Kruse (2011) "Net Neutrality Regulation of the Internet?" International Journal of Management and Network Economics, 2(1):3-23.
  18. Böttger, T., F. Cuadrado, G. Tyson, I. Castro and S. Uhlig (2018) "Open Connect Everywhere: A Glimpse at the Internet Ecosystem through the Lense of the Netflix CDN," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 48(1):28-34.
  19. Böttger, T., G. Antichi, E. L. Fernandes, R. di Lallo, M. Bruyere, S. Uhlig and I. Castro (2019) "Shaping the Internet: 10 Years of IXP Growth," arXiv e-prints, 8 July. available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.10963 [accessed 12 July 2019].
  20. Brennan, T. J. (2017) "The Post-Internet Order Broadband Sector: Lessons from the Pre-Open Internet Order Experience," Review of Industrial Organization, 50(4):469-486.
  21. Bresnahan, T. (2010) "General Purpose Technologies." In: (Hall, B. H. and N. Rosenberg, eds.) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation: Volume 2. Amsterdam et al.: North-Holland, pp. 761-791.
  22. Bresnahan, T. and M. Trajtenberg (1995) "General Purpose Technologies 'Engines of growth'?" Journal of Econometrics, 65(1):83-108.
  23. Briscoe, B. (2007) "Flow Rate Fairness: Dismantling a Religion," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(2):65-74.
  24. Briscoe, B. (2008) "A Fairer, Faster Internet," IEEE Spectrum, 45(12):42-47.
  25. Briscoe, B. and S. Rudkin (2005) "Commercial Models for IP Quality of Service Interconnect," BT Technology Journal, 23(2):171-195.
  26. Brodkin, J. (2014) "Netflix Performance on Verizon and Comcast has been Dropping for Months: Latest Netflix Data Shows some ISPs Struggling, while Google Fiber Soars," ArsTechnica, 10 February, available: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix- performance-on-verizon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/ [accessed 07 June 2019].
  27. Carter, K., J. S. Marcus and C. Wernick (2008) Network Neutrality: Implications for Europe. WIK Discussion Paper No. 314, December, Bad Honnef: WIK.
  28. Cave, M. and P. Crocioni (2007) "Does Europe Need Network Neutrality Rules?" International Journal of Communication, 1:669-679.
  29. Cave, M. and I. Vogelsang (2015) "Net Neutrality: an E.U./U.S. Comparison," Competition Policy International, 11(1):85-95.
  30. Choffnes, D., P. Gill and A. Mislove (2017) "An Empirical Evaluation of Deployed DPI Middle- boxes and Their Implications for Policymakers," Paper presented at the 45 th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC), 7-9 September. Arlington, VA, available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2941535 [accessed 07 June 2019].
  31. Choi, J. P. and B.-C. Kim (2010) "Net Neutrality and Investment Incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, 41(3):446-471.
  32. Choi, J. P., D.-S. Jeon and B.-C. Kim (2018) "Net Neutrality, Network Capacity, and Innovation at the Edges," Journal of Industrial Economics, 66(1):172-204.
  33. Cisco (2019) "Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Trends, 2017-2022," available: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking- index-vni/white-paper-c11-741490.pdf [accessed 9 July 2019].
  34. Claffy, kc and D. D. Clark (2014) "Platform Models for Sustainable Internet Regulation," Journal of Information Policy, 4:463-488.
  35. Claffy, kc and D. D. Clark (2016) "Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History," Journal of Information Policy, 6:206-251.
  36. Claffy, kc and D. D. Clark (2019) "Workshop in Internet Economics (WIE2018) Final Report," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 49(2):25-30.
  37. Clark, D. D. (2007) "Network Neutrality: Words of Power and 800-Pound Gorillas," International Journal of Communication, 1:701-708.
  38. Clark, D. D., J. Wroclawski, K. Sollins and R. Braden (2005) "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet," IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 13(3):462-475.
  39. Coase, R. H. (1960) "The Problem of Social Cost," The Journal of Law and Economics, 3:1-44.
  40. Crowcroft, J. (2011) "The Affordance of Asymmetry or a Rendezvous with the Random?" Communications & Convergence Review, 3(1):40-56.
  41. Dischinger, M., M. Marcon, S. Guha, K. P. Gummadi, R. Mahajan and S. Saroiu (2010) "Glas- nost: Enabling End Users to Detect Traflc Differentiation," Proceedings of the 7 th USENIX conference on Networked systems design and implementation (NSDI '10), 28-30 April. San Jose, CA. available: https://ratul.org/papers/nsdi2010-glasnost.pdf [accessed 07 June 2019].
  42. Easley, R., H. Guo and J. Krämer (2018) "Research Commentary-From Net Neutrality to Data Neutrality: A Techno-Economic Framework and Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, 29(2):253-272.
