Net Neutrality and Mobile App Innovation in Denmark and Netherlands 2010–2016

IF 0.9 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Roslyn Layton
{"title":"Net Neutrality and Mobile App Innovation in Denmark and Netherlands 2010–2016","authors":"Roslyn Layton","doi":"10.1515/RNE-2019-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Net neutrality or “Open Internet” rulemaking has been ongoing for more than a decade. Some 50 nations have adopted formal rules including the US (then repealed), the European Union, India, and many countries in Latin America. Among other arguments, it is asserted that net neutrality rules are necessary for application innovation. While the focus for policymakers has largely been to make rules, there is less attention on how to measure the impact of such rules and how well they achieve their innovation goals. The article summaries a specific research investigation to what degree the introduction of rules in a given country stimulates innovation in that country’s mobile app ecosystem. The focus in on mobile networks because it allowed the most consistent data across countries. The study covered 53 countries, their net neutrality policies (or lack thereof), and the results to the respective mobile application ecosystems of the countries adopting rules between the period of 2010–2016. This investigation tests the proposition that countries which adopt net neutrality rules should experience an increase in mobile app development innovation within their national economy. To test this, a statistical methodology was developed based upon measuring the number of locally developed mobile apps in the country for relevant periods before and after rules are imposed and the corresponding app downloads, usage, and revenue. Measurement was conducted with two independent toolsets and adjusted for the sophistication and penetration of advanced mobile networks in the country. To make more meaningful comparisons and avoid inevitable heterogeneity across the countries, the investigation focuses on two similar countries with different rules, Denmark with soft rules (self-regulation) and Netherlands with hard rules (legislation). The study reviewed the leading theories of innovation as well as the foundational papers in net neutrality to explain the observed discrepancies. The research finds significant statistical support for “soft” net neutrality measures adopted on a voluntary basis. Hard rules adopted through legislation and regulation were not associated with greater mobile app development for the given country. Denmark increased in local mobile app development while Netherlands decreased. Additionally, the explosion of mobile apps from countries with no net neutrality rules and the general dearth of mobile apps from countries which have had hard rules for years runs counter to expected results. This suggests that policymakers revisit their assumptions and expectations for net neutrality policy.","PeriodicalId":45659,"journal":{"name":"Review of Network Economics","volume":"9 1","pages":"207 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Network Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/RNE-2019-0012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Net neutrality or “Open Internet” rulemaking has been ongoing for more than a decade. Some 50 nations have adopted formal rules including the US (then repealed), the European Union, India, and many countries in Latin America. Among other arguments, it is asserted that net neutrality rules are necessary for application innovation. While the focus for policymakers has largely been to make rules, there is less attention on how to measure the impact of such rules and how well they achieve their innovation goals. The article summaries a specific research investigation to what degree the introduction of rules in a given country stimulates innovation in that country’s mobile app ecosystem. The focus in on mobile networks because it allowed the most consistent data across countries. The study covered 53 countries, their net neutrality policies (or lack thereof), and the results to the respective mobile application ecosystems of the countries adopting rules between the period of 2010–2016. This investigation tests the proposition that countries which adopt net neutrality rules should experience an increase in mobile app development innovation within their national economy. To test this, a statistical methodology was developed based upon measuring the number of locally developed mobile apps in the country for relevant periods before and after rules are imposed and the corresponding app downloads, usage, and revenue. Measurement was conducted with two independent toolsets and adjusted for the sophistication and penetration of advanced mobile networks in the country. To make more meaningful comparisons and avoid inevitable heterogeneity across the countries, the investigation focuses on two similar countries with different rules, Denmark with soft rules (self-regulation) and Netherlands with hard rules (legislation). The study reviewed the leading theories of innovation as well as the foundational papers in net neutrality to explain the observed discrepancies. The research finds significant statistical support for “soft” net neutrality measures adopted on a voluntary basis. Hard rules adopted through legislation and regulation were not associated with greater mobile app development for the given country. Denmark increased in local mobile app development while Netherlands decreased. Additionally, the explosion of mobile apps from countries with no net neutrality rules and the general dearth of mobile apps from countries which have had hard rules for years runs counter to expected results. This suggests that policymakers revisit their assumptions and expectations for net neutrality policy.
2010-2016丹麦和荷兰的网络中立性和移动应用创新
网络中立性或“开放互联网”规则制定已经持续了十多年。大约有50个国家采用了正式规定,包括美国(后来被废除)、欧盟、印度和许多拉丁美洲国家。在其他争论中,有人断言网络中立规则对于应用创新是必要的。虽然政策制定者的重点主要是制定规则,但对如何衡量这些规则的影响以及它们如何实现创新目标的关注较少。这篇文章总结了一个具体的研究调查,在一个特定的国家,规则的引入在多大程度上刺激了该国移动应用生态系统的创新。之所以把重点放在移动网络上,是因为移动网络允许各国之间的数据最一致。该研究涵盖了53个国家,它们的网络中立政策(或缺乏网络中立政策),以及2010-2016年期间采用规则的国家各自移动应用生态系统的结果。本研究检验了一个命题,即采用网络中立规则的国家应该在其国民经济中增加移动应用程序开发创新。为了验证这一点,我们开发了一种统计方法,该方法是基于在规定实施前后的相关时期衡量该国本地开发的移动应用数量,以及相应的应用下载量、使用率和收益。测量是用两个独立的工具集进行的,并根据该国先进移动网络的复杂性和渗透率进行了调整。为了进行更有意义的比较,避免各国之间不可避免的异质性,本研究将重点放在两个相似但规则不同的国家,即软规则(自我监管)的丹麦和硬规则(立法)的荷兰。该研究回顾了创新的主要理论以及网络中立性的基础论文,以解释观察到的差异。研究发现,在自愿基础上采取的“软”网络中立措施得到了显著的统计支持。通过立法和法规采用的硬性规则与特定国家的移动应用开发并不相关。丹麦的本地手机应用开发有所增加,而荷兰则有所减少。此外,来自没有网络中立规则的国家的手机应用的爆炸式增长,以及来自多年来有严格规则的国家的手机应用的普遍匮乏,与预期的结果背道而驰。这表明政策制定者需要重新审视他们对网络中立政策的假设和期望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The Review of Network Economics seeks to help policy makers, academics, and practitioners keep informed of new research and policy debate in network economics and related subjects that are relevant to the study of network industries. By publishing high quality research on topical issues relevant to network industries, it is hoped readers will be able to gain a deeper understanding of the economic issues involved and that this will improve the quality of decision making by private and public organisations, and debate among researchers. The articles can cover specific network industries, or may deal with general issues that have relevance to a number of different network industries, including topics in the economics of networks, regulation, competition law, or industrial organisation. Papers that provide insights into policy debates are especially welcome, as are up-to-date surveys, book reviews, and comments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信