Cover Image
市場調查報告書

OTT服務:合作性的法規把網路中立性的促進做為可能

OTT Services: Collaborative Regulation Can Promote Internet Neutrality

出版商 Pyramid Research, Inc. 商品編碼 351336
出版日期 內容資訊 英文 63 Pages
訂單完成後即時交付
價格
Back to Top
OTT服務:合作性的法規把網路中立性的促進做為可能 OTT Services: Collaborative Regulation Can Promote Internet Neutrality
出版日期: 2016年02月07日 內容資訊: 英文 63 Pages
簡介

Over-the-Top (OTT) 服務的爆炸性成長,使競爭擴大,以及在ISP的網路上產生龐大的流量負擔,讓通訊市場混亂。網路供應商為了管理增加的通訊量,分散追加容量的成本,差別化流量,不過,這升起內容、服務供應商及消費者對平等存取的擔憂。

本報告提供全球導入的網路中立性的主要的法規模式整體分析,網路業者採用的實際的策略為基礎的建議。

摘要整理

第1章 調查範圍、定義

  • 調查範圍
  • Over-the-Top (OTT) 服務定義
  • 網路中立性定義

第2章 OTT環境形成的動態

  • 促進成長要素、趨勢:OTT視訊
  • 促進成長要素、趨勢:OTT通訊
  • 促進成長要素、趨勢:OTT語音通信
  • OTT服務對網路供應商的影響

第3章 案例研究:限制網路中立性的方法

  • 網路中立性的法規:同樣的目標,不同的途徑
  • 網路中立性的法律規範
  • 案例研究:英國
  • 案例研究:法國
  • 案例研究:韓國
  • 案例研究:美國
  • 案例研究:EU
  • 案例研究:智利
  • 案例研究:巴西

第4章 主要調查結果、建議

  • 主要調查結果:網路中立性法規的推動因素
  • 主要調查結果:法規模式
  • 主要調查結果:原理、啟用
  • 建議:聯盟
  • 建議:多相關利益者倡議
  • 跟建議:法規當局的合作
  • 跟建議:消費者團體的合作

附錄

圖表清單

目錄
Product Code: TC0035IR

Summary

The explosive growth of over-the-top (OTT) services has disrupted the telecommunications market by boosting competition and by creating a phenomenal traffic load on the transport pipes of ISPs. Network providers are using traffic differentiation to manage the increased volume and distribute the cost of additional capacity, which has raised equal-access concerns among online content and service providers and consumers. As many governments around the world strive to address the issue, regulators are grappling with how to maintain Internet equality without discouraging sector growth.

Key Findings

The rapid uptake of OTT services globally is a major driver of the growth in data traffic for broadband providers. Popular OTT applications have disrupted the traffic management models of ISPs by exponentially expanding the volume of content carried over the Internet. The increased data load has created challenges for ISPs, which are coming up with methods for managing congestion.

Traffic management by ISPs has prompted governments to intervene to ensure Internet traffic equality. The need for government intervention to achieve a neutral Internet has been debated for a long time. Since the rise of the public Internet, governments have been weighing the merits of regulating such an expansive space against the risks of curtailing freedom.

Regulators must recognize the factors that enable a sustainable net neutrality program. A concerted implementation plan is needed to push forward the net neutrality agenda and attain sustainable progress. Some key enablers are identified based on each country's level of stakeholder cooperation and its progress in averting neutrality breaches.

Network operators must seek ways to partner with OTT content and app providers. In the past few years, a number of MNOs have chosen to partner with OTT service and app providers, as an alternative or parallel strategy to rolling out proprietary Internet applications. OTT partnerships reduce the time to market for the operators aiming to launch new Internet-based services.

Participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives can help ISPs engage in the policy-setting process of their respective countries. By participating in such initiatives, broadband operators can boost their influence and make sure their technical and economic interests are considered in the development of net neutrality rules.