  43. EC (European Commission) (2009a) "Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 Amending Directive 2002/22/EC on Universal Service and Users' Rights Relating to Electronic Communications Networks and Services, Directive 2002/58/EC Concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Electronic Communications Sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on Cooperation Between National Authorities Responsible for the Enforcement of Consumer Protec- tion Laws," Oflcial Journal of the European Union, L337:11-36. 18 December, Brussels, Belgium.
  44. EC (European Commission) (2009b) "Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 Amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a Common Regu- latory Framework for Electronic Communications Networks and Services, 2002/19/EC on Access to, and Interconnection of, Electronic Communications Networks and Associated Facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the Authorisation of Electronic Communications Networks and Services," Oflcial Journal of the European Union, L337:37-69. 18 December, Brussels, Belgium.
  45. EC (European Commission) (2010) "Digital Agenda: Commission Launches Consultation on Net Neutrality," IP/10/860, 30 June, Brussels, Belgium.
  46. EC (European Commission) (2013) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Measures Concerning the European Single Market for Elec- tronic Communications and to Achieve a Connected Continent, and Amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012. COM(2013) 627 final, 11 September, Brussels, Belgium.
  47. Economides, N. and B. E. Hermalin (2012) "The Economics of Network Neutrality," RAND Journal of Economics, 43(4):602-629.
  48. EU (European Union) (2015) "Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 Laying Down Measures Concerning Open Internet Access and Amending Directive 2002/22/EC on Universal Service and Users' Rights Relating to Electronic Communications Networks and Services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on Roaming on Public Mobile Communications Networks within the Union," Oflcial Journal of the European Union, L310:1-18. 26 November, Brussels, Belgium.
  49. EU (European Union) (2018) "Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast)," Oflcial Journal of the European Union, L321:36-214. 17 December, Brussels, Belgium.
  50. Faulhaber, G. R. (2011) "Economics of Net Neutrality: A Review," Communications & Convergence Review, 3(1):7-25.
  51. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2005a) In the Matter of Madison River Communica- tions, LLC and Aflliated Companies. Order, File No. EB-05-IH-0110 (DA 05-543), adopted: 3 March, released: 3 March, Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission.
  52. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2005b) In the Matter of Madison River Communica- tions, LLC and Aflliated Companies. Consent Decree, File No. EB-05-IH-0110 (DA 05-543), Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission.
  53. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2005c) In the Matters of Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities et al. Policy Statement, CC Docket No. 02-33 et al. (FCC 05-151), adopted: 5 August, released: 23 September. Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission.
  54. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2008) In the Matters of Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge against Comcast Corporation for Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications; Broadband Industry Practices Petition of Free Press et al. for Declaratory Ruling that Degrading an Internet Application Violates the FCC's Internet Pol- icy Statement and Does Not Meet an Exception for "Reasonable Network Management". Memorandum Opinion and Order, File No. EB-08-IH-1518, WC Docket No. 07-52 (FCC 08- 183), adopted: 1 August, released: 20 August. Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission.
  55. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2010) In the Matter of Preserving the Open Inter- net; Broadband Industry Practices. Report and Order, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52 (FCC 10-201), adopted: 21 December, released: 23 December. Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission.
  56. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2015a) "Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet," 4 February. available: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-331869A1.pdf [accessed 07 June 2019].
