The key findings are:
- With data traffic growing at a fast pace and increasing mobile broadband demand, the net-neutrality issue has taken centre stage
- Operators are looking to protect their investments and their bandwidth, while over-the-top (OTT) companies want to ensure that content won't be arbitrarily blocked
- Several countries and regions have consultations on the topic, but very few have binding net-neutrality legislation, with the US
[here] and the Netherlands
[here] the two pioneers in the field
- Net neutrality means different things to different players [here], with no two markets sharing the same definition. However, a common denominator exists based on transparency [EU - here ; UK - here; see also "Allot: 25% of MNOs Have a Transparency Issue with "Unlimited" Service Plans" - here] and fair traffic-management practices [here]
- The main issues remain whether the internet is a public good or a business, and whether there exists one or several internets
- Further differences exist in terms of whether to cover both fixed and mobile networks, as well as the role of piracy [here] and OTT players in the net-neutrality debate
- The US case study highlights that the middle ground pleases no-one, while the Dutch example highlights the risk of all-encompassing legislation
- Regulators have the arduous task of ensuring that there remains strong competition within a specific market, while at the same time ensuring that customers are well-served by their providers
- The battle between carriers and providers is set to continue, with carriers now offering their own internet services as they have a similar objective in maintaining a key relationship with the end user.
No comments:
Post a Comment