DOCSLIB.ORG

Net Neutrality Exploring Views of Internet Stakeholders in Sweden Bachelor Thesis 15 Credits, Course SYSK02 in Information Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Net Neutrality Exploring Views of Internet Stakeholders in Sweden Bachelor Thesis 15 Credits, Course SYSK02 in Information Systems Department of Informatics Net Neutrality Exploring views of internet stakeholders in Sweden Bachelor thesis 15 credits, course SYSK02 in information systems Presented: May, 2016 Authors: Thomas Ohlsson Mikkel Wulff Supervisor: Benjamin Weaver Examiners: Bo Andersson Markus Lahtinen Net Neutrality Thomas Ohlsson and Mikkel Wulff Title: Net Neutrality – Exploring views of internet stakeholders in Sweden Authors: Thomas Ohlsson, Mikkel Wulff Publisher: Department of Informatics, Lund University Supervisor: Benjamin Weaver Examiners: Bo Andersson, Markus Lahtinen Presented: May, 2016 Document type: Bachelor thesis Number of pages: 62 Keywords: end-to-end principle, net neutrality, network neutrality, open internet, Sweden, zero-rating Abstract: The purpose of this thesis is to examine the views of internet stakeholders in Sweden, from the perspective of net neutrality. There does not exist one single definition of the principle, which makes defining net neutrality in the context of this thesis important. The basic concept of net neutrality is that all similar internet content should be treated equally. However there are several technical, economical and legal aspects to consider, and that makes an exploration of those aspects a part of our background. What peaked our interest was the combination of the high profile in the debate, complex topic and the result of a small survey we conducted that showed a low level of awareness. In this qualitative study, eight different respondents answered our questions, coming from three major categories of stakeholders (ISPs, CPs, and legal authorities). The analysis was based on interpretations of the answers and fitting them into a theoretical framework constructed by the authors to compare the views of the respondents. The reported views on net neutrality contains a wide range of concerns covering several disciplines. There is a mix of past, present and future concerns being lifted, with both technical, economical and legal aspects. The depth of the answers vary from shallow to very complex. To be able to comment on the findings we state our view of net neutrality as a starting point for our discussion. We found that the delicate and complex topic, high profile in the debates, and ongoing legal changes has led to a low response rate. From the responses received, the view of the stakeholders are more homogenous among ISPs, and more varied among CPs. The respondents are pro net neutrality, more so from a theoretical perspective. The legal authorities has a pragmatic view and provided us with a deeper understanding. It would provide further insights to see how the view of the stakeholders might change when the guidelines from BEREC are presented in the late summer of 2016. 2 Net Neutrality Thomas Ohlsson and Mikkel Wulff Content Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 6 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Why net neutrality is important ................................................................................... 8 1.2 Research Problem ........................................................................................................ 9 1.3 Research Question ....................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Scope ........................................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................ 10 2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 History ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Stakeholders described .............................................................................................. 12 2.3 Technical aspects and concepts ................................................................................. 14 2.4 Net neutrality from other perspectives ...................................................................... 19 2.4.1 Economical ................................................................................................................... 19 2.4.2 Legal ............................................................................................................................. 19 3 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 21 3.1 Theoretical framework............................................................................................... 23 4 Method .............................................................................................................................. 24 4.1 Sources ....................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Selection of participants ............................................................................................ 24 4.2.1 Overview of responses from stakeholders .................................................................... 25 4.3 Choice of method ....................................................................................................... 26 4.3.1 Questions ...................................................................................................................... 26 4.3.2 Email responses ............................................................................................................ 26 4.3.3 Interview ....................................................................................................................... 26 4.3.4 Survey........................................................................................................................... 27 4.3.5 Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.4 Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................... 27 4.4.1 Ethical aspects .............................................................................................................. 28 4.5 Method reflection ...................................................................................................... 28 5 Empirical Findings ............................................................................................................ 29 3 Net Neutrality Thomas Ohlsson and Mikkel Wulff 5.1 Response from legal authorities................................................................................. 