  57. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2015b) In the Matter of Protecting and Promot- ing the Open Internet. Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, GN Docket No. 14-28 (FCC 15-24), adopted: 26 February, released: 12 March. Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission.
  58. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2018) In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom. Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, WC Docket No. 17-108 (FCC 17-166), adopted: 14 December, released: 4 January. Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission.
  59. Frieden, R. (2015) "Ex Ante versus Ex Post Approaches to Network Neutrality: A Comparative Assessment," Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30(2):1561-1612.
  60. Frischmann, B. M. and B. van Schewick (2007) "Network Neutrality and the Economics of an Information Superhighway: A Reply to Professor Yoo," Jurimetrics, 47(4):383-428.
  61. Gans, J. S. (2015) "Weak versus Strong Net Neutrality," Journal of Regulatory Economics, 47(2):183-200.
  62. Gilroy, A. A. (2019) The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks. Congressional Research Service Report, 15 April. available: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40616.pdf [accessed 07 June 2019].
  63. Google (2019) Our Infrastructure. available: https://peering.google.com/#/infrastructure [accessed 10 July 2019].
  64. Greenstein, S. M. (2015) How the Internet Became Commercial: Innovation, Privatization, and the Birth of a New Network. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  65. Greenstein, S. M., M. Peitz, and T. M. Valletti (2016) "Net Neutrality: A Fast Lane to Understand- ing the Trade-Offs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2):127-150.
  66. Handley, M. (2006) "Why the Internet Only Just Works," BT Technology Journal, 24(3):119-129.
  67. Harrison, S. (2019) "Why Net Neutrality Advocates Remain Optimistic," WIRED, 1 June. avail- able: https://www.wired.com/story/why-net-neutrality-advocates-remain-optimistic/ [accessed 07 June 2019].
  68. Hazlett, T. W. and A. Caliskan (2008) "Natural Experiments in U.S. Broadband Regulation," Review of Network Economics, 7(4):460-480.
  69. Hazlett, T. W. and J. D. Wright (2012) "The Law and Economics of Network Neutrality," Indiana Law Review, 45(3):767-840.
  70. Hazlett, T. W. and J. D. Wright (2017) "The Effect of Regulation on Broadband Markets: Evaluat- ing the Empirical Evidence in the FCC's 2015 "Open Internet" Order," Review of Industrial Organization, 50(4):487-507.
  71. Hotelling, H. (1938) "The General Welfare in Relation to Problems of Taxation and of Railway and Utility Rates," Econometrica, 6(3):242-269.
  72. Huston, G. (2017) "The Rise and Rise of Content Distribution Networks," Presentation at the 8 th Workshop on Internet Economics (WIE 2017), 13-14 December. La Jolla, CA, available: http://www.caida.org/workshops/wie/1712/slides/wie1712_ghuston.pdf [accessed 07 June 2019].
  73. Internet Society (2019) "Net Neutrality Legislation: A Framework for Consensus," 29 May. avail- able: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2019/net-neutrality-legislation-a- framework-for-consensus/ [accessed 07 July 2019].
  74. ITU-R (2015) "IMT Vision -Framework and Overall Objectives of the Future Development of IMT for 2020 and Beyond," ITU-R Recommendation M.2083-0, 09/2015.
  75. Jamison, M. (2019) "Net Neutrality Policies and Regulation in the United States," Review of Network Economics, 17(3):151-173.
  76. Kang, C. (2017) "F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules," New York Times, 14 December. avail- able: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html [accessed 07 June 2019].
  77. Kaufmann, C. (2018) "ICN -Akamai's Backbone," Presentation at LINX Meeting 101, 22 May. London, UK, available: https://www.linx.net/wp-content/uploads/LINX101-Akamai-ICN- ChristianKaufmann.pdf [accessed 12 July 2019].
  78. Knieps, G. (2011) "Network Neutrality and the Evolution of the Internet," International Journal of Management and Network Economics, 2(1):24-38.
  79. Knieps, G. (2015) "Entrepreneurial Traflc Management and the Internet Engineering Task Force," Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 11(3):727-745.
  80. Knieps, G. (2017) "Internet of Things, Future Networks and the Economics of Virtual Networks," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 18(3-4):240-255.
  81. Knieps, G. and V. Stocker (2015) "Network Neutrality Regulation: The Fallacies of Regulatory Market Splits," Intereconomics, 50(1):46-51.
