DOCSLIB.ORG

Opp to Mot for Prelim Injunction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opp to Mot for Prelim Injunction Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 27 Filed 09/16/20 Page 1 of 62 1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 PAUL STEIN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 SARAH E. KURTZ Deputy Attorney General 4 JONATHAN M. EISENBERG Deputy Attorney General 5 JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA Deputy Attorney General 6 P. PATTY LI, State Bar No. 266937 Deputy Attorney General 7 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 8 Telephone: (415) 510-3817 Fax: (415) 703-1234 9 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants the State of California, 10 Governor Gavin C. Newsom, and Attorney General Xavier Becerra 11 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB 16 2:18-cv-02684-JAM-DB Plaintiff, 17 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTIONS 18 Judge: The Hon. John A. Mendez 19 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Actions Filed: Oct. 1, 2018; Oct. 3, 2018 20 Defendants. 21 AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION, 22 CTIA – THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, et al., 23 Plaintiffs, 24 v. 25 XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity 26 as Attorney General of California, 27 Defendant. 28 Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motions (2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB) (2:18-cv-02684-JAM-DB) Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 27 Filed 09/16/20 Page 2 of 62 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Factual and Legal Background........................................................................................................ 2 4 I. The Architecture of the Internet and the Major Players.......................................... 2 5 II. The Crucial Importance of, and the Threat to, Net Neutrality................................ 3 6 A. BIAS Providers Have Engaged in Unequal Treatment of Internet Traffic.......................................................................................................... 3 7 B. Open Access to the Internet is Essential ..................................................... 5 8 III. The Development—and Abrupt Termination—of Federal Net Neutrality Protections............................................................................................................... 6 9 A. The FCC Moves to Regulate Broadband After Finding Numerous Abuses......................................................................................................... 6 10 B. The FCC Reclassifies BIAS as an “Information Service,” Repeals 11 Its Net Neutrality Rules, and Tries—But Fails—to Preempt the States From Adopting Their Own Rules..................................................... 8 12 IV. California Protections for Its Internet Users ........................................................... 9 13 A. California Protects Its Internet Users Through Numerous Laws................ 9 B. California’s Net Neutrality Law................................................................ 10 14 V. Proceedings to Date............................................................................................... 11 15 Legal Standard .............................................................................................................................. 11 16 Argument ...................................................................................................................................... 12 I. Plaintiffs Are Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Preemption 17 Claims ................................................................................................................... 12 18 A. Because SB 822 Is an Exercise of California’s Historic Police Powers, the Presumption Against Preemption Applies Here.................... 13 19 B. No Conflict Preemption Results from the 2018 Order ............................. 14 20 1. Conflict Preemption Can Only Result from Agency Action Authorized by Statute.................................................................... 15 21 2. No Conflict Preemption Results from the 2018 Order, Which Is Based on the FCC’s Lack of Authority to Impose 22 Net Neutrality Rules...................................................................... 16 23 a. Reclassification Left the FCC with Only Ancillary Authority Over BIAS, Which Cannot Support 24 Preemption ........................................................................ 16 b. The Repeal of Federal Net Neutrality Protections 25 Results from a Lack of Authority, Which Cannot Constitute a Federal Deregulatory Policy With 26 Preemptive Effect.............................................................. 21 27 c. No Conflict Preemption Results from the Transparency Rule ............................................................ 24 28 i Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motions (2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB) (2:18-cv-02684-JAM-DB) Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 27 Filed 09/16/20 Page 3 of 62 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 2 Page 3 d. No Conflict Preemption Results from Purported “Factual Findings” in the 2018 Order ............................... 26 4 C. No Conflict Preemption Results from the Communications Act.............. 28 5 D. No Field Preemption Results from the Act’s General References to FCC Regulation of “Interstate Communications”..................................... 31 6 1. General References to FCC Regulation of “Interstate” Communications Do Not Result in Field Preemption .................. 32 7 2. Numerous Provisions of the Act Assume or Recognize State 8 Regulation ..................................................................................... 34 3. The Field Preemption Claim Is Incompatible with the Case 9 Law................................................................................................ 35 10 4. Under Plaintiffs’ Sweeping Theory of Field Preemption, All State Regulation of Information Services Would Be 11 Preempted, but That Is Not the Law ............................................. 36 E. The Communications Act Does Not Expressly Preempt SB 822’s 12 Regulation of Mobile BIAS ...................................................................... 37 13 1. SB 822’s Mobile Broadband Provisions Do Not Regulate the Entry of Any Mobile Service .................................................. 38 14 2. SB 822’s Zero-Rating Provisions Do Not Regulate the Rates Charged by Any Mobile Service................................................... 39 15 II. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm ..................................... 40 16 A. A Presumption of Irreparable Harm Is Not Appropriate .......................... 40 17 B. ISP Plaintiffs Have Failed to Establish Irreparable Harm ........................ 41 1. The Alleged Harms Relating to Interconnection, the General 18 Conduct Rule, and the Prohibitions on Blocking and Throttling Are Entirely Speculative.............................................. 41 19 2. The Harms Alleged from the Zero-Rating Provisions Are 20 Also Entirely Speculative.............................................................. 45 C. The Irreparable Harm Alleged by the United States Is Legally 21 Irrelevant and Has Not Been Established.................................................. 46 22 III. The Balance of Equities Weighs Strongly Against an Injunction......................... 47 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 50 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motions (2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB) (2:18-cv-02684-JAM-DB) Case 2:18-cv-02660-JAM-DB Document 27 Filed 09/16/20 Page 4 of 62 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 CASES 4 ACA Connects – Am. Comm’cns Ass’n v. Frey 5 2020 WL 3799767 (D. Me. July 7, 2020)...........................................................................13, 18 6 Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inst. v. Energy Res. Conservation & Dev 7 Comm’n 410 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2005).....................................................................................................37 8 Alliance Shippers v. Southern Pacific Transport Company 9 858 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1988).....................................................................................................30 10 American Library Ass’n v. FCC 406 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................17, 23 11 12 American Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009)...................................................................................................40 13 Arizona v. United States 14 567 U.S. 387 (2012)......................................................................................................25, 32, 33 15 Arkansas Elec. Co-op. Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm’n 461 U.S. 375 (1983)..................................................................................................................22 16 Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc. 17 575 U.S. 320 (2015)..................................................................................................................40 18 Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coalition for Economic Equity 19 950 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1991)...................................................................................................40 20 AT&T Comm’cns of Ill. v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co. 349 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2003).....................................................................................................28
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Net Neutrality Reloaded
    Luca Belli Editor Net Neutrality Reloaded: Net Neutrality Reloaded: Zero Rating, Specialised Service, Ad Blocking and Traffic Management Zero Rating, Specialised Service, Annual Report of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality Ad Blocking and Traffic Management Luca Belli Editor Annual Report of the UN IGF This Report is the 2016 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN). The Report gathers a series of case studies on a variety Dynamic Coalition of net neutrality issues from the perspective of different stakeholders. The double purpose of this report is to trigger meaningful discussion on net on Net Neutrality neutrality trends, while providing informative material that may be used by researchers, policy-makers and civil society alike. Researchers, practitioners and policy-makers regularly contribute to the DCNN report, providing a wide range of heterogeneous views. Preface by Tim Wu In 2016, Zero Rating was by large the most debated net neutrality issue, as reflected by the considerable number of contributions focusing on the topic within this report. Such high number of analyses on zero rating seems particularly useful to meet the increasing demand of research exploring the pros and cons of price discrimination practices. Furthermore, the report examines other very relevant and discussed topics, such as specialised services, ad blocking and reasonable traffic management, providing useful insight on some of the most recent policy evolutions in a variety of countries. Net Neutrality Reloaded: Zero Rating,
    [Show full text]
  • Zero-Rating Practices in Broadband Markets
    Zero-rating practices in broadband markets Report by Competition EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Competition E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels [Cataloguenumber] Zero-rating practices in broadband markets Final report February 2017 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Les informations et opinions exprimées dans ce rapport sont ceux de(s) l'auteur(s) et ne reflètent pas nécessairement l'opinion officielle de la Commission. La Commission ne garantit pas l’exactitude des informations comprises dans ce rapport. La Commission, ainsi que toute personne agissant pour le compte de celle-ci, ne saurait en aucun cas être tenue responsable de l’utilisation des informations contenues dans ce rapport. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 Catalogue number: KD-02-17-687-EN-N ISBN 978-92-79-69466-0 doi: 10.2763/002126 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fcc Restoring Internet Freedom Order and Zero Rating Or: How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Market
