Skip to main content

When ‘Just’ is Just Not Enough

Why Consumers Do Not Appreciate Non-Neutral Internet Access Services

Business & Information Systems Engineering volume 57, pages 325–338 (2015)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. On February 26, 2015, the United States regulatory body ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service. However, the new regulatory regime is concerned with the relationship between Internet service providers and content providers (B2B) and therefore makes it even more likely that ISPs now shift their focus on non-neutral Internet access to consumers (B2C).

  2. Note that non-neutral Internet access is not to be confused with the data rate of an Internet access. The data rate [measured in megabit per second (Mbps)] states the maximum rate at which data packets can be sent through the network without congestion. When the network is congested, however, delays occur independent of the data rate.

  3. Nevertheless, in order to control for a potential halo-effect of current satisfaction with the ISP or the lack thereof, we incorporated control measures in our survey (see Sect. 2.3).

  4. Details of the elicitation of these controls are provided in Sect. 3.2.

  5. Since we cannot assume that the different dimensions of justice are orthogonal to each other, Hendrickson and White (1964) suggest choosing the promax oblique rotation method, which then leads to more accurate results.

  6. Parallel analysis is widely accepted to be one of the most accurate factor extraction methods (Hayton et al. 2004). In particular, it outperforms the Guttmann-Kaiser eigenvalue greater than one rule (Glorfeld 1995).

References

  • Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz (ed): Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 2. New York, Academic Press, pp 267–299

  • Alexander S, Ruderman M (1987) The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Res 1(2):177–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander M, MacLaren A, O’Gorman K, White C (2012) Priority queues: where social justice and equity collide. Tourism Manag 33(4):875–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi R, Yi Y, Phillips L (1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q 36(3):421–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandyopadhyay S, Cheng HK (2006) Liquid pricing for digital infrastructure services. Int J Electron Commerce 10(4):47–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 89–118

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 43–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies R, Shapiro D (1987) Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal accounts. Soc Justice Res 1(2):199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blodgett J, Hill D, Tax S (1997) The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. J Retailing 73(2):185–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton L, Warlop L, Alba J (2003) Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness. J Consum Res 29(4):474–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D, Fiske D (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56(2):81–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng HK, Bandyopadhyay S, Guo H (2011) The debate on net neutrality: a policy perspective. Inf Syst Res 22(1):60–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou J (2004) The antecedents of consumers loyalty toward internet service providers. Inf Manag 41(6):685–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi J, Kim B (2010) Net neutrality and investment incentives. Rand J Econ 41(3):446–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill G Jr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Market Res 16(1):64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash Y, Spector P (2001) The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 86(2):278–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt JA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol 86(3):386–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):110–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook K, Hegtvedt K (1983) Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu Rev Sociol 9:217–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano R, Bowen D, Gilliland S (2007) The management of organizational justice. Acad Manag Perspect 21(4):34–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan M, Armstrong P (1999) Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ Sci 10(1):104–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1985) Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):137–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis R (2011) Scale development: Theory and applications, vol 3. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–14

  • Economides N, Tag J (2012) Net neutrality on the Internet: a two-sided market analysis. Inf Econ Pol 24(2):91–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulhaber G (2010) Transparency and broadband internet service providers. Int J Comm 4:738–757

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 141–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(3):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Benbasat I, Pavlou P (2008) A research agenda for trust in online environments. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):275–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):377–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin C, Ross I (1992) Consumer responses to service failures: influence of procedural and interactional fairness perceptions. J Bus Res 25(2):149–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg J (1990) Looking fair vs. being fair: managing impressions of organizational justice. Res Organ Behav 12(1):111–157

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 79–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayton J, Allen D, Scarpello V (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Meth 7(2):191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson A, White P (1964) Promax: a quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. Br J Math Stat Psychol 17(1):65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin TR (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Meth 1(1):104–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homans G (1961) Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Brace and World, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn J (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30(2):179–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz J-K, McConnell KE (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44(3):426–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J-H, Chang C-T, Chen C (2005) Perceived fairness of pricing on the Internet. J Econ Psychol 26(3):343–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi K (1989) The measurement of fairness or equity perceptions of management information systems users. MIS Q 13(3):343–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabanoff B (1991) Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Acad Manag Rev 16(2):416–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser H (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1):31–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann P, Stern L (1988) Relational exchange norms, perceptions of unfairness, and retained hostility in commercial litigation. J Confl Resolut 32(3):534–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimes S (2002) Perceived fairness of yield management. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Q 43(1):21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1303–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer J, Wiewiorra L, Weinhardt C (2013) Net neutrality: a progress report. Telecomm Pol 37(9):794–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):212–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson RC (1987) Perspectives on queues: social justice and the psychology of queueing. Oper Res 35(6):895–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):405–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind E, Tyler T (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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):952–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):325–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila AS (2001) The impact of relationship type on customer loyalty in a context of service failures. J Serv Res 4(2):91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayser S, von Wangenheim F (2013) Perceived fairness of differential customer treatment consumers’ understanding of distributive justice really matters. J Serv Res 16(1):99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):137–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):172–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore G, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2(3):192–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):355–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally J (1967) Psychometric theory. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson R (1994) A meta-analysis of cronbach’s coefficient alpha. J Consum Res 21(2):381–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafaeli A, Barron G, Haber K (2002) The effects of queue structure on attitudes. J Serv Res 5(2):125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–35

  • Rothkopf MH, Rech P (1987) Perspectives on queues: combining queues is not always beneficial. Oper Res 35(6):906–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samaha S, Palmatier R, Dant R (2011) Poisoning relationships: perceived unfairness in channels of distribution. J Mark 75(3):99–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandvine (2010) Fall 2010 global Internet phenomena report. Technical Report Sandvine. http://www.sandvine.com/downloads/documents/2010GlobalInternetPhenomenaReport.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2011

  • Seiders K, Berry L (1998) Service fairness: what it is and why it matters. Acad Manag Exec 12(2):8–20

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:1

  • Sluijs J, Schuett F, Henze B (2011) Transparency regulation in broadband markets: lessons from experimental research. Telecomm Pol 35(7):592–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut J, Walker L (1975) Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y, Connelly C (2008) In justice we trust: predicting user acceptance of e-customer services. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):123–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagstaff G (1994) Equity, equality, and need: three principles of justice or one? An analysis of “Equity as desert”. Curr Psychol 13(2):138–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):170–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz J, Kimes SE (2007) The moderating role of familiarity in fairness perceptions of revenue management pricing. J Serv Res 9(3):229–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu T (2003) Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. J Telecomm High Tech Law 2:141–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia L, Monroe K, Cox J (2004) This price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. J Mark 68(4):1–15

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank participants of the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference 2012, as well as participants of the Workshop on Information Systems and Economics 2012 for valuable comments. Financial support through the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via Graduate School GRK 895 is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Passau, Dr.-Hans-Kapfinger-Str. 12, 94032, Passau, Germany

    Jan Krämer

  2. Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 3, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Lukas Wiewiorra

Authors
  1. Jan Krämer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lukas Wiewiorra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukas Wiewiorra.

Additional information

Accepted after two revisions by the editors of the special focus.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 814 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krämer, J., Wiewiorra, L. When ‘Just’ is Just Not Enough. Bus Inf Syst Eng 57, 325–338 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0398-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0398-9

Keywords

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