  82. Knieps, G. and V. Stocker (2016) "Price and QoS Differentiations in All-IP Networks," International Journal of Management and Network Economics, 3(4):317-335.
  83. Knieps, G. and P. Zenhäusern (2008) "The Fallacies of Network Neutrality Regulation," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 9(2):119-134.
  84. Krämer, J. and L. Wiewiorra (2012) "Network Neutrality and Congestion Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Content Variety, Broadband Investment, and Regulation," Information Systems Research, 23(4):1303-1321.
  85. Krämer, J., L. Wiewiorra and C. Weinhardt (2013) "Net Neutrality: A Progress Report," Telecommunications Policy, 37(9):794-813.
  86. Kroes, N. (2010) Net Neutrality -The Way Forward. SPEECH/10/643, European Commis- sion and European Parliament Summit on 'The Open Internet and Net Neutrality in Europe', 11 November. Brussels, Belgium, available: http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_SPEECH-10-643_en.pdf [accessed 07 June2019].
  87. Labovitz, C. (2019) "Internet Traflc 2009-2019," Presentation at NANOG 76, 9-12 June. Wash- ington, DC, available: https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG76/1972/ 20190610_Labovitz_Internet_Traflc_2009-2019_v1.pdf [accessed 07 June 2019].
  88. Lee, T. B. (2014) "Comcast's Deal with Netflix Makes Network Neutrality Obsolete," Wash- ington Post, 23 February. available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2014/02/23/comcasts-deal-with-netflix-makes-network-neutrality- obsolete/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6f3abed5499f [accessed 07 June 2019].
  89. Lee, R. S. and T. Wu (2009) "Subsidizing Creativity through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and Net Neutrality," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3):61-76.
  90. Lehr, W. H., D. D. Clark, S. Bauer, A. Berger and P. Richter (2018) "Whither the Public Internet?" Paper presented at the 46 th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC), 21-22 September. Washington, D.C., available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3141969 [accessed 07 June 2019].
  91. Leighton, T. (2009) "Improving Performance on the Internet," Communications of the ACM, 52(2):44-51.
  92. Lessig, L. and R. W. McChesney (2006) "No Tolls on the Internet," Washington Post, June 8. available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/ AR2006060702108.html [accessed 07 June 2019].
  93. MacKie-Mason, J. K. and H. R. Varian (1995) "Pricing the Internet." In: (Kahin, B. and J. Keller, eds.) Public Access to the Internet. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: MIT Press, pp. 269-314.
  94. Marcus, J. S. (2016) "New Network Neutrality Rules in Europe: Comparisons to those in the U.S.," Colorado Technology Law Journal, 14(2):259-280.
  95. Marcus, J. S., D. Elixmann and K. R. Carter (2008) The Future of IP Interconnection: Technical, Economic, and Public Policy Aspects. Study for the European Commission, Final Report, 29 January. Bad Honnef: WIK-Consult.
  96. Marsden, C. T. (2013) "Net Neutrality Law: Past Policy, Present Proposals, Future Reg- ulation?" Proceedings of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum: Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, 25 October. Nusa Dua Bali, Indonesia, available: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2335359 [accessed 07 June 2019].
  97. McCann, K., A. Mattei, J. Gledhill and G. Kirson (2012) Technical Evolution of the DTT Platform. An Independent Report by ZetaCast, Commissioned by Ofcom, Version 1.3, available: http://www.zetacast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Evolution-of-DTT.pdf [accessed 07 June 2019].
  98. Mohring, H. and M. Harwitz (1962) Highway Benefits: An Analytical Approach. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  99. Nomikos, G., V. Kotronis, P. Sermpezis, P. Gigis, L. Manassakis, C. Dietzel, S. Konstantaras, X. Dimitropoulos and V. Giotsas (2018) "O Peer, Where Art Thou?: Uncovering Remote Peer- ing Interconnections at IXPs," Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (IMC '18), 31 October-2 November. Boston, MA, pp. 265-278.
  100. Nygren, E., R. K. Sitaraman and J. Sun (2010) "The Akamai Network: A Platform for High- Performance Internet Applications," ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 44(3):2-19.
  101. Ou, G. (2008) Managing Broadband Networks: A Policymaker's Guide. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, December. available: http://www2.itif.org/ 2008-managing-broadband-policymakers-guide.pdf?_ga=2.198385327.1411444044. 1542745432-1969726516.1542745432 [accessed 07 June 2019].
  102. Peterson, L., T. Anderson, S. Katti, N. McKeown, G. Parulkar, J. Rexford, M. Satyanarayanan, O. Sunay and A. Vahdat (2019) "Democratizing the Network Edge," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 49(2):31-36.
  103. Powell, M. K. (2004a) "Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry," Remarks at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium, University of Colorado School of Law, 8 Febuary. Boulder, CO, available: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-243556A1.pdf [accessed 07 June 2019].
  104. Powell, M. K. (2004b) "Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry," Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 3(1):5-22.
  105. Reggiani, C. and T. Valletti (2016) "Net Neutrality and Innovation at the Core and the Edge," International Journal of Industrial Organization, 45:16-27.
  106. Satyanarayanan, M. (2017) "The Emergence of Edge Computing," Computer, 50(1):30-39.
  107. Schuett, F. (2010) "Network Neutrality: A Survey of the Economic Literature," Review of Network Economics, 9(2):1-15.
  108. Seufert, M., S. Egger, M. Slanina, T. Zinner, T. Hoßfeld and P. Tran-Gia (2015) "A Survey on Qual- ity of Experience of HTTP Adaptive Streaming," IEEE Communication Surveys & Tutorials, 17(1):469-492.
  109. Sidak, J. G. and D. J. Teece (2010) "Innovation Spillovers and the "Dirt Road" Fallacy: The Intel- lectual Bankruptcy of Banning Optional Transactions for Enhanced Delivery over the Internet," Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 6(3):521-594.
  110. Smith, J. M. (2009) "Fighting Physics: A Tough Battle," ACM Queue, 7(3):20-26.
  111. Stocker, V. (2015) "Interconnection and Capacity Allocation for All-IP Networks: Walled Gardens or Full Integration?" Paper presented at the 43 rd Research Conference on Communica- tion, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC), 25-27 September. Arlington, VA, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2587833 [accessed 07 June 2019].
  112. Stocker, V. (2019) "Ecosystem Evolution and End-to-End QoS on the Internet: The (Remaining) Role of Interconnections." In: (Knieps, G. and V. Stocker, eds.) The Future of the Internet - Innovation, Integration and Sustainability. Freiburger Studien zur Netzökonomie, Nomos: Baden-Baden, pp. 171-193. Forthcoming.
  113. Stocker, V. and J. Whalley (2019) "Who Replies to Consultations, and What Do They Say? The Case of Broadband Universal Service in the UK," Telecommunications Policy, published online: 10 June. available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0308596118302192 [accessed 12 July 2019].
  114. Stocker, V., G. Smaragdakis, W. H. Lehr and S. Bauer (2017) "The Growing Complexity of Content Delivery Networks: Challenges and Implications for the Internet Ecosystem," Telecommunications Policy, 41(10):1003-1016.
  115. Svensson, P. (2007) "Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traflc," Washington Post, 19 October. available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/ AR2007101900842.html [accessed 12 July 2019].
  116. Trevisan, M., D. Giordano, I. Drago, M. Mellia and M. Munafo (2018) "Five Years at the Edge: Watching Internet from the ISP Network," Proceedings of the 14 th International Confer- ence on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT '18), 4-7 December. Heraklion, Greece, pp. 1-12.
  117. van Schewick, B. (2007) "Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation," Journal on Telecommunications and High Technolology Law, 5:329-392.
  118. van Schewick, B. (2010) Internet Architecture and Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  119. Vogelsang, I. (2013) "The Endgame of Telecommunications Policy? A Survey," Review of Economics, 64(3):193-270.
  120. Wohlfahrt, F., N. Chatzis, C. Dabanoglu, G. Carle and W. Willinger (2018) "Leveraging Intercon- nections for Performance: The Serving Infrastructure of a large CDN," Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group Data Communication (SIGCOMM '18), 20-25 August. Budapest, Hungary, pp. 206-220.
  121. Wu, T. (2002) "A Proposal for Network Neutrality," June. available: http://www.timwu.org/ OriginalNNProposal.pdf [accessed 07 June 2019].
  122. Wu, T. (2003) "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination," Journal on Telecommunication and High Technology Law, 2:141-179.
  123. Yoo, C. S. (2005) "Beyond Network Neutrality," Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 19(1):1-77.
  124. Yoo, C. S. (2006) "Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion," The Georgetown Law Journal, 94(6):1847-1908.
  125. Zave, P. and J. Rexford (2019) "The Compositional Architecture of the Internet," Communica- tions of the ACM, 62(3):78-87.

Related papers

The Law and Economics of Network Neutrality
Joshua Wright

2011

The Federal Communications Commission's Network Neutrality Order regulates how broadband networks explain their services to customers, mandates that subscribers be permitted to deploy whatever computers, mobile devices, or applications they like for use with the network access service they purchase, imposes a prohibition upon unreasonable discrimination in network management such that Internet Service Provider efforts to maintain service quality (e.g. mitigation congestion) or to price and package their services do not burden rival applications. This paper offers legal and economic critique of the new Network Neutrality policy and particularly the no blocking and no discrimination rules. While we argue the FCC's rules are likely to be declared beyond the scope of the agency's charter, we focus upon the economic impact of net neutrality regulations. It is beyond paradoxical that the FCC argues that it is imposing new regulations so as to preserve the Internet's current economic structure; that structure has developed in an unregulated environment where firms are free to experiment with business modelsand vertical integrationat will. We demonstrate that Network Neutrality goes far further than existing law, categorically prohibiting various forms of economic integration in a manner equivalent to antitrust's per se rule, properly reserved for conduct that is so likely to cause competitive harm that the marginal benefit of a fact-intensive analysis cannot be justified. Economic analysis demonstrates that Network Neutrality cannot be justified upon consumer welfare grounds. Further, the Commission's attempt to justify its new policy simply ignores compelling evidence that -open access‖ regulations have distorted broadband build-out in the United States, visibly reducing subscriber growth when imposed and visibly increasing subscriber growth when repealed. On the other, the FCC manages to cite just one studynot of the broadband marketto support its claims of widespread foreclosure threats. This empirical study, upon closer scrutiny than the Commission appears to have given it, actually shows no evidence of anticompetitive foreclosure. This fatal analytical flaw constitutes a smoking gun in the FCC's economic analysis of net neutrality.

View PDFchevron_right
The Economics of Network Neutrality
Nicholas Economides

Pricing of Internet access has been characterized by two properties: Parties are directly billed only by the Internet service provider (ISP) through which they connect to the Internet and the ISP charges them on the basis of the amount of information transmitted rather than its content. These properties define a regime known as “network neutrality.” In 2005, some large ISPs proposed that application and content providers directly pay them additional fees for accessing the ISPs’ residential clients, as well as differential fees for prioritizing certain content. We analyze the private and social incentives to introduce such fees when the network is congested and more traffic implies delays. We find that network neutrality is welfare superior to bandwidth subdivision (granting or selling priority service). We also consider the welfare properties of the various regimes that have been proposed as alternatives to network neutrality. In particular, we show that the benefit of a zero-price “slow lane” is a function of the bandwidth the regulator mandates be allocated it. Extending the analysis to consider ISPs’ incentives to invest in more bandwidth, we show that, under general conditions, their incentives are greatest when they can price discriminate; this investment incentive offsets to some degree the allocative distortion created by the introduction of price discrimination. A priori, it is ambiguous whether the offset is sufficient to justify departing from network neutrality.

View PDFchevron_right
Disentangling economic and political goals in the net neutrality debate
taejin koh

2011

View PDFchevron_right
Network Neutrality: The Global Dimension
Pierre Larouche

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
[Special Section on Net Neutrality] Dynamic Effects of Network Neutrality
Johannes Bauer

International Journal of Communication, 2007

At the heart of the network neutrality debate is a challenging institutional design problem: the selection of a regime to govern the relations between the stakeholders in the complex value net of advanced communication services, most importantly between platform operators and providers of applications and content. How it is resolved will have far-reaching effects on the future evolution of communication industries. A wide spectrum of arrangements to structure these relations is possible, ranging from a minimally restrictive antitrust approach to highly constraining rules and regulations in a framework of full regulation. Based on a stylized model, the paper examines the innovation incentives of platform operators and content providers in next-generation networks under three scenarios: (1) absence of network neutrality rules, (2) various non-discrimination rules, and (3) full regulation. The discussion reveals that no panacea exists to address the potential problems raised by the network neutrality debate. Alternative specifications of rules will result in different innovation trajectories at the platform and content layers and the system overall. Given the lack of knowledge and the high degree of uncertainty, a strategy of monitoring, combined with a willingness and authorization to intervene if a pattern of abuse becomes visible, seems to be the most appropriate immediate step forward. I. Introduction At the heart of the network neutrality debate is a challenging institutional design problem: the selection of a regime to govern the relations between the stakeholders in the complex value net of advanced communication services, most importantly between platform operators and providers of applications and content. How it is resolved will probably have far-reaching effects on the future evolutionary path of communication industries. A wide spectrum of arrangements to structure this

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Economics
  • Network Economics
  • Applied Economics
  • Net Neutrality

    • Cited by

    The state of network neutrality regulation
    William Lehr

    ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review

    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.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved