Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Network Neutrality: An Empirical Approach to Legal Interoperability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Net Neutrality Compendium

Abstract

The Internet is grounded in an open and interoperable architecture, giving rise to a quintessentially transnational environment. This global network of networks is, however, in natural tension with an international legal system based on mutually excluding legal frameworks. Differently from electronic networks, which are based on shared technical standards whose main objective is to make different systems compatible, national juridical system are based on essentially domestic rules, whose application to the online environment has the potential to fragment the Internet. The implementation of divergent domestic laws and regulation has indeed the potential to balkanise the global Internet creating separated national intranets and potentially conflicting cyberspaces. It seems important, therefore, to encourage the development of harmonious rules across jurisdictions, thus fostering the compatibility of the legal systems penetrated by the Internet. Promoting a “legally interoperable” environment may be considered as an instrumental step to achieving a better-functioning Internet ecosystem, in which new technologies can spur, and the free flow of information is not hindered by diverging national laws.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Belli and De Filippi (2014).

  2. 2.

    Dynamic coalitions are structural components of the UN-convened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). These multistakeholder groups are aimed at analysing and fostering debate with regard to specific topics and can be used as working groups in order to produce concrete outcomes. See http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamiccoalitions.

  3. 3.

    Compare the network neutrality principle’s definition and the provisions regarding traffic management of the Model Framework on Network neutrality, available at http://www.networkneutrality.info/sources.html and of the European Parliament legislative resolution of 3 April 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent.

  4. 4.

    Compare Belli and van Bergan (2013); CDMSI (2015).

  5. 5.

    See art. 1.3, ITR.

  6. 6.

    The expression “business enterprise” should be considered as including “any business entity, regardless of the international or domestic nature of its activities, including a transnational corporation, contractor, subcontractor, supplier, licensee or distributor; the corporate, partnership, or other legal form used to establish the business entity; and the nature of the ownership of the entity.” See: Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights 2003, § 21.

  7. 7.

    See Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) 1998, section 512; Directive on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market (2000/31) also known as “the E-Commerce Directive”, art. 12.

  8. 8.

    For an overview of the existing regulatory approaches to net neutrality, see https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/beta/#map_wrap.

  9. 9.

    See Directive 2009/136/EC, recital 23.

  10. 10.

    See Ley N° 20.453 Consagra el principio de neutralidad en la red para los consumidores y usuarios de Internet http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1016570.

  11. 11.

    See art.7.4a, Dutch Telecommunications Act https://www.bof.nl/2011/06/27/translations-of-key-dutch-internet-freedom-provisions/#nnexp.

  12. 12.

    See art. 203, Slovenian Electronic Communications Act http://www.uradni-list.si/_pdf/2012/Ur/u2012109.pdf#!/u2012109-pdf.

  13. 13.

    See art. 9, Lei N° 12.965, de 23 de abril de 2014, also known as Marco Civil da Internet no Brasil. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l12965.htm.

  14. 14.

    See EDPS (2012), p. 3. See also EDPS (2011, 2013).

  15. 15.

    See CoE 2010, para 9.

  16. 16.

    See CoE 2012 para I.8.e.

  17. 17.

    See the website of the Global Coalition on Net Neutrality, a worldwide group of civil society activist, using the Model Framework as a “model rules” for the protection of net neutrality https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/.

  18. 18.

    See IGF (2014), p. 10.

  19. 19.

    All information regarding the development process of the Net Neutrality Policy Statement can be found at http://www.networkneutrality.info/events.html.

References

  • Ansip, A. (2015). Making the EU work for people: roaming and the open internet. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/ansip/blog/making-eu-work-people-roaming-and-open-internet_en

  • Banisar, D., et al. (2003, September). Silenced: an international report on censorship and control of the Internet. Report by Privacy International and the GreenNet Educational Trust Supported by the Open Society Institute. http://silenced-an-international-report.blogspot.com.br/

  • Béland, D., & Orenstein, M. A. (2009). How do transnational policy actors matter? Annual Meeting of the Research Committee 19 of the International Sociological Association. Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belli, L. (2015). De la gouvernance à la régulation de l’Internet. Paris: Berger-Levrault.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belli, L., & De Filippi, P. (Eds.). (2013). The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow. Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality. Presented at the 8th United Nations Internet Governance Forum. Bali 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belli, L., & De Filippi, P. (Eds.). (2014). Network Neutrality: An Ongoing Regulatory Debate. 2nd Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality. Presented at the 9th United Nations Internet Governance Forum. Istanbul 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belli, L., van Bergan, M., & Michael, W. (2015). A discourse principle approach to net neutrality policymaking: a model framework and its application. Net neutrality compendium. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belli, L., & Van Bergen, M. (2013). Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality: Furthering Internet Users’ Interest, Modernising Human Rights and Safeguarding the Open Internet. Council of Europe. CDMSI(2013)misc19E.

    Google Scholar 

  • BEREC. (2012). A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe. Findings from BEREC’s and the European Commission’s joint investigation. BoR (12) 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berners Lee, T. (2006). Net neutrality: this is serious. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144

  • Bradner, S. (1996). The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3, Request for Comments: 2026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, B. (1996). Architectural Principles of the Internet, Request for Comments: 1958 retrieved from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1958.txt

  • CDMSI. (2013). Council of Europe Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Network Neutrality and Human Rights Strasbourg, Outcome Paper prepared by Luca Belli. CDMSI(2013) misc18E.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDMSI. (2015). Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)___of the Committee of Ministers to member States on protecting and promoting the right to freedom of expression and the right to private life with regard to network neutrality. CDMSI(2014)005Rev10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerf, V. (1987). The Catenet Model for Internetworking, DARPA/IPTO, retrieved from https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt

  • Clark, D. (2007). Network neutrality: Words of power and 800-pound gorillas. International Journal of Communication, 1, 701–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D., & Blumenthal, M. (2011). The end-to-end argument and application design: The role of trust. Federal Communications Law Journal, 63(2), Article 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • CoE. (2010). Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on network neutrality. Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1678287

  • CoE. (2012). Internet Governance, Council of Europe Strategy 2012–2015, CM (2011)175 final. Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1919461

  • Daigle, L. (2014). Permissionless Innovation – Openness, not Anarchy. Available at: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/tech-matters/2014/04/permissionless-innovation-openness-not-anarchy

  • Economides, N., & Tåg, J. (2012). Network neutrality on the Internet: A two-sided market analysis. Information Economics and Policy, 24, 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR. (1990). Autronic AG v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990. Application no. 12726/87. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57630

  • ECtHR. (2012). Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey. Application no. 3111/10. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-115705

  • EDPS. (2011). Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on net neutrality, traffic management and the protection of privacy and personal data.

    Google Scholar 

  • EDPS. (2012). EDPS Comments on DC Connect’s Public Consultation on “Specific Aspects of Transparency, Traffic Management and Switching in an Open Internet”.

    Google Scholar 

  • EDPS. (2013, November 14). Opinion of the Europe an Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Regulation of the Europe an Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the Europe an single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent.

    Google Scholar 

  • FCC. (2005). Policy Statement. 20 FCC Rcd 14986, 14987–88. Retrieved from https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf

  • FCC. (2010). Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905, 17911.

    Google Scholar 

  • FCC. (2015). Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet. GN Docket No. 14-28

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. (2007). When and how ICT interoperability drives innovation. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, P. (Ed.). (2012). The Tao of IETF: A Novice’s Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force. IETF Trust. Retrieved from http://www.ietf.org/tao.html

  • IGF Chair. (2014). Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance. IGF 2014 Chair’s Summary. Istanbul, Turkey.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU. (2015). Interoperability in the digital ecosystem. GSR discussion paper. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/GSR/Documents/GSR2015/Discussion_papers_and_Presentations/Discussionpaper_interoperability.pdf

  • Jayadevan, P. K. (2015). 1.5 lakh mails and counting: India lodges one of its biggest online protests over net neutrality. The Economic Times retrieved from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-13/news/61103013_1_neutrality-data-charges-internet-service-providers

  • Jörgens, H. (2003). Governance by Diffusion – Implementing Global Norms Through Cross-National Imitation and Learning. Environmental Policy Research Centre of FFU-report. 07-2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, C. (2010). Net neutrality: Towards a co-regulatory solution. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nkom. (24 February 2009) Network neutrality: Guidelines for Internet neutrality. Version 1.0. http://eng.nkom.no/technical/internet/net-neutrality/net-neutrality/_attachment/9222?_ts=1409aa375c1.

  • Palfrey J. & Gasser U. (2012). Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems. New York, NY: Basic Books..

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., & Clark, D. D. (1984). End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, (2). http://web.mit.edu/saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf

  • Schultz, T. (2005). Réguler le commerce électronique par la résolution des litiges en ligne: Une approche critique. Bruxelles: Bruynat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senato della Repubblica. (2014). Disegno di legge Costituzionale d’Iniziativa del senatore Campanella comunicatio alla Presidenza il 10 luglio 2014. Introduzione dell’articolo 34-bis della Costituzione, recante disposizioni volte al riconoscimento del diritto di accesso ad internet. XVII LEGISLATURA N. 1561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solum, L., & Chung, M. (2004). The layer principle: Internet architecture and the law. Notre Dame Law Review, 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. (2003). Commentary on the norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tréguer, F. (2012). Interoperability case study. The European Union as an institutional design for legal interoperability. Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2012-18. SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2148543

  • Van Schewick, B. (2010). Internet architecture and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (2014). Legal interoperability as a tool for combatting fragmentation. Global Commission on Internet Governance, Paper Series n°4. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/gcig_paper_no4.pdf

  • Weinberger, D. (2014). Organic net neutrality. https://ting.com/blog/organic-net-neutrality/

  • White House. (2015). The path to a free and open internet. https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

  • Wu, T. (2006). Testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary. Telecom & Antitrust Task Force on Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation, and Nondiscriminatory Access. 109th Congress, 2nd Session.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 2, 141–172.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fundação Getúlio Vargas Law School, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Luca Belli

  2. American University, Washington, DC, USA

    Nathalia Foditsch

Authors
  1. Luca Belli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathalia Foditsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Belli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Technology & Society, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Luca Belli

  2. e-Gouv, CERSA / CNRS / Université Paris II e-Gouv, Paris, France

    Primavera De Filippi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Belli, L., Foditsch, N. (2016). Network Neutrality: An Empirical Approach to Legal Interoperability. In: Belli, L., De Filippi, P. (eds) Net Neutrality Compendium. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26425-7_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26425-7_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26424-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26425-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation