Blog Post

New EU net neutrality guidelines are a pragmatic next step

The new guidelines issued on the implementation of European net neutrality rules by national regulators are sensible and pragmatic.

By: Date: June 8, 2016 Innovation & Competition Policy Tags & Topics

On Monday 6 June, the Board of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) released their Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules. This document, which will now be in public consultation for six weeks, seeks to provide guidance to European National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) as to how to implement a Regulation on network neutrality that was enacted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union in December 2015.

Network neutrality has proven to be a complex and hotly debated issue. It is clear that many consumers have a palpable fear that network operators might restrict their freedom of choice in accessing content of services of their choice, or using devices of their choice; at the same time, actual problematic incidents have been extremely rare, and the NRAs consistently argued that the rules already in place prior to enactment of the new Regulation were more than adequate to deal with current and likely future problems. Indeed, all indications are that when the European Commission first proposed legislation in this area in 2013, it was not with the intent of tightening rules, but rather to reduce the risk that each member state might enact legislation going beyond current rules, thus exacerbating problems of regulatory fragmentation across Europe.

Under these conditions, it was difficult to reach consensus on the Regulation. Drawing bright-line rules that enable innovation while protecting legitimate consumer protection interests is exceedingly difficult. The final text enacted by Parliament and Council is a sensible set of compromises, but minor confusion remained in the text as a result of the complex negotiating process, and many details were left to the regulators (in the form of BEREC) to flesh out. All indications are that it was difficult for the NRAs to find consensus.

It is clear from the results (based on a preliminary review of the text) that BEREC has done a thoughtful and conscientious job. On all of the hardest questions, BEREC has reached conclusions that are sensible, pragmatic, and true to both the letter and the spirit of the compromises in the Regulation:

  • The recognition that prioritisation and traffic management can be beneficial not only for so-called specialised services, but also for certain (eg delay-sensitive) applications on the public internet (BEREC paragraphs 54-65, 72).
  • The recognition that traffic management may be appropriate not only as a short-time expedient, but also a long-term or continuous basis (BEREC, paragraphs 68-70). The Regulation is confused and self-contradictory on this point.
  • On the practice of zero-rating (where an internet service provider applies a price of zero to the data traffic associated with a particular application or category of applications (and the data does not count towards any data cap in place on the Internet Access Service), the Guidelines generally call for case by case assessment based on a defined list of criteria (BEREC, paragraphs 37-45). This is appropriate. There are many different kinds of zero-rating. Some forms of zero-rating might have a negative impact on consumers or on content and application providers, but other forms benefit consumers.

We now enter a consultation period, where network operators will predictably complain that the Guidelines are too burdensome, and place an unreasonable burden of proof on them; and where consumer advocates might argue that consumer protection should have gone further. There is also room to question whether the Regulation, together with the Guidelines, will do enough to prevent fragmentation among national laws.

All things considered, we think that BEREC has taken a reasonable line, and that the measures put forward represent a sensible set of compromises.

Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Scott Marcus

High expectations for 5G confront practical realities

The next wave of mobile network innovation is provoking great excitement in the industry. And indeed, there is substantial potential for improvement. However, the exact form of the technology and the appropriate policy support are still far from clear. And we should beware of over-ambitious promises about the impact and uptake of new network technologies.

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 14, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Screen Shot 2017-02-27 at 17.42.49

Extending the scope of the geo-blocking prohibition: an economic assessment

This paper was prepared for the European Parliament at the request of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

By: J. Scott Marcus and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 27, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Big data and first-degree price discrimination

What’s at stake: first-degree price discrimination - or person-specific pricing, had until recently been considered a theoretical case with unlikely real-world application. Yet the increasing availability of big data could make this possible. We review recent contributions on this issue.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 20, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Scott Marcus

How good a shield is Privacy Shield?

Privacy Shield was put in place in 2016 to ensure that transfers of personal data from the EU to the US would be in compliance with European Union privacy law, and thus permissible. The institutional framework of Privacy Shield was weak, and depended on the good will of the US administration. Recent actions by the new administration, including the famous executive order forbidding residents from 7 predominantly Muslim countries to enter the US, may have (presumably unintended) effects on Privacy Shield. To preserve the validity of Privacy Shield in European Courts, strong EU-US cooperation and potentially additional agreements may become necessary.

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 7, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

External Publication


Policy and Politics in the Era of the Industrial Internet: How the Digital Transformation Will Change the Political Arena

The digital transformation has already had an impact on policymaking, and this trend will continue in the years to come. How will the political process change and how can influencers guide this change?

By: Giuseppe Porcaro Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: December 7, 2016
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution


Going local: empowering cities to lead EU decarbonisation

Decarbonisation and digitalisation are reshaping the European energy system, which will become more decentralised and interconnected with other sectors. Cities have the opportunity to be the key drivers of decarbonisation, but this will require the implementation of a new bottom-up governance system. This paper outlines a four-step mechanism in order to achieve decarbonisation at city level.

By: Simone Tagliapietra and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: November 30, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post


Search engines, big data and network effects

Search engines are intermediaries in a two-way market between users and advertisers. Their huge stocks of data about users and their preferences can help search engines offer better services to all parties. But does this make market entry difficult for new players? And can we see network effects emerging in the search engine market?

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: November 22, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Digital platforms: A policy and research agenda

The number of digital platforms is currently rising in many countries and sectors. What are the opportunities of platforms and which kind of regulation and policy framework is necessary to promote healthy competition?

Speakers: Bruno Basalisco, Diane Coyle, Jacques Crémer, Werner Stengg, Nicolas Petit, Georgios Petropoulos and Simon Wilkie Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: October 20, 2016
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Giuseppe Porcaro

The industrial internet will transform policymaking

The ‘internet of things’ will bring major changes in many areas of life, including the political arena. What will be the new communication tools, strategies and narratives for policymakers?

By: Giuseppe Porcaro Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 28, 2016
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

External Publication


New network neutrality rules in Europe: comparisons to those in the U.S.

This paper explains the similarities and differences between European and U.S. net neutrality rules.

By: J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 15, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The Apple of Discord

What’s at stake: On August 30th, following the results of an in-depth state aid investigation started in 2014, the European Commission concluded that Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13 billion to Apple. The decision is based on state aid grounds: the Commission argues that two tax rulings issued by Ireland effectively granted Apple preferential treatment, which amounted to state aid. The Commission ordered Ireland to recover up to €13 billion (plus interest) from Apple, but the decision is controversial and opinion differ as to the effects it will have. We summarize reactions.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 12, 2016
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

WP 03 2016

Challenging prospects for roam like at home

In 2015 the European Union adopted new rules seeking to implement a roam like at home regime for member states. This Working Paper highlights challenges in implementing roam like at home, and it provides insights on the economics of international mobile roaming.

By: Georgios Petropoulos and J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: June 15, 2016
Load more posts