The Persistent Problems of Net Neutrality or Why Are We Still Lacking Stable Net Neutrality Regulation

  • Konstantinos StylianouEmail author


The debate on net neutrality has been around long enough to allow its various aspects to emerge and develop sufficiently. Indeed, after years of scholarly and policy attention we now have a deep understanding of the industrial economics behind net neutrality regulation, the dynamic competition and innovation aspects to it, the technical infrastructure of the networks and actors that are subject to the relevant rules, and the human rights and plurality considerations surrounding the rules.


Supra Note Federal Communication Commission Content Provider Discriminatory Practice Technological Proximity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Areeda, P. E., & Hovenkamp, H. (2006). Antitrust law: An analysis of antitrust principles and their Application. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity (vol. 1, p. 64). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Ballon, P. (2009). Platform types and gatekeeper roles: The case of the mobile communications industry (p. 4). Paper presented at the Druid Summer Conference 2009. Available at
  4. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (1999). Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in business networks. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 14, 178, 180–182Google Scholar
  5. BEREC. (2012). An assessment of IP interconnection in the context of Net Neutrality. BoR (12), 130.Google Scholar
  6. Bode, K. (2014, February 24). No, netflix’s new deal with comcast probably won’t destroy the internet. Yet., T ECHDIRT.Google Scholar
  7. Bork, R. (1978). The antitrust paradox: A policy at war with itself (pp. 372–374, 225). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Boudreau, K. (2006). The boundaries of the platform: Vertical integration and economics incentives in mobile computing (pp. 2–3). MIT Sloal Working Paper.Google Scholar
  9. Bresnahan, T. (1999). New modes of competition. In J. Eisenach & T. M. Lenard (Eds.), Competition, innovation, and the Microsoft monopoly: Antitrust in the digital marketplace (p. 155).Google Scholar
  10. Bresnahan, T. F., & Greenstein, S. (1999). Technological competition and the structure of the computer industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 47, 1.Google Scholar
  11. Carlton, D., & Waldman, M. The strategic use of tying to create and preserve market power in evolving industries. RAND Journal of Economics, 33, 194Google Scholar
  12. Church, J., & Gandal, N. (2005). Platform competition in telecommunications. In S. K. Majumdar et al. (Eds.), Handbook of telecommunications economics. North Holland (Vol. II, p. 117).Google Scholar
  13. Clark, D. D. (2000). Interoperation, open interfaces and protocol architecture. In The unpredictable certainty: White papers on information infrastructure through 2000 (Vol. 133, pp. 133–134).Google Scholar
  14. Clark, D. D. (2005). Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 13, 462.Google Scholar
  15. CoE Steering Committee on Media and Information Society, Protecting Human Rights Through Network Neutrality: Furthering Internet Users’ Interest, Modernising Human Rights and Safeguarding the Open Internet, CDMSI (2013) misc 19E (2013, December).Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128.Google Scholar
  17. Crowcroft, J. (2007). Net neutrality: the technical side of the debate: A white paper. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 31(7), 49.Google Scholar
  18. Dickson, P. R., & Ginter, J. L. (1987). Market segmentation, product differentiation, and marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 24(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  19. Faratin, P., Clark, D. D., Bauer, S., & Lehr, W. (2007). Complexity of internet interconnections: Technology, incentives and implications for policy.Google Scholar
  20. FCC. (1999, October 6). In re applications of Ameritech Corp. and SBC Communications Inc. for Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No 98-141.Google Scholar
  21. Ferraz, J. V., Souza C.A., Magrani, B. and Britto, W. (2012) Content Filtering in Latin America: Reasons and Impacts on Freedom of Expression. Available at
  22. Foditsch, N., et al. (2015, November 30–December 3). Shedding light on net neutrality: Towards possible solutions for the Brazilian Case. 20th ITS Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
  23. Fogliata, P., & Mussini, M. T. (2008). Intelligence-ready network infrastructure: An ecosystem to control third-party intelligence distribution close to nomadic users. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 13, 105, 107Google Scholar
