Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 57, Issue 5, pp 325–338 | Cite as

When ‘Just’ is Just Not Enough

Why Consumers Do Not Appreciate Non-Neutral Internet Access Services
Research Paper

Abstract

Although Internet service providers (ISPs) are technically capable as well as legally allowed to offer non-neutral Internet access services, where the data flows of customers who pay a premium are prioritized over others, such an access service is currently not offered by ISPs. We argue that ISPs are hesitant to tap the price discrimination potential of prioritized Internet access services, because in the context of the ongoing public debate on net neutrality (NN), their customers would consider such differentiation unjust. In a representative survey among German Internet access customers, we find that the customers’ perceptions of justice as well as the framing of the mechanism by which prioritized Internet access is provided are indeed decisive for whether customers would prefer this access regime over NN. In particular, we find that perceptions of distributive and procedural justice influence customers’ choice for non-neutral Internet access. Moreover, customers are more likely to accept a regime that offers an absolute rather than a relative prioritization of data flows.

Keywords

Internet access service Net neutrality Quality of service Congestion Pricing Justice Fairness 

Supplementary material

12599_2015_398_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (814 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 814 kb)

References

  1. Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz (ed): Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 2. New York, Academic Press, pp 267–299Google Scholar
  2. Alexander S, Ruderman M (1987) The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Res 1(2):177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander M, MacLaren A, O’Gorman K, White C (2012) Priority queues: where social justice and equity collide. Tourism Manag 33(4):875–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagozzi R, Yi Y, Phillips L (1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q 36(3):421–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandyopadhyay S, Cheng HK (2006) Liquid pricing for digital infrastructure services. Int J Electron Commerce 10(4):47–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bies R (2001) Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. In: Greenberg J, Cropanzano R (eds) Advances in organizational justice. University Press, Stanford, pp 89–118Google Scholar
  7. Bies R, Moag J (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: Lewicki R, Sheppard B, Bazerman M (eds) Research on negotiations in organizations, vol 1. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 43–55Google Scholar
  8. Bies R, Shapiro D (1987) Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal accounts. Soc Justice Res 1(2):199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blodgett J, Hill D, Tax S (1997) The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. J Retailing 73(2):185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolton L, Warlop L, Alba J (2003) Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness. J Consum Res 29(4):474–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell D, Fiske D (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56(2):81–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng HK, Bandyopadhyay S, Guo H (2011) The debate on net neutrality: a policy perspective. Inf Syst Res 22(1):60–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiou J (2004) The antecedents of consumers loyalty toward internet service providers. Inf Manag 41(6):685–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choi J, Kim B (2010) Net neutrality and investment incentives. Rand J Econ 41(3):446–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Churchill G Jr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Market Res 16(1):64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen-Charash Y, Spector P (2001) The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 86(2):278–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Colquitt JA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol 86(3):386–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colquitt JA, Scott BA, Judge TA, Shaw JC (2006) Justice and personality: using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 100(1):110–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook K, Hegtvedt K (1983) Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu Rev Sociol 9:217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cropanzano R, Bowen D, Gilliland S (2007) The management of organizational justice. Acad Manag Perspect 21(4):34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Culnan M, Armstrong P (1999) Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ Sci 10(1):104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deutsch M (1985) Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  24. Deutsch M (2010) Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? J Soc Issues 31(3):137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeVellis R (2011) Scale development: Theory and applications, vol 3. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  26. Dischinger M, Marcon M, Guha S, Gummadi KP, Mahajan R, Saroiu S (2010) Glasnost: enabling end users to detect traffic differentiation. In: Proc 7th USENIX Symp Networked Syst Design Implement (NSDI). San Jose, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  27. Economides N, Tag J (2012) Net neutrality on the Internet: a two-sided market analysis. Inf Econ Pol 24(2):91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Faulhaber G (2010) Transparency and broadband internet service providers. Int J Comm 4:738–757Google Scholar
  29. Folger R, Greenberg J (1985) Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In: Rowland K, Ferris G (eds) Research in personnel and human resources management, vol 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 141–183Google Scholar
  30. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(3):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gefen D, Benbasat I, Pavlou P (2008) A research agenda for trust in online environments. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glorfeld L (1995) An improvement on horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educ Psychol Meas 55(3):377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goodwin C, Ross I (1992) Consumer responses to service failures: influence of procedural and interactional fairness perceptions. J Bus Res 25(2):149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greenberg J (1990) Looking fair vs. being fair: managing impressions of organizational justice. Res Organ Behav 12(1):111–157Google Scholar
  35. Greenberg J (1993) The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: Cropanzano R (ed) Justice in the Workplace. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 79–103Google Scholar
  36. Hayton J, Allen D, Scarpello V (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Meth 7(2):191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hendrickson A, White P (1964) Promax: a quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. Br J Math Stat Psychol 17(1):65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hinkin TR (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Meth 1(1):104–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Homans G (1961) Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Brace and World, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Horn J (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30(2):179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Horowitz J-K, McConnell KE (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44(3):426–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huang J-H, Chang C-T, Chen C (2005) Perceived fairness of pricing on the Internet. J Econ Psychol 26(3):343–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Joshi K (1989) The measurement of fairness or equity perceptions of management information systems users. MIS Q 13(3):343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kabanoff B (1991) Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Acad Manag Rev 16(2):416–441Google Scholar
  45. Kaiser H (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1):31–36Google Scholar
  46. Kaufmann P, Stern L (1988) Relational exchange norms, perceptions of unfairness, and retained hostility in commercial litigation. J Confl Resolut 32(3):534–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kimes S (2002) Perceived fairness of yield management. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Q 43(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krämer J, Wiewiorra L (2012) Network neutrality and congestion sensitive content providers: implications for content variety, broadband investment and regulation. Inf Syst Res 23(4):1303–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krämer J, Wiewiorra L, Weinhardt C (2013) Net neutrality: a progress report. Telecomm Pol 37(9):794–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lambrecht A, Skiera B (2006) Paying too much and being happy about it: existence, causes and consequences of tariff-choice biases. J Mark Res 43(2):212–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Larson RC (1987) Perspectives on queues: social justice and the psychology of queueing. Oper Res 35(6):895–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leung K, Tong K-K, Ho SS-Y (2004) Effects of interactional justice on egocentric bias in resource allocation decisions. J Appl Psychol 89(3):405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lind E, Tyler T (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lind E, Kanfer R, Earley P (1990) Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 59(5):952–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martin-Ruiz D, Rondán-Cataluña F (2008) The nature and consequences of price unfairness in services: a comparison to tangible goods. Int J Serv Ind Manag 19(3):325–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mattila AS (2001) The impact of relationship type on customer loyalty in a context of service failures. J Serv Res 4(2):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mayser S, von Wangenheim F (2013) Perceived fairness of differential customer treatment consumers’ understanding of distributive justice really matters. J Serv Res 16(1):99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Messerschmidt C, Hinz O (2013) Explaining the adoption of grid computing: an integrated institutional theory and organizational capability approach. J Strat Inf Syst 22(2):137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Miller K, Hofstetter R, Krohmer H, Zhang Z (2011) How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. J Mark Res 48(1):172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moore G, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2(3):192–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Njoroge P, Ozdaglar A, Stier-Moses N, Weintraub G (2014) Investment in two sided markets and the net neutrality debate. Rev Netw Econ 12(4):355–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nunnally J (1967) Psychometric theory. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Patterson P, Johnson L, Spreng R (1997) Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services. J Acad Mark Sci 25(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peterson R (1994) A meta-analysis of cronbach’s coefficient alpha. J Consum Res 21(2):381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rafaeli A, Barron G, Haber K (2002) The effects of queue structure on attitudes. J Serv Res 5(2):125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reggiani C, Valletti T (2012) Net neutrality and innovation at the core and at the edge. University of Manchester, The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series, pp 1–35Google Scholar
  67. Rothkopf MH, Rech P (1987) Perspectives on queues: combining queues is not always beneficial. Oper Res 35(6):906–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Samaha S, Palmatier R, Dant R (2011) Poisoning relationships: perceived unfairness in channels of distribution. J Mark 75(3):99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sandvine (2010) Fall 2010 global Internet phenomena report. Technical Report Sandvine. http://www.sandvine.com/downloads/documents/2010GlobalInternetPhenomenaReport.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2011
  70. Seiders K, Berry L (1998) Service fairness: what it is and why it matters. Acad Manag Exec 12(2):8–20Google Scholar
  71. Sen S, Joe-Wong C, Ha S, Chiang M (2013) A survey of broadband data pricing: Past proposals, current plans, and future trends. ACM Comput Surv V,N:1Google Scholar
  72. Sluijs J, Schuett F, Henze B (2011) Transparency regulation in broadband markets: lessons from experimental research. Telecomm Pol 35(7):592–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thibaut J, Walker L (1975) Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  74. Turel O, Yuan Y, Connelly C (2008) In justice we trust: predicting user acceptance of e-customer services. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):123–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wagstaff G (1994) Equity, equality, and need: three principles of justice or one? An analysis of “Equity as desert”. Curr Psychol 13(2):138–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wei K-K, Teo H-H, Chan HC, Tan BC (2011) Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Inf Syst Res 22(1):170–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wirtz J, Kimes SE (2007) The moderating role of familiarity in fairness perceptions of revenue management pricing. J Serv Res 9(3):229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wu T (2003) Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. J Telecomm High Tech Law 2:141–176Google Scholar
  79. Xia L, Monroe K, Cox J (2004) This price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. J Mark 68(4):1–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PassauPassauGermany
  2. 2.Goethe University FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations