Net Neutrality, Foreclosure and the Fast Lane: An empirical study of the UK
Consumers buy internet access from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to reach online content providers. Under net neutrality, an ISP is not allowed to discriminate between content providers, even though it might have an incentive to do so. An ISP might want to sell a “fast lane” to content providers or use quality degradation to foreclose content providers that compete with the ISP's own content. Discarding net neutrality will have two effects on consumers: (i) consumers will reoptimize their choice of online content, at constant ISP choices; and (ii) consumers will reoptimize their choice of ISP. I empirically investigate whether an ISP has an incentive to break net neutrality, taking into account both channels of consumer response. I combine a novel data set on UK household content and ISP choices with data on ISP presence in local markets, as well as speeds and prices. Preliminary results indicate that a fast lane increases consumers' surplus, industry revenues and advertising revenues. In contrast, foreclosure seems an unlikely scenario since it reduces the foreclosing ISP's revenues from selling broadband by more than it can recuperate through advertising on online content.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Choi, Jay & Kim, Byung-Cheol, 2008.
"Net Neutrality and Investment Incentives,"
Working Paper Series
4010, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
- Chen, M. Keith & Nalebuff, Barry, 2006.
"One-Way Essential Complements,"
22, Yale University, Department of Economics.
- Mattia Nardotto & Tommaso Valletti & Frank Verboven, 2014.
"Unbundling the Incumbent: Evidence from UK broadband,"
CEIS Research Paper
331, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 03 Oct 2014.
- Nardotto, Mattia & Valletti, Tommaso & Verboven, Frank, 2012. "Unbundling the incumbent: Evidence from UK broadband," CEPR Discussion Papers 9194, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Keith M. Chen & Barry Nalebuff, 2006.
"One-Way Essential Complements,"
321307000000000669, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Kenneth E. Train & Daniel L. McFadden & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 1987. "The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 109-123, Spring.
- Robin S. Lee & Tim Wu, 2009. "Subsidizing Creativity through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and Net Neutrality," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 61-76, Summer.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009.
"Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
- Crawford, Gregory S & Yurukoglu, Ali, 2011.
"The Welfare Effects of Bundling in Multichannel Television Markets,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
8370, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Gregory S. Crawford & Ali Yurukoglu, 2012. "The Welfare Effects of Bundling in Multichannel Television Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 643-85, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:1213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nicholas Economides)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.