IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v188y2023ics0040162522008149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Zero-rating and prioritization in Europe during the Covid-19 pandemic: a Rawlsian perspective on net neutrality

Author

Listed:
  • Klaser, Klaudijo
  • Pinar García, Lucía Desamparados

Abstract

In recent years two business practices, namely zero-rating (ZR) and prioritization (PR), have been widely discussed and debated. The debate is mostly built around the idea that these two practices violate the so-called net neutrality (NN) principle, which requires that all Internet data packages are treated equally. There is no unanimous consensus among scholars about NN and the adopted regulations are heterogeneous across countries, variable over time, and often contentious. In any case, the current judgements and regulations do not take into consideration exceptional circumstances, like the Covid-19 pandemic, in which an Internet connection becomes essential to carry on fundamental socio-economic activities. Focusing on the European case, in this paper we claim that, in a context such as a global pandemic, the practices of ZR and PR have to be re-examined. We do so through the perspective of the social contract theory developed by John Rawls. Our main conclusion is that, during a conjunctural crisis, where an Internet connection becomes an essential tool, ZR and PP should both be allowed. Our contribution goes towards the direction of adding a provisio to the standard European Internet regulation, allowing ZR and PR in specific contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaser, Klaudijo & Pinar García, Lucía Desamparados, 2023. "Zero-rating and prioritization in Europe during the Covid-19 pandemic: a Rawlsian perspective on net neutrality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:188:y:2023:i:c:s0040162522008149
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522008149
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122293?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berkey, Brian, 2021. "Rawlsian Institutionalism and Business Ethics: Does It Matter Whether Corporations Are Part of the Basic Structure of Society?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 179-209, April.
    2. Jeitschko, Thomas D. & Kim, Soo Jin & Yankelevich, Aleksandr, 2021. "Zero-Rating and Vertical Content Foreclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Gautier, Axel & Somogyi, Robert, 2020. "Prioritization vs zero-rating: Discrimination on the internet," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    4. Alistair S. Duff, 2011. "The Rawls-Tawney theorem and the digital divide in postindustrial society," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(3), pages 604-612, March.
    5. Jullien, Bruno & Sand-Zantman, Wilfried, 2018. "Internet regulation, two-sided pricing, and sponsored data," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 31-62.
    6. Shane Greenstein & Martin Peitz & Tommaso Valletti, 2016. "Net Neutrality: A Fast Lane to Understanding the Trade-Offs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 127-150, Spring.
    7. Alistair S. Duff, 2011. "The Rawls‐Tawney theorem and the digital divide in postindustrial society," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(3), pages 604-612, March.
    8. Singer, Abraham, 2015. "There Is No Rawlsian Theory of Corporate Governance," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 65-92, January.
    9. Jay Pil Choi & Doh-Shin Jeon & Byung-Cheol Kim, 2015. "Net Neutrality, Business Models, and Internet Interconnection," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 104-141, August.
    10. Blanc, Sandrine & Al-Amoudi, Ismael, 2013. "Corporate Institutions in a Weakened Welfare State: A Rawlsian Perspective," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 497-525, October.
    11. Inceoglu, Firat & Liu, Xingyi, 2019. "Multiproduct price discrimination with quantity limits: An application to zero-rating," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 41-45.
    12. De’, Rahul & Pandey, Neena & Pal, Abhipsa, 2020. "Impact of digital surge during Covid-19 pandemic: A viewpoint on research and practice," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    13. Norman, Wayne, 2015. "Rawls on Markets and Corporate Governance," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 29-64, January.
    14. Hooton, Christopher Alex, 2020. "Testing the economics of the net neutrality debate," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5).
    15. Maho Hatayama & Mariana Viollaz & Hernan Winkler, 2020. "Jobs’ Amenability to Working from Home: Evidence from Skills Surveys for 53 Countries," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0263, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    16. Comeig, Irene & Klaser, Klaudijo & Pinar, Lucía D., 2022. "The paradox of (Inter)net neutrality: An experiment on ex-ante antitrust regulation✰," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    17. Steffen Hoernig; Francisco Monteiro, 2018. "Zero-rating, network effects, and capacity investments," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp627, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    18. Marc Cohen, 2010. "The Narrow Application of Rawls in Business Ethics: A Political Conception of Both Stakeholder Theory and the Morality of Markets," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 563-579, December.
    19. Alipour, Jean-Victor & Fadinger, Harald & Schymik, Jan, 2021. "My home is my castle – The benefits of working from home during a pandemic crisis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    20. Anna Lauren Hoffmann, 2017. "Beyond distributions and primary goods: Assessing applications of rawls in information science and technology literature since 1990," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(7), pages 1601-1618, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saruta, Fuyuki, 2021. "Effects of Vertical Integration on Internet Service Providers' Zero-rating Choice," MPRA Paper 110288, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Gautier, Axel & Somogyi, Robert, 2020. "Prioritization vs zero-rating: Discrimination on the internet," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    3. Saruta, Fuyuki, 2022. "Effects of vertical integration on internet service providers’ zero-rating choice," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    4. Emmanuel LORENZON, 2020. "Zero Rating, Content Quality and Network Capacity," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2020-21, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    5. David Rönnegard & N. Craig Smith, 2024. "A Rawlsian Rule for Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 295-308, March.
    6. Lorenzon, Emmanuel, 2022. "Zero-rating, content quality, and network capacity," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    7. Inceoglu, Firat & Liu, Xingyi, 2019. "Multiproduct price discrimination with quantity limits: An application to zero-rating," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 41-45.
    8. Jeitschko, Thomas D. & Kim, Soo Jin & Yankelevich, Aleksandr, 2021. "Zero-Rating and Vertical Content Foreclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    9. Nuno Ornelas Martins, 2018. "Justice and the Social Ontology of the Corporation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 17-28, November.
    10. Broos, Sébastien & Gautier, Axel, 2017. "The exclusion of competing one-way essential complements: Implications for net neutrality," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 358-392.
    11. Marc Bourreau & Romain Lestage, 2019. "Net neutrality and asymmetric platform competition," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 140-171, April.
    12. Magali Fia & Lorenzo Sacconi, 2019. "Justice and Corporate Governance: New Insights from Rawlsian Social Contract and Sen’s Capabilities Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 937-960, December.
    13. Hoernig, Steffen & Monteiro, Francisco, 2020. "Zero-rating and network effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    14. Saruta, Fuyuki, 2020. "Effects of Content Providers' Heterogeneity on Internet Service Providers' Zero-rating Choice," MPRA Paper 107505, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2021.
    15. Krämer, Jan & Peitz, Martin, 2018. "A fresh look at zero-rating," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 501-513.
    16. Schnurr, Daniel & Wiewiorra, Lukas, 2018. "Bit-by-Bit Towards Unlimited: An Analysis of Zero Rating and Sponsored Data Practices of Internet Service Providers," 29th European Regional ITS Conference, Trento 2018 184965, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    17. Piotr Lewandowski & Katarzyna Lipowska & Mateusz Smoter, 2022. "Working from home during a pandemic – a discrete choice experiment in Poland," IBS Working Papers 03/2022, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    18. Koning, Kendall J. & Yankelevich, Aleksandr, 2018. "From internet “Openness” to “Freedom”: How far has the net neutrality pendulum swung?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 37-45.
    19. Szabó, Andrea & Pham, Vinh, 2022. "Net neutrality and consumer demand in the video on-demand market," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    20. Jay Pil Choi & Doh†Shin Jeon & Byung†Cheol Kim, 2018. "Net Neutrality, Network Capacity, and Innovation at the Edges," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(1), pages 172-204, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:188:y:2023:i:c:s0040162522008149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.