RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재후보

    Net Neutrality in Europe and Germany = 유럽과 독일에서의 망중립성

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A100042723

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Net neutrality has emerged to a big and controversially discussed topic in Germany, as the major access provider announced to adopt new business models for fixed internet access as well as mobile broadband access in spring 2013. In the context of the discussion one side stresses more the role of competition, innovation, investment and new business models, whereas the other side emphasizes the best-effort-principle and its role for innovation and plurality of content. In order to gain a comprehensive picture of the discussion, the author displays the current European framework and the German draft regulations. He points out, that the insistence on the best-effort-paradigm without any differences is not completely convincing, in particular with respect to the function of innovation by competition. Differentiations of products and services allow increased revenues and can therefore contribute to the roll out of future ultra-fast broadband. To avoid the misuse of market power due to differentiation practises reasonable regulations are needed. If the best-effort-paradigm is still considered as an important pillar of a free internet, there is a need for adequate safeguards in the form of reasonable regulations. Traffic management measures might be useful and necessary. They should go along with the requirement of obligations to document cases and justification where necessary. These measures should not allow for private censorship, at least not without a sufficient rule of law scheme. The author closes his remarks with some observations based on a comparison of the European and German draft regulations with the Korean Guidelines for Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management. Thereby he points out the strengths, weaknesses and room for improvement for the Korean Guidelines from his point of view.
    번역하기

    Net neutrality has emerged to a big and controversially discussed topic in Germany, as the major access provider announced to adopt new business models for fixed internet access as well as mobile broadband access in spring 2013. In the context of the ...

    Net neutrality has emerged to a big and controversially discussed topic in Germany, as the major access provider announced to adopt new business models for fixed internet access as well as mobile broadband access in spring 2013. In the context of the discussion one side stresses more the role of competition, innovation, investment and new business models, whereas the other side emphasizes the best-effort-principle and its role for innovation and plurality of content. In order to gain a comprehensive picture of the discussion, the author displays the current European framework and the German draft regulations. He points out, that the insistence on the best-effort-paradigm without any differences is not completely convincing, in particular with respect to the function of innovation by competition. Differentiations of products and services allow increased revenues and can therefore contribute to the roll out of future ultra-fast broadband. To avoid the misuse of market power due to differentiation practises reasonable regulations are needed. If the best-effort-paradigm is still considered as an important pillar of a free internet, there is a need for adequate safeguards in the form of reasonable regulations. Traffic management measures might be useful and necessary. They should go along with the requirement of obligations to document cases and justification where necessary. These measures should not allow for private censorship, at least not without a sufficient rule of law scheme. The author closes his remarks with some observations based on a comparison of the European and German draft regulations with the Korean Guidelines for Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management. Thereby he points out the strengths, weaknesses and room for improvement for the Korean Guidelines from his point of view.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • ABSTRACT
    • Ⅰ. The Situation in Germany
    • Ⅱ. The European Framework
    • Ⅲ. The Telecommunications Act in Germany and NNVO
    • Ⅵ. Some Short Hypothesis
    • ABSTRACT
    • Ⅰ. The Situation in Germany
    • Ⅱ. The European Framework
    • Ⅲ. The Telecommunications Act in Germany and NNVO
    • Ⅵ. Some Short Hypothesis
    • Ⅴ. Some Constitutional Aspects
    • Ⅵ. Comments on the KCC’s ‘Guidelines for Network Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management’
    • References
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 Bundesnetzagentur, "press release, Germanywide measuring campaign begins"

    2 Cisco Systems, "Visual Networking Index (VNI), The Zettabyte Era – Trends and Analysis"

    3 Bundesnetzagentur, "Tätigkeitsbericht Telekommunikation 2012-2013"

    4 Bundesnetzagentur, "Tätigkeitsbericht Telekommunikation 2010/2011"

    5 Schlauri, "Neuer Entwurf des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft (BMWi) für eine Netzneutralitätsverordnung"

    6 Schneider, "Netzneutralität in der Informationsgesellschaft" 35-, 2011

    7 Bitcom, "Kurz-Stellungnahme zum 2. Entwurf einer Netz-Neutralitätsverordnung (NNVO-E2)"

    8 BEREC, "Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality" BOR

    9 Bundesnetzagentur, "Fragen zu Netzneutralität und Netzfreiheit"

    10 BEREC, "Differentiation practices and related competition issues in the scope of Net Neutrality, Draft" BOR

    1 Bundesnetzagentur, "press release, Germanywide measuring campaign begins"

    2 Cisco Systems, "Visual Networking Index (VNI), The Zettabyte Era – Trends and Analysis"

    3 Bundesnetzagentur, "Tätigkeitsbericht Telekommunikation 2012-2013"

    4 Bundesnetzagentur, "Tätigkeitsbericht Telekommunikation 2010/2011"

    5 Schlauri, "Neuer Entwurf des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft (BMWi) für eine Netzneutralitätsverordnung"

    6 Schneider, "Netzneutralität in der Informationsgesellschaft" 35-, 2011

    7 Bitcom, "Kurz-Stellungnahme zum 2. Entwurf einer Netz-Neutralitätsverordnung (NNVO-E2)"

    8 BEREC, "Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality" BOR

    9 Bundesnetzagentur, "Fragen zu Netzneutralität und Netzfreiheit"

    10 BEREC, "Differentiation practices and related competition issues in the scope of Net Neutrality, Draft" BOR

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2028 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2022-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2019-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2016-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2015-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재후보
    2013-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2011-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.9 0.9 1.17
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.89 0.83 1.29 0.25
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