    THE FCC RESTORING INTERNET FREEDOM ORDER AND ZERO RATING OR: HOW WE LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE MARKET Daniel A. Schuleman TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 149 II. Background ......................................................................................... 151 A. What is Net Neutrality? ............................................................... 151 B. Net Neutrality Around the World ................................................ 152 C. Net Neutrality in the United States .............................................. 153 D. Net Neutrality Under the Trump Administration and the Repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order...................................... 156 E. Zero Rating .................................................................................. 159 1. Arguments for Zero Rating Plans .......................................... 159 2. Arguments Against Zero Rating Plans .................................. 160 III. Analysis ............................................................................................... 163 A. T-Mobile Case Study Demonstrates Non-Neutral Internet Practices ....................................................................................... 163 B. Internet as a Utility in the Abstract .............................................. 164 IV. Recommendation ................................................................................ 165 V. Conclusion .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Net Neutrality and Local News
    Slowing Down the Presses: The Relationship Between Net Neutrality and Local News Adam Hersh | December 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 I. The Modern World of Local News 3 A. Legacy Local News Providers Are in Trouble 5 B. Online Local News Is Still in Its Infancy 9 II. Eliminating Strong Net Neutrality Rules Would Make It Harder to Rejuvenate Local News 10 A. Access Fees 12 B. Blocking 16 C. Discrimination 19 D. Paid Prioritization 23 E. Zero Rating 28 Conclusion 34 Introduction In 2011, the FCC released The Information Needs of Communities, a lengthy report on the state of American local news in the world of the internet.1 The report detailed a legacy media landscape struggling to adapt to the challenges of the internet, and a surprising dearth of online news sources coming in to fill the gap. The report also presented a series of policy recommendations designed to spur a more robust digital news ecosystem. Among them was a brief reference to the “open Internet debate” going on at the time: The open Internet debate has several implications for news. First, if the Internet were to evolve toward a tiered system in which preferred customers get better service, it could end up privileging certain types of content over others without regard to consumer demand. Public and nonprofit media would be particularly vulnerable, as it is likely that such a structure would reward established, well- heeled companies over less-well-capitalized start-ups, possibly commercial over nonprofits. It also is plausible that a broadband Internet provider with strong political views might wish to minimize the dissemination of antithetical viewpoints.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC's Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications
    Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act Updated September 20, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46736 SUMMARY R46736 Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt September 20, 2021 State Laws Under the Communications Act Chris D. Linebaugh The line between federal and state authority plays a central role in modern communications law. Legislative Attorney Rather than fully displacing state law, the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act or Act) sets up a dual system of federal and state regulation. At the federal level, the Eric N. Holmes Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) Legislative Attorney broad authority to regulate wired and wireless telephony, radio transmissions, cable services, and matters that are ancillary to these areas. At the same time, however, the Act expressly preserves some state regulatory authority over these technologies. Consequently, the boundary between the FCC’s authority and the states’ has been a source of dispute. The FCC has the upper hand in such conflicts. The Communications Act gives the FCC broad regulatory authority and, along with it, the ability to preempt state laws that conflict with or frustrate its regulatory actions. When the FCC is acting within its proper statutory authority, the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause ensures that its actions prevail. Nevertheless, the FCC’s statutory preemption authority is not boundless. The extent to which the FCC may displace state and local laws is limited by the scope of its regulatory jurisdiction, express statutory provisions preserving or defining the scope of state laws, and interpretive presumptions that courts have applied to preserve the usual constitutional balance between the federal and state governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Net-Neutrality Regulation
    BoR (17) 159 Final public report for BEREC Study on net-neutrality regulation 18 September 2017 James Allen, Andrew Daly, J. Scott Marcus, David de Antonio Monte, Robert Woolfson Ref: 2009152-254 . Study on net-neutrality regulation Contents 1 Executive summary 1 1.1 Background and purpose of the work 1 1.2 Overview of approach to tackling net neutrality in each country 1 1.3 Case studies of monitoring tools and techniques 3 1.4 Lessons learnt and concluding remarks 4 2 Introduction 6 2.1 Aim of the study 6 2.2 Summary of net neutrality 6 2.3 Approach to conducting the study 7 2.4 Structure of this document 7 3 Approach to tackling net neutrality in benchmark countries 8 3.1 The evolution of net-neutrality rules over time 8 3.2 Non-net-neutral practices 11 3.3 Transparency obligations on ISPs in relation to practices which may affect net neutrality 19 3.4 Monitoring and supervision by NRAs 22 3.5 Legal mechanisms for enforcement of net neutrality by NRAs 24 3.6 Reporting by NRAs 25 4 Case studies 26 4.1 Chile: Adkintun 26 4.2 Chile: Sistema de Transferencia de Información (STI) 27 4.3 USA: Netalyzr 28 4.4 USA: Measuring Broadband America programme 28 5 Lessons learnt and concluding remarks 33 Annex A Tools and techniques available to detect and characterise non-net-neutral practices Ref: 2009152-254 . Study on net-neutrality regulation Copyright © 2017. Analysys Mason Limited has produced the information contained herein for BEREC. The ownership, use and disclosure of this information are subject to the Commercial Terms contained in the contract between Analysys Mason Limited and BEREC.
    [Show full text]
  • State Responses to Net Neutrality
    State Responses to Net Neutrality Kathryn J. Kline National Regulatory Research Institute [19–03] Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank Commissioner emeritus Travis Kavulla Elin Katz, Connecticut Consumer Counsel and President of NASUCA Jon Banks, formerly of US Telecomm Timothy Karr of Free Press Cynthia G. Wilson-Frias, Deputy Chief of Legal Services for the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission Adam Bender, Communications Daily Dr. Victor Glass, Rutgers University Kenneth Mallory, Esq., Legislative Affairs Counsel at NARUC Marianne Townsend and Jason Well, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Dr. Carl Pechman, National Regulatory Research Institute and my indefatigable colleague, Dr. Sherry Lichtenberg, for her guidance and feedback throughout the writing process. State Responses to Net Neutrality | 1 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ..........................................................3 II. Purpose of this Document .....................................................5 III. Context ....................................................................6 A. Legislative and Regulatory Context ...........................................6 B. NARUC on Net Neutrality, a State Regulatory Perspective .........................9 IV. The State Response .........................................................11 A. Executive Orders on Net Neutrality ..........................................11 B. Legislative Resolutions ....................................................12 C. Legislative Bills ..........................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • In This Booklet
    The EDRi papers The EDRi papers NET NEUTRALNET ITY 2.0 NEUTRALITY 2.0 ACCESS DENIED: Net neutrality legislation has not been properly implemented in your country. EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS What is Net Neutrality? 10 Reasons for Net Neutrality Myths & Truths PAGE 04 PAGE 10 PAGE 13 Net Neutrality means that every point on the network can connect to any other point on the network, without discrimination on the basis of origin, destination or type of data. This principle is the central reason for the success of the internet. Net Neutrality is crucial for innovation, competition and for the free flow of information. Most importantly, Net Neutrality gives the internet its ability to generate new means of exercising civil rights such as the freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information. In this booklet, we will explain the principle of Net Neutrality, why it is important, why certain internet access providers believe that they have an interest in violating it, and we will address common misconceptions. “Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the internet such a success.” - Vint Cerf, founding father of the internet With financial support from CONTENTS PAGE 01 WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY? FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION IN THE DIGITAL ERA PAGE 05 WHY IS NET NEUTRALITY VIOLATED? THE THREE MAIN REASONS PAGE 07 10 REASONS FOR NET NEUTRALITY PAGE 10 MYTHS & TRUTHS PAGE 13 THE SITUATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION WAITING FOR NET NEUTRALITY PAGE 15 THE NETHERLANDS A CASE STUDY PAGE 17 10 WAYS TO SAFEGUARD NET NEUTRALITY PAGE 19 GLOSSARY Original booklet written by: The EDRi (European Digital Rights) network European Digital Rights Kirsten Fiedler and Joe McNamee, ex-colleagues is a dynamic collective of 44+ NGOs, 12 Rue Belliard experts, advocates and academics working 1040 Brussels at EDRi.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC, the DMCA, and Why Takedown Notices Are Not Enough, 61 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 61 | Issue 1 Article 5 1-2009 The CF C, the DMCA, and Why Takedown Notices Are Not Enough Michael P. Murtagh Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael P. Murtagh, The FCC, the DMCA, and Why Takedown Notices Are Not Enough, 61 Hastings L.J. 233 (2009). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol61/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notes The FCC, the DMCA, and Why Takedown Notices Are Not Enough MICHAEL P. MURTAGH* In December of 2oo8, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stopped its strategy of suing individuals for copyright infringement over peer-to-peer networks, but now seeks the cooperation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to deter online copyright infringement. These novel proposed collaborations, which have recently appeared and become prevalent worldwide in various forms, could lead to termination and suspension of internet connections based upon mere suspicions. In the United States, these proposals fail when analyzed under the FCC's Internet Policy Statement because they are likely to deprive individuals of lawful content and applications of their choice. I propose a standard under which to evaluate these new ISP-RIAA collaborations: Professor David Nimmer's interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) repeat infringer standard.
    [Show full text]
  • Net Neutrality !
    NET NEUTRALITY ! ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE by Giusy Cannella, Raegan MacDonald & Jochai Ben-Avie 3 1. INTRODUCTION The internet’s continuing success rests on its three foundational principles: 1) that all points in 2. the network should be able to connect to all other points in the network (the end to end principle); By “Internet Service Providers” (ISPs) we are referring to any 2) that all providers of the internet should make their best effort to deliver traffic from point to legal person that provides internet point as expeditiously as possible (the best effort principle); and 3) that everyone should be able to access service to the public. Many but not all of ISPs are telephone innovate without permission from anyone or any entity (the innovation without permission principle). companies or telecommunications Collectively, these principles are the foundation of the openness and neutrality of the internet. providers. 3. In practice, this means that Internet Service Providers2 (hereafter ISPs) must treat all internet Findings from BEREC’s and the Euro- pean Commission’s joint investiga- traffic on an equal basis, no matter the origin or type of content or means (equipment, protocols, tion, 2012: http://bit.ly/UUDm6N. etc) used to transmit packets, leading to the term “network neutrality”. Yet, every day, ISPs are 4. violating these principles, engaging in what is effectively network discrimination, that is – as Bill 4915: Amendment to the elaborated upon in this paper – discrimination that ISPs apply on traffic on the network. Chilean Telecommunications Act, original text: http://bit.ly/b3oY0z, article in English on the law: In May 2012, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) published http://bit.ly/a2y698.
    [Show full text]
  • Net Neutrality and High-Speed Broadband Networks: Evidence from OECD Countries
    Net Neutrality and High-Speed Broadband Networks: Evidence from OECD Countries Wolfgang Briglauer1, Carlo Cambini2, Klaus Gugler3 and Volker Stocker4 This version: December 31st 2020 1 Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU), Research Institute for Regulatory Economics, Vienna, School of Business, Economics & Information Systems, University of Passau, Passau, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Politecnico di Torino, Department of Management and Economics & EUI. E-mail: [email protected] 3 Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU), Research Institute for Regulatory Economics, Vienna, Austria. E-mail: [email protected] 4 Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society, TU Berlin. E-mail: [email protected] JEL L52; L96; L98 Keywords Net neutrality, high-speed broadband, investment, consumer subscriptions, OECD panel data Abstract Network neutrality regulations are intended to preserve the Internet as a non-discriminatory, public network and an open platform for innovation. Whereas the U.S. recently reversed its regulations, thus returning to a less strict regime, the EU has maintained its course and recently revised implementation guidelines for its strict and rather interventionist net neutrality regulations. To this day, there exist only a few U.S.-focused empirical investigations on the impact of network neutrality regulations, based on rather broad measures of investment activities. Our paper provides the first estimation results on the causal impact of net neutrality regulations on new high-speed (fiber-optic cable-based) infrastructure investment by Internet service providers (ISPs) and on related consumer subscription to fiber-based broadband connection services. We use a comprehensive OECD panel data set for 32 countries for the period from 2003 to 2019 and various panel estimation techniques, including instrumental variables estimation.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Impact of Net Neutrality on the Profitability of Telecom Operators: a Game-Theoretic Approach
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Van der Wee, Marlies; Vandevelde, Niels; Verbrugge, Sofie; Pickavet, Mario Conference Paper Evaluation of the impact of net neutrality on the profitability of telecom operators: A game-theoretic approach 26th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): "What Next for European Telecommunications?", Madrid, Spain, 24th-27th June, 2015 Provided in Cooperation with: International Telecommunications Society (ITS) Suggested Citation: Van der Wee, Marlies; Vandevelde, Niels; Verbrugge, Sofie; Pickavet, Mario (2015) : Evaluation of the impact of net neutrality on the profitability of telecom operators: A game-theoretic approach, 26th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): "What Next for European Telecommunications?", Madrid, Spain, 24th-27th June, 2015, International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Calgary This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/127188 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
    [Show full text]