29 5.2 Response from ISPs ................................................................................................... 30 5.3 Response from content providers .............................................................................. 31 5.4 Overview of current zero-rating offerings in Sweden ............................................... 33 6 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 34 6.1 Theoretical framework applied to empirical findings ............................................... 34 6.1.1 Legal authorities ........................................................................................................... 34 6.1.2 ISPs .............................................................................................................................. 35 6.1.3 Content Providers ......................................................................................................... 35 6.2 Graphical representation of answers .......................................................................... 36 6.3 Further discussion ...................................................................................................... 37 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 39 7.1 Future research........................................................................................................... 39 Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 40 A.1 Questionnaire and e-mail responses .................................................................................. 40 A.2 Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 45 A.3 Survey ................................................................................................................................ 53 A.4 Attached documents .......................................................................................................... 54 References ...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barbara Van Schewick Professor of Law and by Courtesy, Electrical Engineering Helen L
    Barbara van Schewick Professor of Law and by Courtesy, Electrical Engineering Helen L. Faculty Scholar Director, Center for Internet and Society February 27, 2020 Reply Comments on TRAI Consultation Paper on "Traffic Management Practices (TMPs) and Multi-Stakeholder Body for Net Neutrality" I welcome the opportunity to submit reply comments on the TRAI Consultation Paper on "Traffic Management Practices (TMPs) and Multi-Stakeholder Body for Net Neutrality." I submit these reply comments as a professor of law and, by courtesy, electrical engineering at Stanford University whose research focuses on Internet architecture, innovation and regulation. I have a Ph.D. in computer science and a law degree and have worked on net neutrality for the past twenty years. My book “Internet Architecture and Innovation,” which was published by MIT Press in 2010, is considered the seminal work on the science, economics and politics of network neutrality. My papers on network neutrality have influenced discussions on network neutrality all over the world.1 I have testified on matters of Internet architecture, innovation and regulation before the California Legislature, the US Federal Communications Commission, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, and BEREC.2 The FCC’s 2010 and 2014 Open Internet Orders relied heavily on my work. My work also informed BEREC’s 2016 net neutrality implementation guidelines as well as the 2017 Orders on zero-rating by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, and TRAI’s 2016 Order on zero-rating. Finally, I served as technical advisor for California’s net neutrality law, which took effect in January 2020. I have not been retained or paid by anybody to participate in this proceeding.3 My reply comments draw heavily on my existing writings on net neutrality.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging the Last Mile: an Exploration of Ict Policy Through Bharatnet
    BRIDGING THE LAST MILE: AN EXPLORATION OF ICT POLICY THROUGH BHARATNET Deepti Bharthur A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2015 Committee: Radhika Gajjala, Advisor Shannon Orr Graduate Faculty Representative Oliver Boyd-Barrett Clayton Rosati © 2015 Deepti Bharthur All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Radhika Gajjala, Advisor India is brimming with new optimism about its economic growth potential and ability to enhance its status. Democratic and demographic dividends play a crucial role in its aspiration. As a key IT player with regard to the services and allied sectors its transformation from telecom as a luxury to appreciable levels of teledensity is a narrative in itself. Its tryst with harnessing communication for development integrates the modernization approaches with all the consequent set of problems and issues. The liberal framework in which telecom reforms were initiated have spread the vision of modern handheld communication devices as harbingers of empowerment, entitlement and entertainment. Connectivity and access in the last mile is no doubt a significant variable and required a major policy articulation and push by the government. It was against this reality shared by many other nations that incremental articulations for broadband access in keeping with the vision of creating an information society were made. Through a historical institutional analysis, this study unravels the pattern leading
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Governance As 'Ideology in Practice' – India's 'Free Basics' Controversy Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change, India
