Communications Litigation Today was a Warren News publication.
Debate Ignores Consumers?

EU Governments Prod European Parliament To Agree on Net Neutrality Rules

Political compromise remains elusive on net neutrality provisions in the telecom single market (TSM) package, and the ball is now in the European Parliament's court, the EU Latvian presidency said at a webcast Telecom Council meeting Friday. The presidency has "tried to do everything we can" to reach agreement with lawmakers, but "compromise still has to be found," said Latvian Transport Minister Andrijs Matiss. Government officials also approved conclusions on the transfer of Internet Assigned Number Authority functions to the multistakeholder community. Meanwhile, a study for European telecom regulators said the net neutrality debate has failed to consider what consumers really want.

Latvia will propose new compromise text on all open issues for the ongoing "trialogue" with the EC and Parliament, Matiss said. It's up to the Parliament now to "show its true commitment" to closing the file, he said, saying legislators had canceled a meeting set for June 15. "We're close to final agreement now," Matiss said at a news briefing after the meeting. The Council fully supports the establishment of open Internet rules, but not at any cost, he said.

The European Commission will do everything it can to reach an accord as soon as possible, said Digital Economy Commissioner Günther Oettinger. Governments made "great progress" on a definition of net neutrality but left several options open on how to define specialized services, he said at the briefing. The EC wants a "water-tight" definition that can be enforced against all Internet operators, he said. The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association later urged policymakers not to "establish overly restrictive rules on traffic management and specialised services." European Digital Rights accused the Council of confirming its desire to swap agreement on net neutrality for an end to mobile roaming costs.

One major problem with the net neutrality debate on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere is that it's "political and aloof," said René Arnold, WIK-Consult head of department for markets and perspectives. He did research in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece and Sweden on how consumers value net neutrality in an evolving Internet market. The report for the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications said the goal of the broad net neutrality debate is "the continued operation of the Internet as an open environment, enabling innovation and competition among service providers and enabling choice and freedom to communicate for consumers." But regulators also must consider the longer-term implications of the choices consumers make and of the broader societal implications of restricting Internet access, it said. Another key consideration in the regulatory debate is the extent to which consumer behavior, and ISPs' economic incentives and conduct, can be relied on to maintain an open, innovative Internet, it said.

The evidence suggests that "consumers tend to prefer Internet packages with normal access to popular applications," and that these are also likely to be economically attractive for ISPs to offer, the report said. As long as there's transparency and consumers can easily switch providers, such services are likely to predominate as they do now, it said. But some consumers may prefer restricted access services at lower prices, or packages with lower access speed or data volume at reduced cost, it said. Consumers place the strongest emphasis on price when they buy Internet access but also base decisions on attributes relating to traffic management, it said. People want normal access to the applications, and offers without data caps are the most attractive, it said.

The study highlights how far removed the net neutrality debate is from what consumers want, Arnold told us. It's "surprising" that many participants in the debate like to say they're acting in the interest of consumers "without actually having asked them what they think, what they expect from their Internet experience, what they consider fair or if they would be willing to purchase any quality-differentiated services offered by ISPs," he emailed. More such studies are needed to inject "a bit of reality" into policy debates, he said.

The results differed substantially from U.S. results, Arnold said. There, where the net neutrality debate has led more prominently in the media, giving consumers a better chance to familiarize themselves with the issues, a much greater share of consumers oppose services of different quality, he said. Quick panel research in the U.K., which Arnold plans to release this week, will show "surprising" results, he told us.

The Council also welcomed NTIA's intent to shift IANA functions and reaffirmed "the necessity for a timely and well prepared transfer" in a way that doesn't expose those functions "to capture by narrow commercial or government interests." Governments stressed their support for the open, multistakeholder process underway to address the complex issues of the transition and urged participants to "make further progress" given the Sept. 30 expiration date of the IANA contract with ICANN. They said "any unjustified delay of this process could negatively impact internet governance debates worldwide."