skip to main content
research-article

Net Neutrality: Discrimination, Competition, and Innovation in the UK and US

Published:12 March 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We analyze UK and US experiences as they relate to two central net neutrality questions: (1) whether competition serves as a deterrent to the discriminatory treatment of Internet traffic, and (2) whether discrimination creates barriers to application development and innovation. Relying on consumer switching behavior to provide more comprehensive competitive discipline was insufficient for a variety of reasons, including the presence of switching costs. The process of correcting errors in the technology used for application-specific management revealed that such management creates costs for application developers and innovators, regardless of whether their products are targeted for traffic management.

References

  1. Atherton, M. 2010. BT response to Ofcom consultation on traffic management. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/net-neutrality/responses/BT.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bangeman, E. 2007. Comcast traffic blocking: Even more apps, groupware clients affected. http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/comcast-traffic-blocking-even-more-apps-groupware-clients-affected/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar, F., Cohen, S., Cowhey, P., DeLong, B., Kleeman M., and Zysman, M. 2000. Access and innovation policy for the third-generation Internet. Telecomm. Policy 24, 6--7, 489--518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Becker, G. S., Carlton, D. W., and Sider, H. S. 2010. Net neutrality and consumer welfare. J. Compet. Law Econ. 6, 3, 497--519,Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. BIS and DCMS. 2009. Digital Britain final report. UK Government report. http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes3/digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourreau, M., Kourandi, F., and Valletti, T. 2013. Net neutrality with competing Internet platforms. Working paper, Telecom ParisTech Department of Economics and Social Sciences. http://pareto.uab.es/sempdf/micro/2013/Valletti.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Broadband Stakeholder Group. 2011. Broadband providers launch new traffic management transparency code. http://www.broadbanduk.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/broadband_providers_launch_new_traffic_management_transparency_code_14_march_201111.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Brianl. 2011. Consolidated latency tracking and reporting. http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1965992365?page=7#122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Brill, E. 2009. Hart v. Comcast, proposed class action settlement for Lotus Notes throttling. http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/hart-v.-comcast-proposed-class-action-settlement-for-lotus-notes-throttling.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooksy. 2010. Re: BT throttling P2P traffic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://community.bt.com/t5/BB-Speed-Connection-Issues/BT-Throttling-P2P-Traffic/m-p/56929.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, C. J. and Boucher, T. M. 2007. Comments of Qwest Communications International Inc. Matter of broadband industry practices. WC Docket no. 07-52. https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/101210qwest.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Casserly, J. L., Wallach, R. G., Alvarez, D. K., Walker, H. C., Waz, J. W., Zachem, K. A., McManus, M., Nathan, T. R., and Lewis, G. J. 2008. Reply comments of Comcast Corporation in the matter of broadband industry practices. WC Docket no. 07--52. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6519856208Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cave, M. and Crocioni, P. 2007. Does Europe need network neutrality rules? Int. J. Comm. 1, 669--679.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Chirico, F., Haar, I. M. V. D., and Larouche, P. 2007. Network neutrality in the EU. Tilburg Law and Economics discussion paper no. 2007--030. https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/files/860692/networkneutrality.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutton, W. H., di Gennaro, C., and Millwood Hargrave, A. 2005. The Internet in Britain: The Oxford Internet survey (OxIS). Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. http://oxis.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Dutton, W. H. and Blank, G. 2011. Next generation users: The Internet in Britain 2011. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. http://oxis.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Economides, N. 2008. Net neutrality, non-discrimination and digital distribution of content through the internet, I/S J. Law Policy Inf. Soc. 4, 209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. ECTA. 2010. Public consultation on the open Internet and net neutrality in Europe. http://www.ectaportal.com/en/POLICY/Positions/2010/-print/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Faulhaber, G. R. and Farber, D. J. 2010. The open Internet: A customer-centric framework. Int. J. Comm. 4, 302--342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. FCC. 2010. Report and order in the matter of preserving the open Internet. GN Docket 09-1913; broadband industry practices. WC Docket 07-52. http://www.fcc.gov/document/preserving-open-internet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. FCC. 2012. Internet access services. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0614/DOC-314630A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Government Accountability Office. 2006. Broadband deployment is extensive throughout the United States, but it is difficult to assess the extent of deployment gaps in rural areas. GAO-06-426. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06426.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Guo, H., Cheng, H. K., and Bandyopadhyay, S. 2012. Net neutrality, broadband market coverage, and innovation at the edge. Decis. Sci. 43, 1, 141--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Jackson, M. 2011. UPD UK ISP TalkTalk uses traffic management to block users from playing OnLive. http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/09/30/uk-isp-talktalk-uses-traffic-management-to-block-customers-from-playing-onlive.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jon, S. 2011. World of Warcraft latency and lag spikes. http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Up-to-30Mb-Setup-Equipment/World-of-Warcraft-latency-and-lag-spikes/m-p/349083/highlight/true#M151086.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hahn, R. W., Litan, R. E., and Singer, H. J. 2007. The economics of wireless ‘net neutrality’. J. Compet. Law Econ. 3, 3, 399--451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Kantar Media. 2012. OCI tracker benchmark study q3 2012. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/telecoms-research/copyright-infringement-tracker/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kisielowska-Lipman, M. 2012. Lost on the broadband super highway: Consumer understanding of information on traffic management. http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2012/11/Lost-on-the-broadband-super-highway.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Krafft, J. and Salies, E. 2008. The diffusion of ADSL and costs of switching Internet providers in the broadband industry: Evidence from the French case. Res. Policy 37, 4, 706--719.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Lehr, W. E., Gillett, S. E., Sirbu, M. A., and Peha, J. M. 2006. Scenarios for the network neutrality arms race. Int. J. Comm. 1, 607--643.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemley, M. A. and Lessig, L. 2001. The end of end-to-end: Preserving the architecture of the Internet in the broadband era. UCLA Law Rev. 48, 925.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Lennett, B. 2009. Dis-empowering users vs. maintaining Internet freedom: Network management and quality of service (QoS). Comm. Law Conspectus 18, 1, 97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lessig, L. 2001. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. Random House Digital. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Litan, R. E. and Singer, H. J. 2007. Unintended consequences of net neutrality regulation. J. Telecomm. High Tech. Law. 5, 3, 533.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. London Economics. 2011. Consumer information on broadband speed and net neutrality experiment. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/netneutrality/statement/Consumer_information1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Marsden, C. T. 2007. Net neutrality and consumer access to content. SCRIPT-ed. 4, 4, 407--435.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Marsden, C. T. 2010. Net Neutrality: Towards a Co-Regulatory Solution. Bloomsbury Academic, London. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Nuechterlein, J. E. 2009. Antitrust oversight of an antitrust dispute: An institutional perspective on the net neutrality debate. J. Telecomm. High Tech. Law 7, 1, 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Ofcom. 2006. The consumer experience research report. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/consumer-experience-reports/report/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Ofcom. 2008. Voluntary code of practice: Broadband speeds. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/codes-of-practice/broadband-speeds-cop/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Ofcom. 2009a. UK broadband speeds 2009. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/telecoms-research/broadband-speeds/broadband_speeds/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Ofcom. 2009b. The consumer experience 2009. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/consumer-experience-reports/eval09/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ofcom. 2010a. Review of the wholesale broadband access markets: Consultation on market definition, market power determinations and remedies. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/wholesale-broadband-markets/summary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Ofcom. 2010b. UK broadband speeds. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/telecoms-research/broadband-speeds/broadband-speeds-2010/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Ofcom. 2010c. Review of the wholesale broadband access markets: Second consultation on market definition, market power determinations and remedies. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/wholesale-broadband-markets/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Ofcom. 2010d. Strategic review of consumer switching: A consultation on switching processes in the UK communications sector. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/consumer-switching/summary/switching.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Ofcom. 2011. Approach to net neutrality. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/net-neutrality/statement/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Ofcom. 2013. The consumer experience 2012. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/consumer-experience-reports/consumer-experience-12/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Reggiani, C. and Valletti, T. 2012. Net neutrality and innovation at the core and at the edge. University of Manchester School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 1202. http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/economics/discussionpapers/EDP-1202.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Richmond, S. 2011. Superfast broadband ‘for 90 percent of Britain by 2015’. The Telegraph, May 12th.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosen, A. 2012. File 545613, Internet traffic management practice (‘ITMP’). Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C.1993, c.38, as amended (‘Act’), and Paragraphs 126 and 127 of Telecom Regulatory Policy. CRTC 2009-657.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Sandvig, C. 2007. Network neutrality is the new common carriage. Info: The J. Policy Regulat. Strategy Telecomm. Inf. Media 9, 2/3, 136--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Sidak, J. G. 2006. A consumer-welfare approach to network neutrality regulation of the Internet. J. Compet. Law Econ. 2, 3, 349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Shelanski, H. A. 2007. Adjusting regulation to competition: Toward a new model for U.S. telecommunications policy. Yale J. Regulat. 24, 1, 55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Sky. 2010. Response by British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC to Ofcom’s discussion document ‘traffic management and net neutrality’. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/net-neutrality/responses/Sky.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Skype. 2010. Skype comments on Ofcom discussion paper ‘traffic management and net neutrality’. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/net-neutrality/responses/Skype.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Sluijs, J. P., Schuett, F., and Henze, B. 2011. Transparency regulation in broadband markets: Lessons from experimental research. Telecomm. Policy 35, 7, 592--602. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. TalkTalk Group. 2010a. Traffic management and ‘net neutrality’: A discussion document. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/net-neutrality/responses/TTG.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. TalkTalk Group. 2010b. European commission consultation / Questionnaire on open Internet and net neutrality in Europe. TalkTalk Group Response.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Tambini, D. 2012. Consumer representation in UK communications policy and regulation. Inf. 14, 2, 3--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Telefónica. 2010. Response to: ‘Traffic management and net neutrality’: A discussion document. http://oti.newamerica.net/publications/resources/2010/response_to_ofcom_consultation_on_traffic_management_and_net_neutrality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Thompson, K. 2011. Re: Complaint regarding Rogers’ Internet traffic management practices; file # 522253 and file # 517209. https://openmedia.ca/sites/openmedia.ca/files/Rogers%20ITMP%20Complaint%20March%2029%202011.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. van Schewick, B. 2007. Towards an economic framework for network neutrality regulation. J. Telecomm. High Technol. Law 5, 2, 329--391.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. van Schewick, B. 2010. Internet Architecture and Innovation. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. van Schewick, B. 2012. Network neutrality and quality of service: What a non-discrimination rule should look like. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/downloads/20120611-NetworkNeutrality.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Wellman, S. 2007. Comcast is blocking more than BitTorrent, including Lotus Notes. InformationWeek, October 22nd. http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/comcast-is-blocking-more-than-bittorrent- including-lotus-notes/d/d-id/1060589?.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilkin, M. 2011. World of Warcraft issues. http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Broadband-down-your-phone-line/World-of-Warcraft-Issues-Updated-14-02-11/td-p/161857.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu, T. 2003. Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. J. Telecomm. High Technol. Law 2, 1, 141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Wu, T. 2010. Wireless Carterfone. Int. J. Comm. 1, 389--426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Wu, T. and Lessig, L. 2003. Ex parte submission in CS Docket no. 02-52. http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/wu_lessig_fcc.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Yoo, C. S. 2004. Would mandating broadband network neutrality help or hurt competition? A comment on the end-to-end debate. J. Telecomm. High Tech. Law 3, 1, 23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Net Neutrality: Discrimination, Competition, and Innovation in the UK and US

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
            ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 15, Issue 1
            Special Issue on Foundations of Social Computing
            February 2015
            147 pages
            ISSN:1533-5399
            EISSN:1557-6051
            DOI:10.1145/2745838
            • Editor:
            • Munindar P. Singh
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2015 ACM

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 12 March 2015
            • Accepted: 1 September 2014
            • Revised: 1 August 2014
            • Received: 1 April 2014
            Published in toit Volume 15, Issue 1

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!