Synopsis

The explosive growth of over-the-top (OTT) services has disrupted the telecommunications market by boosting competition and by creating a phenomenal traffic load on the transport pipes of ISPs. Network providers are using traffic differentiation to manage the increased volume and distribute the cost of additional capacity, which has raised equal-access concerns among online content and service providers and consumers. As many governments around the world strive to address the issue, regulators are grappling with how to maintain Internet equality without discouraging sector growth."OTT Services: Collaborative Regulation Can Promote Internet Neutrality" offers an in-depth examination of the main regulatory models and strategies adopted around the world to safeguard the neutrality of the Internet, highlighting the interests and viewpoints of the different stakeholders in the debate and the challenges facing regulators in establishing a system that works for all. The Report's analysis provides specific examples of prevalent regulatory models through case studies of Brazil, Chile, the European Union, France, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States, with a focus on the particular developments and challenges of each market.

The Report is structured as follows:

Section 1: Dynamics shaping the OTT environment. This section provides an overview of the three key growth segments within the OTT services sector as well as the threats and opportunities that OTT services present for network operators.

Section 2: Ecosystem player views Here we explore the perspectives of the various stakeholders in the global net neutrality debate, focusing on their views on what net neutrality means and the government's role in ensuring an open and neutral Internet.

Section 3: Case studies - Approaches to regulating net neutrality. Seven jurisdictions are examined more closely: the European Union, Brazil, Chile, France, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. Each case study offers detailed analysis of the trajectory and approach taken toward net neutrality regulation, the progress made in recent years and the challenges going forward.

Section 4: Key findings and recommendations. We conclude with a summary of our findings on the impetus for net neutrality and key regulatory models being adopted around the world, as well as specific recommendations for network operators looking to increase their participation in the net neutrality policymaking process and the OTT market.

Reasons To Buy

‘OTT Services: Collaborative Regulation Can Promote Internet Neutrality' provides a comprehensive analysis of key regulatory models for Internet neutrality that are being adopted across the world, helping executives at MNOs, fixed telcos and pay-TV providers make informed strategic decisions and develop effective partnerships in the OTT arena.

The Report's forward-looking analysis of key trends in OTT services helps providers assess the potential impact of OTTs on their business and identify related opportunities. The case studies focus on how governments and other stakeholders in seven developed and emerging markets have approached the net neutrality debate, allowing executives to refine their expectations for regulatory outcomes.

By understanding the interests and positions of the main stakeholders in the net neutrality debate - government, end users, content providers and ISPs - telecom professionals can develop strategies to ensure their respective needs are addressed in upcoming regulatory cycles.

The Report's recommendations are based on real strategies employed by network operators to position themselves to influence more effectively the net neutrality laws in their respective markets, and to increase their participation in the ever-growing OTT services market. Network operators can benefit from strategies such as partnering with OTT players, collaborating with regulators, joining multi-stakeholder initiatives and forging coalitions with consumer and content provider advocacy groups.

Table of Contents

Executive summary

Introduction: Report scope and definitions

  • Report scope
  • Definition of over-the-top services
  • Internet neutrality definition

Section 1: Dynamics shaping the OTT environment

  • Growth drivers and trends - OTT video
  • Growth drivers and trends - OTT messaging
  • Growth drivers and trends - OTT telephony
  • The impact of OTT services on network providers

Section 2: Ecosystem player views

  • Diverging stances on net neutrality
  • The governments' dilemma
  • Autonomy is key for ISPs
  • Consumers want open access, equality and more choices
  • OTTs: Neutrality benefits consumers and the entire ecosystem

Section 3: Case studies - Approaches to regulating net neutrality

  • Regulating net neutrality: Same goal, different paths
  • Regulatory frameworks for net neutrality
  • Case study: United Kingdom
  • Case study: France
  • Case study: South Korea
  • Case study: United States
  • Case study: European Union
  • Case study: Chile
  • Case study: Brazil

Section 4: Key findings and recommendations

  • Key findings: Impetus for net neutrality regulation
  • Key findings: Regulatory models
  • Key findings: Principles and enablers
  • Recommendations: Partnerships
  • Recommendations: Multi-stakeholder initiatives
  • Recommendations: Collaboration with regulators (co-regulation)
  • Recommendations: Collaboration with consumer groups
  • and content providers

Appendices

  • Companies, organizations and government entities mentioned
  • About Pyramid Research
  • Meet us in person

List of Tables

  • Exhibit 1: Study scope
  • Exhibit 2: Main types of OTT services
  • Exhibit 3: Net neutrality definitions from selected stakeholders
  • Exhibit 4: Online service providers' shares of fixed-access Internet traffic in North America
  • Exhibit 5: Top players in OTT mobile messaging
  • Exhibit 6: Top OTT voice providers worldwide
  • Exhibit 7: Impact of OTT growth on network providers
  • Exhibit 8: Alternative views on net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 9: Governments' balancing act
  • Exhibit 10: Principles advocated by ISPs
  • Exhibit 11: Principles advocated by Internet users
  • Exhibit 12: Principles advocated by OTT service providers
  • Exhibit 13: Case study markets by initial regulatory approach to net neutrality
  • Exhibit 14: Scope of net neutrality regulation in selected countries
  • Exhibit 15: The UK's path to net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 16: The UK's collaborative approach
  • Exhibit 17: Netflix ISP speed index, UK, Nov 2015
  • Exhibit 18: France's path to net neutrality
  • Exhibit 19: ARCEP's focus areas, 2010-2015
  • Exhibit 20: CNNum's framework proposal, France
  • Exhibit 21: South Korea's path to net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 22: KakaoTalk users, Q1 2013 to Q2 2015
  • Exhibit 23: Netflix streaming subscriber growth, globally
  • Exhibit 24: The path to net neutrality in the US
  • Exhibit 25: FCC net neutrality rules, 2015
  • Exhibit 26: Plaintiffs in 2015 net neutrality lawsuits
  • Exhibit 27: The European Union's path to net neutrality
  • Exhibit 28: Trajectory of the EU's net neutrality regulatory package
  • Exhibit 29: EU net neutrality at a glance
  • Exhibit 30: Chile's path to net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 31: Virgin Mobile free bundled app offer
  • Exhibit 32: Average broadband speeds, Latin America
  • Exhibit 33: Brazil's path to net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 34: Most frequently used OTT apps, Brazil
  • Exhibit 35: Divergent views of net neutrality, Brazil
  • Exhibit 36: Common principles
  • Exhibit 37: Policy enablers

List of Figures

  • Exhibit 1: Study scope
  • Exhibit 2: Main types of OTT services
  • Exhibit 3: Net neutrality definitions from selected stakeholders
  • Exhibit 4: Online service providers' shares of fixed-access Internet traffic in North America
  • Exhibit 5: Top players in OTT mobile messaging
  • Exhibit 6: Top OTT voice providers worldwide
  • Exhibit 7: Impact of OTT growth on network providers
  • Exhibit 8: Alternative views on net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 9: Governments' balancing act
  • Exhibit 10: Principles advocated by ISPs
  • Exhibit 11: Principles advocated by Internet users
  • Exhibit 12: Principles advocated by OTT service providers
  • Exhibit 13: Case study markets by initial regulatory approach to net neutrality
  • Exhibit 14: Scope of net neutrality regulation in selected countries
  • Exhibit 15: The UK's path to net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 16: The UK's collaborative approach
  • Exhibit 17: Netflix ISP speed index, UK, Nov 2015
  • Exhibit 18: France's path to net neutrality
  • Exhibit 19: ARCEP's focus areas, 2010-2015
  • Exhibit 20: CNNum's framework proposal, France
  • Exhibit 21: South Korea's path to net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 22: KakaoTalk users, Q1 2013 to Q2 2015
  • Exhibit 23: Netflix streaming subscriber growth, globally
  • Exhibit 24: The path to net neutrality in the US
  • Exhibit 25: FCC net neutrality rules, 2015
  • Exhibit 26: Plaintiffs in 2015 net neutrality lawsuits
  • Exhibit 27: The European Union's path to net neutrality
  • Exhibit 28: Trajectory of the EU's net neutrality regulatory package
  • Exhibit 29: EU net neutrality at a glance
  • Exhibit 30: Chile's path to net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 31: Virgin Mobile free bundled app offer
  • Exhibit 32: Average broadband speeds, Latin America
  • Exhibit 33: Brazil's path to net neutrality regulation
  • Exhibit 34: Most frequently used OTT apps, Brazil
  • Exhibit 35: Divergent views of net neutrality, Brazil
  • Exhibit 36: Common principles
  • Exhibit 37: Policy enablers
Back to Top