Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Net Neutrality and Israeli Antitrust Law
Transcript of Net Neutrality and Israeli Antitrust Law
The debate over net neutrality is, generally, a communication policy one:
*Proponents of "open access" believe that it is a structural
of internet neutrality as we experience it today- all data is treated the same, and the internet is a democratic environment for any meassage.
*Critics claim that regulation is
and would likely
the pace of broadband deployment and innovation- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!".
"mandating net neutrality would be likely to reduce economic welfare"- Hahn & Wallsten
Is it Legal?
Is This even an Antitrust Issue? isn't it a Question of Communications regulatory policy?
Should Internet Access-Tiering and Preferential Agreements in Israel be considered a Restrictive Trade Practice?
The principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites
What is it Exactly?
Term coined by Prof. Tim Wu, Columbia Law School
It's Hardly self defining, and might be a bit complicated. mainly, the debate is over two questions*:
1.Whether different content suppliers (such as Google, Netflix etc.) should be able to obtain
, and thus higher speeds, for a given amount of content, by
paying internet providers more
2.Whether certain suppliers are being
by internet providers, or
, for either economic or noneconomic reasons?
So what do Internet Providers want?
Basically, they want to charge service providers (such as Skype, Whatsapp, Netflix etc.)
for supplying them with internet "fast lanes" for their data
the may want to
block, slow down or degrade
the quality of their services
, the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) has adopted rules
in favor of net neutrality
In The Netherlands, Brazil, Chile, Slovenia and some other countries there are laws
In 2011 and 2014 Israel has amended its Communications Act (Bezeq and Transmissions) from 1982 so that it is illegal for any internet provider to: "limit or block, even by setting tariffs:
1. A costumers possibility to use any service or application provided over the internet..."
The Law contains a
which allows internet providers to "reasonably and fairly manage their network". Since these firms have a substantial
over the regulators, and the law has
been enforced by the Israeli Communication Ministry, they may turn the "exception" to the common rule.
The Law doesn't forbid internet providers and content suppliers from signing preferential agreements or taking access-tiering measures.
is an agreement between an internet provider and a content provider to ensures that, in times of heavy internet data traffic, the internet provider will
data packets from the content supplier and keep its data speed stable ("you get your
X speed permanently, no matter what").
is the practice of creating paid "fast lanes" over the internet network so that an internet provider could allocate a
completely separate and uninterrupted lane
for a paying content provider.
Why Could this be a Serious Problem?
: "Net neutrality is
not exclusively nor even predominantly and antitrust problem
. antitrust my occasionally become relevant when vertical integration by internet service providers leads to exclusion of or discrimination against competing downstream content [...] Net neutrality concerns can raise competition issues when old technology firms such as cable companies attempt to protect their position by restraining the development of newer technology internet broadband." - Hovenkamp
: "[...] [t]he net neutrality controversy is
best understood as a classic antitrust dispute
about “vertical leveraging”"-Nuechterlein
Should we encourage or prevent preferential agreements and access-tiering solely due to antitrust reasons? is a per-se illegality of those practices price regulation?
If Preferential Agreements and Access-Tiering are Antitrust concerns, and even restrictive trade practices (
I'm not sure yet
), does the Israeli Antitrust Authority have good tools for addressing them in the Israeli Antitrust Act (1988)?
Declared as an internet provider monopoly by the Israeli Antitrust Authority in 2004 (over 63% of the market)
Are possible preferential agreements and access-tiering only means of
and strengtheing Yes or Hot's
If Bezeq and Hot both
in preferential agreements or access-tiering only with their affiliates, or
from using these practice altogether, should this be considered a
? (Conducive Conditions)
Duopoly (economies of scale)
Regulating conduct of an oligopoly: What should be the
of prohibition (if any)?
Articles 26, 31
Will the market self-correct? are those practices contradicting the
theory of "creative destruction"?
The Antitrust Authority approved a Bezeq-Yes merger in 2014, limiting their ability to "limit or block", but did not per-se prohibit
preferential agreements or access-tiering.
Regulating conduct of monopolies: What should be the
of prohibition (if any)?
If Bezeq will refrain from initiating preferential agreements or access-tiering with Netflix or Cellcom TV, or will only deal for a very high price, is it an
Unreasonable Refusal to deal or Abuse of position
between Bezeq/ Hot and Netflix/Cellcom TV/ new competitors be allowed?
Summary: I wish to determine what should be the basic antitrust approach towards future preferential agreements and access-tiering schemes
Thank you for your time.
I'd like to hear your thoughts, comments and questions