When we talk about the vast potential of the Internet for innovation, inclusion and society, the critical question of openness and accessibility can hardly be avoided. Concretely, this question is often framed by the global debate on network neutrality. While the debate is global, regulation and policies are quite diverse between different geographic regions. The debate is rooted especially in the USA and in seminal papers like Tim Wu’s “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination“ (2003). However, different approaches in a global context can be observed meanwhile.
This paper focusses on the network neutrality debate in the EU by framing the related regulatory process, especially the Telecom-Single-Market-Directive in 2015 (Regulation 2015/2120). The guiding question is: How can the regulatory process for network neutrality in the European Union be characterized and what does the outcome of this process mean for normative values and standards in public and private communication.
For this purpose, a threefold approach based on regulatory theory is applied. (1) Interest-centred: regulation as an instrument for certain interests (Puppis, 2010; Wilson, 1980). (2) Institution-centred: role of institutions/structure and responsibilities of regulatory authorities (Schulz, Valcke, & Irion, 2013). (3) Idea-centred: normative goals/concepts/objectives that should be reached with regulation (Baldwin, Cave, & Lodge, 2012; Künzler, 2009).The EU is characterized by a complex institutional framework. This is especially true for Internet governance where regulatory measures are often lagging behind current developments. Additionally, a multi-stakeholder compromise is hard to reach, often leading to the preference of dominant and ignorance of less powerful voices.
This paper grounds on empirical findings derived from a document analysis and expert interviews. It shows the EU’s performance in implementing regulatory measures for a complex and global policy issue. The results shed light on intransparent negotiation processes ahead and during the „Connected Continent“-initiative, a hard struggle to maintain the spirit of sincere dialogue and consensus-building within the EU’s political institutions and the passing of the TSM-Directive. In parallel, organizations like BEREC extended their involvement in the regulatory process and widened the stage for dialogue. Beyond the network of regulatory authorities, also civil society organizations are gaining momentum in the regulatory process. The comprehensive image shows that albeit the complex institutional setting slowed down the process, the outcome is characterized by the inclusion of multiple stakeholders and the possibility to adapt legal norms on a dynamic basis.
Sources
Baldwin, R., Cave, M., & Lodge, M. (2012). Understanding Regulation. Theory, Strategy, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Künzler, M. (2009). Die Liberalisierung von Radio und Fernsehen. Leitbilder der Rundfunkregulierung im Ländervergleich. Konstanz: UVK.
Puppis, M. (2010). Einführung in die Medienpolitik. Konstanz: UVK.
Schulz, W., Valcke, P., & Irion, K. (Eds.). (2013). The independence of the media and its regulatory agencies. Shedding new light on formal an actual independence against the national context. Bristol: Intellect.
Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The Politics of Regulation. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), The Politics of Regulation (pp. 357-394). New York: Basic Books.
Wu, T. (2003). Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 2(1), 141-176.