    INTERNET POLICY REVIEW Journal on internet regulation Volume 5 | Issue 3 Internet governance as 'ideology in practice' – India's 'Free Basics' controversy Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change, India Nandini Chami IT for Change, India Published on 30 Sep 2016 | DOI: 10.14763/2016.3.431 Abstract: The paper examines the recent Free Basics controversy in India, which triggered a national level policy debate on the appropriate regulatory response to differential pricing of data services, employing the theoretical framework of 'ideology in practice'. Unpacking 'openness' in design, 'inclusion' in provisioning and 'empowerment' in use as contested concepts in the policy process, the paper demonstrates a paradoxical conflation of oppositional interpretations of access. Tracing the material-discursive practices of actors in the debate and scrutinising everyday practices of the internet for their moral claims, the paper examines if and how hegemonic discourses of economic globalisation are challenged, and alternative meanings of the internet etched in contemporary political agenda on internet governance in India. Keywords: Internet governance, Net neutrality, Facebook, Internet access Article information Received: 26 Apr 2016 Reviewed: 17 Jun 2016 Published: 30 Sep 2016 Licence: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist that have influenced the text. URL: http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/internet-governance-ideology-practice-indias-free-basics-con troversy Citation: Gurumurthy, A. & Chami, N. (2016). Internet governance as 'ideology in practice' – India's 'Free Basics' controversy. Internet Policy Review, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.3.431 This paper is part of Doing internet governance, a special issue of Internet Policy Review guest-edited by Dmitry Epstein, Christian Katzenbach, and Francesca Musiani.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses to the Pre-Consultation Paper on Net Neutrality We Thank TRAI for Initiating This Pre-Consultation Process on Net Neutrality
    Responses to the Pre-Consultation Paper on Net Neutrality We thank TRAI for initiating this pre-consultation process on Net Neutrality. However, as the earlier consultation process on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services had questions related to Net Neutrality, we hope that the responses submitted for that consultation will also be considered while analyzing this issue. Our responses to this consultation paper are drawn to a large extent from the earlier consultation process as the issues dealt with are largely similar. One of the basic legal protections for the freedom of the market embedded in the common law is the non-discriminatory principle of public carriage. If firms providing transport services to the public are able to discriminate among shippers or receivers of goods, they can profit hugely, at the expense of other market participants generally, their own cartel allies excepted. So from ferrymen in medieval England to railroad and trucking companies in the 20th century, prohibiting anti- competitive discrimination in transport services for the public is basic to the fair working of the market. Telecommunications services are not different in this respect from other forms of transport. Regulators in the 20th century dealt with telephone and other such services on a common-carriage basis, in order to prevent anti-competitive collusion. One aspect of the group of ideas sometimes misleadingly called, all together, "network neutrality," is the principle of prohibiting anti- competitive routing practices. As the recent experience of the US Federal Communications Commission has shown, management of a fair Internet is now as fundamental to the free market as the prohibition by other regulators of anti-competitive practices in other forms of transport.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg on Net Neutrality Advocacy in India Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg on Net Neutrality Advocacy in India
    Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg on Net Neutrality Advocacy ... http://newsclick.in/print/5912 Published on NewsClick (http://newsclick.in) Home > Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg on Net Neutrality Advocacy in India Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg on Net Neutrality Advocacy in India Courtesy: accessnow, January 07, 2016 Thirty groups from around the world have penned an open letter [1] to Mark Zuckerberg regarding Facebook’s recent actions concerning the Free Basics program in India. The letter urges Facebook to meaningfully and respectfully engage with Net Neutrality advocates who are fighting for a free and open internet across the globe. Dear Mark Zuckerberg, You have said that “connecting the world is one of the greatest challenges of our generation.” We all agree. We also believe that a connectivity agenda must respect the right of all to equally access, receive, and impart information. For this reason, we are concerned about Facebook’s recent attacks on the millions of internet users in India and around the world who have fought, and who continue to fight, for Net Neutrality. First up we would like to acknowledge that Facebook has positively responded to the public’s concerns by making important fixes to the security, privacy, and transparency of Internet.org and Free Basics. But we are troubled about recent actions regarding Free Basics in India. Facebook is encouraging its users to take action against Net Neutrality rules and protections being considered by the Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). 1 of 4 08/01/16 2:03 pm Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg on Net Neutrality Advocacy ..
    [Show full text]
  • Net Neutrality in India
    1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington DC, 20005 USA www.webfoundation.org Net Neutrality in India A submission to the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology 1 May 2015 1 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington DC, 20005 USA www.webfoundation.org 1. Introduction and Background India is a case study in the power and potential of a free, neutral and open Web. Positive steps in recent years such as Digital India and the Right to Information Act have brought benefits to millions of Indians, while internet penetration rates are rising fast. We have no doubt that the current debate over net neutrality and zero-rating will reverberate around the world, and India - already estimated to have the second-highest number of internet users in the world - now has a chance to lead the way. Consequently, the World Wide Web Foundation (Web Foundation) is grateful for the opportunity to make a submission on this important topic. The Web Foundation was established in 2009 by Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee. We believe that the Web is a public good and that access is a basic right. Our work focuses on securing and enhancing the three rights of access, voice and participation. Our team of more than 30 experts comprises around 20 different nationalities (many from the Global South), working from four hubs around the world. We work in close partnership with over 150 organisations to reach into around 60 countries. Our annual Web Index - a study covering 86 countries - produced the world’s first ever overview of Net Neutrality in 20141.
    [Show full text]
  • Net Neutrality in India: Sighting the Finish Line
    ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 Net Neutrality in India: Sighting the Finish Line SMRITI PARSHEERA Smriti Parsheera ([email protected]) is a technology policy researcher with the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi. Vol. 53, Issue No. 25, 23 Jun, 2018 Whatever be the policy instrument through which we adopt the principle of net neutrality, India’s de-facto position on this will emerge only as we begin to see new services and business models tested against the proposed principles. The net neutrality debate revolves around key policy questions of operator autonomy in the management of communication networks; and the extent to which operators may use this autonomy to influence the access, price or quality of content available on the Internet. In February, 2016, India became one of the few countries in the world to take a definitive stance on the issue of discriminatory tariffs: Varying data tariffs based on the content being accessed by the user (TRAI, 2016). TRAI's Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016 put an end to zero-rating services like Facebook's Free Basics, a platform through which users of Reliance Communications were being offered free data access for browsing Facebook and other partner websites (Damle et al, 2016). The focus then shifted to deciding how India would regulate other practices such as blocking, slowing down of particular traffic and preferential treatment of content, the other key components of the net neutrality debate. In its recommendations to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) made in November, 2017, TRAI extended the same logic that it used in case of discriminatory tariffs to restrict the “discriminatory treatment of content”.
    [Show full text]
  • Zee Entertainment Enterprises 22 October 2018
    22 October 2018 INDIA | MEDIA| COMPANY UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 03 Key charts and tables 04 Rapid OTT evolution but no TV disruption 05 TV fundamentals continue to be robust in India 09 Indian OTT video space—game has just begun 19 OTT economics are challenging and still evolving—scale is the key 23 Zee has a potentially winning OTT strategy 29 ZEEL to outperform declining TV ad-spend growth; Upgrade to BUY 34 Financials—robust profit growth, improving RoAE, rising FCF/EBITDA ratio 40 Key risks—OTT competition, access and platform dominance, 5G 46 Glossary of abbreviations 48 ZEEL is India’s #1 TV network for non-sports entertainment with a 20% share of all-India viewership in 2QFY19 (+160bps YoY). In the last 6- years, Zee has delivered 18% CAGR in domestic ad revenues vs. 12% CAGR in TV ad spends. Zee has now embarked on a transformational journey with the launch of the Zee5 video platform; it is already #1 in original content production and the #2 entertainment OTT with 41million MAUs. RECENT REPORTS INDIA MEDIA RURAL SAFARI VIII INDIA SUGAR INDIA CONSUMER INDIA REAL ESTATE DURABLES JM Financial Institutional Securities Limited Page 2 222FWREHU2018 ,1',$_0(',$_&203$1<83'$7( =HH(QWHUWDLQPHQW(QWHUSULVHV 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQDO277MRXUQH\IURPDVWURQJIRRWLQJ :HH[SHFWUDSLGJURZWKLQFRQWHQWFRQVXPSWLRQRQ277 Zee to continue outperforming TV ad-spend growth, even as VWUHDPLQJYLGHRSODWIRUPVEXWH\HEDOOVKLIWDQGLPSDFWRQ79 transition to digital picks X p :BDVHGRQRXUIRUHFDVWRIFJURZWK DGYHUWLVLQJZRXOGEHJUDGXDOLQRXUYLHZJLYHQ DSDOWU\ LQ=HHoV)<GRPHVWLF79DGUHYHQXHVZHHVWLPDWHGRPHVWLFDG
    [Show full text]
  • Net Neutrality: India's Position
    LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT PARLIAMENT LIBRARY AND REFERENCE, RESEARCH, DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION SERVICE (LARRDIS) MEMBERS’ REFERENCE SERVICE REFERENCE NOTE. No.6/RN/Ref./February/2016 For the use of Members of Parliament Not for Publication NET NEUTRALITY: INDIA'S POSITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reference material is for personal use of the Members in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties, and is not for publication. This Service is not to be quoted as the source of the information as it is based on the sources indicated at the end/in the text. This Service does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy or veracity of the information or views contained in the note/collection. NET NEUTRALITY INTRODUCTION Open and non-discriminatory access to the Internet has revolutionized the way people communicate and collaborate, entrepreneurs and corporations conduct business, and Governments and citizens interact. This has led to rapid growth in people-to-people, business-to-people and Government-to-people communications shaping new forms of social interactions, businesses and governance. Thereby, Internet has emerged as a source of innovation in all aspects of human life facilitated by the open, easy, inexpensive and non- discriminatory access to the Internet and the related investments in constructing high speed networks enabling the explosion in data traffic to be carried. The debate on Net Neutrality has sprung from the desire to preserve and protect the open nature of the public Internet arising from the apprehensions of emerging new business models that may impinge on the inherent characteristics of the Internet as we know today1. UNDERSTANDING NET NEUTRALITY There is no standard definition of Net Neutrality.
    [Show full text]
  • Net Neutrality in India-Need of the Hour
    International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET) Volume 10, Issue 11, November 2019, pp. 155-159, Article ID: IJMET_10_11_013 Available online at http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJMET?Volume=10&Issue=11 ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359 © IAEME Publication NET NEUTRALITY IN INDIA-NEED OF THE HOUR D.S. Selvakumar Vellore Institute of Technology, India ABSTRACT It is because of one of the service providers Airtel, net neutrality in India was given importance space since it announced extra charges for voice calls through its network. In India, there are no laws which regulate and administer net neutrality. It is almost momentum gathered to have separate laws for treating all the internet service providers and users equally with regard to the content, application, electronic equipment and the ways and means of communication. Keywords: Netneutrality, FCC, TRAI, Telecom operators, IT Act 2000 Cite this Article: D.S. Selvakumar, Net Neutrality in India-Need of the Hour. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology 10(11), 2019, pp. 155-159. http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJMET?Volume=10&Issue=11 1. INTRODUCTION Net neutrality is the principle that internet providers treat all web traffic equally. This means that the companies which provides their services over the internet like Amazon, Facebook etc., can‟t favour their own services over other competitors. The current situation has no rules blocking web sites, services and their content online, no rules slowing down of websites and services online, no rules for internet services providers which give priority treatment. Internet services providers like Comcast, Verizon etc., are prevented from favouring some web sites and applications over others by Net neutrality.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations on Net Neutrality
    Recommendations On Net Neutrality 28th November, 2017 Mahanagar Door Sanchar Bhawan Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi- 110 002 Website: www.trai.gov.in Table of Contents Chapter-1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 2 Chapter-2 Principle of Non-Discriminatory Treatment of Content ............................ 7 Chapter-3 Applicability of Non-Discrimination Principle and Exclusions ............... 15 Chapter-4 Reasonable Traffic Management ........................................................... 23 Chapter-5 Transparency and Disclosures .............................................................. 33 Chapter-6 Monitoring and Enforcement ................................................................ 38 Chapter-7 Summary of Recommendations ............................................................ 44 List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 50 Annexure-I ............................................................................................................... 51 Annexure-II .............................................................................................................. 53 1 Chapter-1 Introduction 1.1 In the last few decades, the Internet has emerged as an important resource for innovation and economic growth and as a medium to support information exchange within and across borders. It has attained a size unrivalled by any other network by several orders of magnitude.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Internet Openness in Times of Crisis
    26/10valueOfINet.qxp_Layout 1 03/11/20 5:54 PM Page 1 EDITORS Luca Belli Nikhil Pahwa Osama Manzar PREFACES AND POSTFACE Vint Cerf Sébastien Soriano Anriette Esterhuysen THE VALUE OF INTERNET OPENNESS IN TIMES OF CRISIS OFFICIAL OUTCOME OF THE UN IGF COALITIONS ON NET NEUTRALITY AND ON COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY 26/10valueOfINet.qxp_Layout 1 03/11/20 5:54 PM Page 2 26/10valueOfINet.qxp_Layout 1 03/11/20 5:54 PM Page 3 THE VALUE OF INTERNET OPENNESS IN TIMES OF CRISIS OFFICIAL OUTCOME OF THE UN IGF COALITIONS ON NET NEUTRALITY AND ON COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY EDITORS LUCA BELLI, NIKHIL PAHWA AND OSAMA MANZAR Presented at the United Nations Internet Governance Forum 2020. The opinions expressed in this volume are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or the position of the institutions that support this publication. 26/10valueOfINet.qxp_Layout 1 03/11/20 5:54 PM Page 4 This document can be modified non-commercially, as long as credit is given to the orig- inal authors and license the modified version/new creation under the identical terms. Title of the book: The Value of Internet Openness in Times of Crisis Official Outcome of the UN IGF Coalitions on Net Neutrality and on Community Connectivity The Editors would like to acknowledge and express sincere gratitude to Aditi Agrawal, Sarah Farooqui, and Laila Lorenzon for their important help. ISBN: 978-65-86060-11-9 Edited by: Luca Belli, Nikhil Pahwa and Osama Manzar Book Cover Illustration: Sharada Kerkar Book Design & Layout: Shaifali Chikermane
    [Show full text]