  24. Fransman, M. (2010). The new ICT ecosystem: Implications for policy and regulation (pp. 9–10, 41–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fung, B. (2015, April 14). The real net neutrality lawsuits are finally here. Washington Post.Google Scholar
  26. Gawer, A., & Henderson, R. (2007). Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economic and Management Strategy, 16(1), 3–6.Google Scholar
  27. Geere, D. (2015, March 6). Europe reverses course on net neutrality legislation. Wired.Google Scholar
  28. Geradin, D., & Sidak, J. G. (2003). European and American approaches to antitrust remedies and the institutional design of regulation in telecommunications. In S. K. Majumdar et al., (Eds.), Handbook of telecommunications economics. North Holland (Vol. II, p. 517, 519).Google Scholar
  29. Grant, R. (2008). Contemporary strategy analysis. John Wiley & Sons (6th ed) (p. 271).Google Scholar
  30. Hahn, R. W., & Wallsten, S. (2006). The economics of net neutrality. The Economists’ Voice, 3(6), 1–7.Google Scholar
  31. Handley, M. (2006, June). Why the internet only just works. BT Technology Journal, 24, 119Google Scholar
  32. Hao, F. et al. (2009). Enhancing dynamic cloud-based services using network virtualization. Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Virtualized Infrastructure Systems and Architectures (p. 33).Google Scholar
  33. Hass, D. A. (2007). The never-was-neutral net and why informed end users can end the net neutrality debates. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22, 1565.Google Scholar
  34. Hoffmann, M., & Staufer, M. (2011). Network virtualization for future mobile networks: General architecture and applications. IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (p. 1).Google Scholar
  35. Huber, P. W. (1997). Law and disorder in cyberspace: abolish the FCC and let common law rule the telecosm. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Huston, G. (2008, June) The internet – 10 years later, The ISP Column. Available at
  37. Institute for Policy Integrity. (2010). Free to Invest: The Economic Benefits of Preserving Net Neutrality. Report No. 4.Google Scholar
  38. ITU. (2012). Exploring the Value and Economic Valuation of Spectrum. Broadband Series Report.Google Scholar
  39. Kastranakes, J. (2014, September 16). FCC received a total of 3.7 million comments on net neutrality. The Verge.Google Scholar
  40. Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 71, 77–78.Google Scholar
  41. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2008). Marketing Management 288. Pearson (6th ed).Google Scholar
  42. Lee, R. S., & Wu, T. (2009). Subsidizing creativity through network design: Zero-pricing and net neutrality. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 61.Google Scholar
  43. Lemley, M., & Lessig, L. (2000). Open access to cable modems. Whittier Law Review, 22(3), 9.Google Scholar
  44. Lemley, M., & Lessig, L. (2000). The end of end-to-end: Preserving the architecture of the internet in the broadband era. UCLA Law Review, 48, 925.Google Scholar
  45. Lessig, L. (2009, November 16). The internet under siege. Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  46. Lianos, I. (2009). The vertical/horizontal dichotomy in competition law: Some reflections with regard to dual distribution and private labels. In A. Ezrachi & U. Bernitz (Eds.), Private Labels, Brands and Competition Policy (p. 161).Google Scholar
  47. McNamee, J. (2014, November 24). European Parliament fights back hard on net neutrality. EDRi.Google Scholar
  48. Mishra, A. R. (2010). Cellular technologies for emerging markets: 2G, 3G and beyond. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  49. Open Society Foundations, Mizukami, P., Reia, J., & Varon, J. (2013). Mapping digital media: Brazil. Open Society Foundations.Google Scholar
  50. Page, W. H. (1980). Antitrust damages and economic efficiency: An approach to antitrust injury. University of Chicago Law Review, 47, 467, 495.Google Scholar
  51. Parker, R. G. (1999, September 28). Senior Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Address Before the International Bar Association.Google Scholar
  52. Peppard, J., et al. (2006). From value chain to value network: insights for mobile operators. European Management Journal, 24, 128.Google Scholar
  53. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy (pp. 159–161). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. Raybum, D. (2014, February 23). Inside the netflix/comcast deal and what the media is getting very wrong. Streaming Media BlogGoogle Scholar
  55. Rey, P., & Tirole, J. (2007). A primer on foreclosure. In M. Armstrong & R. H. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization. Elsevier (Vol. III, pp. 2148–2150, 2145).Google Scholar
  56. Rosenbush, S. (2015, May 14). Google’s Vint Cerf warns against fragmentation of internet. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  57. Sabat, H. K. (2002). The evolving mobile wireless value chain and market structure. Telecommunications Policy, 26.9, 505.Google Scholar
  58. Saltzer, J. et al. (1984). End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Transactions of Computer Systems, 2, 277.Google Scholar
  59. Sasso, B. (2014, May 13). The net has never been ‘neutral’. National Journal.Google Scholar
  60. SCF Associates. (2012). Perspectives on the Value of Shared Spectrum Access. Final Report for the European Commission.Google Scholar
  61. Sidak, G. (2006). A consumer-welfare approach to network neutrality regulation of the internet. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2, 349.Google Scholar
  62. Spence, M. (1976). Product differentiation and welfare. American Economic Review, 66, 407.Google Scholar
  63. Speta, J. (2000). Handicapping the race for the last mile: A critique of open access rules for broadband platforms. Yale Journal on Regulation, 17, 39.Google Scholar
  64. Speta, J. B. (2014). Unintentional antitrust: The FCC’s only (and better) way forward with net neutrality after the mess of Verizon v. FCC. Federal Communications Law Journal, 66, 491.Google Scholar
  65. Spulber, D., & Yoo, C. (2012). Networks in telecommunications: Economics and law, passim. Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  66. Steiner, R. L. (2008). Vertical competition, horizontal competition, and market power. The Antitrust Bulletin, 53, 251.Google Scholar
  67. Sullivan, L. A., & Grimes, W. (2000). The law of antitrust: An integrated handbook (p. 638). St Paul: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. TATA Communications (2011). Infrastructure-as-a-Service: Fulfilling the Promise of Cloud Computing, White Paper. Available at
  69. Tee, R., & Gawer, A. (2009). Industry architecture as a determinant of successful platform strategies: A case study of the i-mode mobile internet service. European Management Review, 6, 217.Google Scholar
  70. Tirole, J. (4th reprint 1990). The theory of industrial organization, 193. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. United States v. AT&T Co. (1982). 552 F. Supp. 131, 135–36.Google Scholar
  72. Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega: The International Journal of Marketing Management 3, 639, 643.Google Scholar
  73. Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission. (2014). 740 F.3d 623, 633Google Scholar
  74. Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko. (2004). 540 U.S. 398.Google Scholar
  75. Viscusi, W. K. et al. (2005). Economics of regulation and antitrust (pp. 248–253). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Weiser, P. J. (2003). Towards a next generation regulatory strategy. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 35, 60–63, 41.Google Scholar
  77. White House. (2014, November 14). The president’s message on net neutrality. Available at
  78. Wu, T., & Lee, R. (2009). Subsidizing creativity through network design: Zero pricing and net neutrality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 61, 63.Google Scholar
  79. Wu, T. (2007). A tale of two platforms. Available at
  80. Yoo, C. (2004). Would mandating broadband network neutrality help or hurt competition? A comment on the end-to-end debate. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 3, 23.Google Scholar
  81. Yoo, C. S. (2005). Beyond network neutrality. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. 19(1), 1–77.Google Scholar
  82. Yoo, C. S. (2007). What can antitrust contribute to the network neutrality debate. International Journal of Communication, 1, 504–409, 493.Google Scholar
  83. Yoo, C. (2010). Product life cycle theory and the maturation of the internet. Northwester University Law Review, 104, 641.Google Scholar
  84. Yoo, C. (2012). The dynamic Internet: How technology, users, and businesses are transforming the network. AEI Press.Google Scholar
  85. Zeidler, S. (2010, December 1). Netflix scrambles future of TV and films. Reuters.Google Scholar
  86. Zineldin, M. (2004). Co-opetition: The organisation of the future. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22, 780, 780–781.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations