[governance] net neutrality
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sun Jan 23 01:48:31 EST 2011
Some background
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093>
(self serving plug to a paper written by some
colleagues and me, "A Comparison of Network
Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, and
the European Union".)
Adam
>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today.
>
>I do not think we, as a premier global CS group,
>can afford to *not* do something about this
>issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this
>list has run into this wall - it is a very
>complex issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I
>dont think this is a good enough reason for
>abdication. One often hears excuses like, with
>voice and video domination the internet today NN
>is a meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can
>have specific provisions whereby specific
>applications can have different treatments while
>being content-provider neutral, this latter
>being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have
>oftne been mentioned in discussions here
>earlier. These guidelines allow space to manage
>voice and vedio applications related issues. IS
>there any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot
>be used globally, and why should IGC be
>forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon
>enough there is not a basic global consensus on
>NN guidelines even Norway like countries may not
>be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness
>of the Internet and its basic architectural
>principles.
>
>What I am arguing for is that we should not only
>propose NN as a plenary topic and absolutely put
>our foot down that it must be accepted as a
>plenary topic, or else we find the whole
>exercise meaningless and may not even want to
>participate.... I mean the kind of warnings we
>issue about Ms-ism. Parminder
>
>
> The end of the net as we know it
>
>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34
>
>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that
>don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a
>disastrous end to net neutrality
>
>You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC
>iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest
>episode of QI. But instead of that tedious,
>plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your
>laptop¹s speakers, you¹re left staring at the
>whirring, circular icon as the video buffers and
>buffers and buffers...
>
>That¹s odd. Not only have you got a new
>40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but you
>were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just
>moments ago. There¹s nothing wrong with your
>connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to
>Twitter to find out if anyone else is having
>problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The
>message that appears on your screen leaves you
>looking more startled than Bill Bailey. ³This
>service isn¹t supported on your broadband
>service. Click here to visit our
>social-networking partner, Facebook.²
>
> Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today
>
>The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is
>under threat. Britain¹s leading ISPs are
>attempting to construct a two-tier internet,
>where websites and services that are willing to
>pay are thrust into the ³fast lane², while those
>that don¹t are left fighting for scraps of
>bandwidth or even blocked outright. They¹re not
>so much ripping up the cherished notion of net
>neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and
>lighting the match. The only question is: can
>they get away with it?
>
>*No such thing as net neutrality*
>
>It¹s worth pointing out that the concept of net
>neutrality ISPs treating different types of
>internet traffic or content equally is already
>a busted flush. ³Net neutrality? We don¹t have
>it today,² argues Andrew Heaney, executive
>director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk,
>Britain¹s second biggest ISP.
>
>³We have an unbelievably good, differentiated
>network at all levels, with huge levels of
>widespread discrimination of traffic types.
>[Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low
>speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy
>less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped.
>³So the suggestion that oh dear, it is
>terrible, we might move to a two-tiered internet
>in the future'... well, let¹s get real, we have
>a very multifaceted and multitiered internet
>today,² Heaney said.
>
>Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be
>³unthinkable² to return to an internet where
>every packet of data was given equal weight.
>³Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in
>which all data, all the bits and the packets
>were treated in the same way as they passed
>through the network,² said Simon Milner, BT¹s
>director of group industry policy. ³That was an
>internet that wasn¹t about the internet that we
>have today: it wasn¹t about speech, it wasn¹t
>about video, and it certainly wasn¹t about
>television.
>
>³Twenty years ago, the computer scientists
>realised that applications would grab as much
>bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some
>tools were needed to make this network work more
>effectively, and that¹s why traffic management
>techniques and guaranteed quality of service
>were developed in the 1990s, and then
>deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten
>years ago,² he added. ³These techniques and
>equipment are essential for the development of
>the internet we see today.²
>
>It¹s interesting to note that some smaller (and,
>yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet
>don¹t employ any traffic shaping across their
>network, and Zen has won the /PC Pro/ Best
>Broadband ISP award
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/> for
>the past seven years.
>
>Even today¹s traffic management methods can
>cause huge problems for certain websites and
>services. Peer-to-peer services are a common
>victim of ISPs¹ traffic management policies,
>often being deprioritised to a snail¹s pace
>during peak hours. While the intended target may
>be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients
>to download illicit copies of the latest movie
>releases, legitimate applications can also fall
>victim to such blunderbuss filtering.
>
>³Peer-to-peer applications are very wide
>ranging,² said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of
>government and regulatory affairs at VoIP
>service Skype. ³They go from the lovely
>peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that were
>referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all the
>way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which
>used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what
>does that mean? If I manage my traffic from a
>technical perspective, knowing that Skype
>actually doesn¹t eat up much bandwidth at all,
>why should it be deprioritised because it¹s
>peer-to-peer?²
>
> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt
> more vividly than on the mobile internet
>
>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic
>management been felt more vividly than on the
>mobile internet. Websites and services blocked
>at the whim of the network, video so compressed
>it looks like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and
>varying charges for different types of data are
>already commonplace.
>
>Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile
>networks fearful of losing phone call revenue;
>02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC
>iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all
>networks outlaw tethering a mobile phone to a
>laptop or tablet on standard ³unlimited data²
>contracts.
>
>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open
>Rights Group, has this chilling warning for
>fixed-line broadband users: ³Look at the mobile
>market, think if that is how you want your
>internet and your devices to work in the future,
>because that¹s where things are leading.²
>
>*Video blockers*
>
>Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted
>the more drastic blocking measures chosen by the
>mobile operators. But if there¹s one area in
>which ISPs are gagging to rip up what¹s left of
>the cherished concept of net neutrality, it¹s
>video.
>
>Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer
>to become the largest single category of
>internet traffic, according to Cisco¹s Visual
>Networking Index. It¹s the chief reason why the
>amount of data used by the average internet
>connection has shot up by 31% over the past
>year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month.
>
>Internet TV
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070>
>
>Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major
>headache for ISPs and broadcasters alike. ISPs
>are introducing ever tighter traffic management
>policies to make sure networks don¹t collapse
>under the weight of video-on-demand during peak
>hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters such as the BBC
>and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks
>(CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every
>year to distribute their video across the
>network and closer to the consumer; this helps
>avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of
>thousands of people attempt to stream The
>Apprentice at the same time.
>
>Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and
>get video broadcasters to pay them instead of
>the CDNs for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, for
>example, the BBC wants to guarantee that
>TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD
>streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing
>to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at
>a major broadcaster told /PC Pro/ that his
>company has already been approached by two
>leading ISPs looking to cut such a deal.
>
>Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the
>³fast lane²; those who don¹t will be left to
>fight their way through the regular internet
>traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a
>video, perhaps even one you¹ve paid for, may no
>longer depend on the raw speed of your
>connection or the amount of network congestion,
>but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP
>for a prioritised stream.
>
>³We absolutely could see situations in which
>some content or application providers might want
>to pay BT for a quality of service above best
>efforts,² admitted BT¹s Simon Milner at a recent
>Westminster eForum. ³That is the kind of thing
>that we¹d have to explain in our traffic
>management policies, and indeed we¹d do so, and
>then if somebody decided, well, actually I
>don¹t want to have that kind of service¹, they
>would be free to go elsewhere.²
>
> We absolutely could see situations in which some content or
> application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service
> above best efforts
>
>It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum
>whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut off
>access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of
>YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big
>enough cheque, TalkTalk¹s Andrew Heaney replied:
>³We¹d do a deal, and we¹d look at YouTube and
>we¹d look at BBC and we should have freedom to
>sign whatever deal works.²
>
>That¹s the country¹s two biggest ISPs with
>more than eight million broadband households
>between them openly admitting they¹d either
>cut off or effectively cripple video streams
>from an internet
>broadcaster if it wasn¹t willing to hand over a wedge of cash.
>
>Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters
>are fearful. ³The founding principle of the
>internet is that everyone from individuals to
>global companies has equal access,² wrote the
>BBC¹s director of future media and technology,
>Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net
>neutrality. ³Since the beginning, the internet
>has been neutral¹, and everyone has been
>treated the same. But the emergence of fast and
>slow lanes allow broadband providers to
>effectively pick and choose what you see first
>and fastest.²
>
>ITV also opposes broadband providers being
>allowed to shut out certain sites or services.
>³We strongly believe that traffic throttling
>shouldn¹t be conducted on the basis of content
>provider; throttling access to content from a
>particular company or institution,² the
>broadcaster said in a recent submission to
>regulator Ofcom¹s consultation on net neutrality.
>
>Sky, on the other hand which is both a
>broadcaster and one of the country¹s leading
>ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit
>from shutting out rival broadcasters raised no
>such objection in its submission to Ofcom.
>³Competition can and should be relied upon to
>provide the necessary consumer safeguards,² Sky
>argued.
>
>Can it? Would YouTube which was initially run
>from a small office above a pizzeria before
>Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion
>takeover have got off the ground if its three
>founders had been forced to pay ISPs across the
>globe to ensure its videos could be watched
>smoothly? It seems unlikely.
>
>*Walled-garden web*
>
>It isn¹t only high-bandwidth video sites that
>could potentially be blocked by ISPs. Virtually
>any type of site could find itself barred if one
>of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with
>an ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL
>walled-garden approach of the late 1990s.
>
>Stop sign
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073>
>
>This isn¹t journalistic scaremongering: the
>prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked
>by ISPs is already being debated by the
>Government. ³I sign up to the two-year contract
>[with an ISP] and after 18 months my daughter
>comes and knocks on the lounge door and says
>father, I can¹t access Facebook any more¹,²
>hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of
>international ICT policy at the Department for
>Business, Innovation and Skills. ³I say Why?¹.
>She says It¹s quite obvious, I have gone to the
>site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin,
>Sky, whatever, don¹t take Facebook any more.
>Facebook wouldn¹t pay them the money, but
>YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube¹:
>Minister, is that acceptable? That is the sort
>of question we face.²
>
>*Where¹s the regulator?*
>
>So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to
>say ³yes², think about the prospect of ISPs
>putting some sites in the fast lane and leaving
>the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth?
>It ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier
>this year, with spiky contributions from ISPs
>and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be
>coming down on the side of the broadband
>providers.
>
>³I think we were very clear in our discussion
>document [on net neutrality] that we see the
>real economic merits to the idea of allowing a
>two-sided market to emerge,² said Alex Blowers,
>international director at Ofcom.
>
>³Particularly for applications such as IPTV,
>where it seems to us that the consumer
>expectation will be a service that¹s of a
>reasonably consistent quality, that allows you
>to actually sit down at the beginning of a film
>and watch it to the end without constant
>problems of jitter or the picture hanging,² he
>said. Taking that argument to its logical
>conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse to
>pay the ISPs¹ bounty will be subject to
>stuttering quality.
>
>Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be
>tougher. ³We are concerned that Ofcom isn¹t
>currently taking a firm stance in relation to
>throttling,² ITV said in its submission to the
>regulator. The BBC also said it has ³concerns
>about the increasing potential incentives for
>discriminatory behaviour by network operators,
>which risks undermining the internet¹s
>character, and ultimately resulting in consumer
>harm².
>
>Ofcom¹s Blowers argues regulation would be
>premature as ³there is very little evidence²
>that ³the big beasts of the content application
>and services world are coming together and doing
>deals with big beasts of the network and ISP
>world².
>
>The regulator also places great faith in the
>power of competition: the theory that broadband
>subscribers would simply jump ship to another
>ISP if their provider started doing beastly
>things for example, cutting off services such
>as the iPlayer. It¹s a theory echoed by the ISPs
>themselves. ³If we started blocking access to
>certain news sites, you could be sure within
>about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and
>we¹d be chastised for it, quite rightly too,²
>said TalkTalk¹s Heaney.
>
> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute
> the content, services and applications they want
>
>Yet, in the age of bundled packages where
>broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as
>part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile
>services hopping from one ISP to another is
>rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or
>two-year contracts broadband customers are
>frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in
>its submission to the regulator, ³Ofcom¹s 2009
>research showed that a quarter of households
>found it difficult to switch broadband and
>bundled services², with the ³perceived hassle of
>the switching process² and ³the threat of
>additional charges² dissuading potential
>switchers.
>
>³Once you have bought a device or entered a
>contract, that¹s that,² argued the Open Rights
>Group¹s Jim Killock. ³So you make your choice
>and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the
>internet is you make your choice, you don¹t like
>it, you change your mind.²
>
>The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a
>free and open internet may lie with the EU
>(although even its determination is wavering).
>The EU¹s 2009 framework requires national
>regulators such as Ofcom to promote ³the ability
>of end users to access and distribute
>information or run applications and services of
>their choice² and that ISPs are transparent
>about any traffic management.
>
>It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting
>favoured partners in the ³fast lane² and
>crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to
>set ³minimum quality of service requirements²
>forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of
>bandwidth so that their traffic management
>doesn¹t hobble those sites that can¹t afford to
>pay.
>
>It¹s a concept enthusiastically backed by the
>BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom,
>which doesn¹t have to use this new power handed
>down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so.
>³There doesn¹t yet seem to us to be an
>overwhelming case for a public intervention that
>would effectively create a new industry
>structure around this idea of a guaranteed best
>efforts¹ internet underpinned by legislation,²
>said Ofcom¹s Blowers.
>
>It¹s an attitude that sparks dismay from
>campaigners. ³Ofcom¹s approach creates large
>risks for the open internet,² said Killock. ³Its
>attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are
>weak, by relying on transparency and competition
>alone, and it¹s unfortunate it hasn¹t addressed
>the idea of a minimum service guarantee.²
>
>At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn¹t
>be permitted to block legal websites or services
>that conflict with their commercial interests.
>³First and foremost, users should be able to
>access and distribute the content, services and
>applications they want,² said European
>Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier
>this year.
>³Discrimination against undesired competitors
>for instance, those providing voice-over the
>internet services shouldn¹t be allowed.²
>
>Yet, Ofcom doesn¹t even regard this as a major
>issue. ³When VoIP services were first launched
>in the UK, most [mobile] network operators were
>against permitting VoIP,² Blowers said. ³We now
>know that you can find packages from a number of
>suppliers that do permit VoIP services.
>So I¹m not as pessimistic as some may be that
>this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking
>services will be a real problem.²
>
>If the EU doesn¹t drag the UK¹s relaxed
>regulator into line with the rest of the world,
>it will be British internet users who have the
>real problem.
>
>*Author:* Barry Collins
>
>
>Read more: The end of the net as we know it |
>Broadband | Features | PC Pro
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y>
>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y
>
>--
>PK
>
>
>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today.
>
>I do not think we, as a premier global CS group,
>can afford to *not* do something about this
>issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this
>list has run into this wall - it is a very
>complex issues with many sides to it'. So ??? I
>dont think this is a good enough reason for
>abdication. One often hears excuses like, with
>voice and video domination the internet today NN
>is a meaningless concept. Not so at all. We can
>have specific provisions whereby specific
>applications can have different treatments while
>being content-provider neutral, this latter
>being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have
>oftne been mentioned in discussions here
>earlier. These guidelines allow space to manage
>voice and vedio applications related issues. IS
>there any reason why Norway's guidelines cannot
>be used globally, and why should IGC be
>forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon
>enough there is not a basic global consensus on
>NN guidelines even Norway like countries may not
>be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness
>of the Internet and its basic architectural
>principles.
>
>What I am arguing for is that we should not only
>propose NN as a plenary topic and absolutely put
>our foot down that it must be accepted as a
>plenary topic, or else we find the whole
>exercise meaningless and may not even want to
>participate.... I mean the kind of warnings we
>issue about Ms-ism. Parminder
>
>The end of the net as we know it
>
>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34
>
>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that
>don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a
>disastrous end to net neutrality
>
>You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC
>iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest
>episode of QI. But instead of that tedious,
>plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your
>laptop¹s speakers, you¹re left staring at the
>whirring, circular icon as the video buffers and
>buffers and buffers...
>
>That¹s odd. Not only have you got a new
>40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but you
>were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just
>moments ago. There¹s nothing wrong with your
>connection; it must be iPlayer. So you head to
>Twitter to find out if anyone else is having
>problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The
>message that appears on your screen leaves you
>looking more startled than Bill Bailey. ³This
>service isn¹t supported on your broadband
>service. Click here to visit our
>social-networking partner, Facebook.²
>
>Net neutrality? We don¹t have it today
>
>The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is
>under threat. Britain¹s leading ISPs are
>attempting to construct a two-tier internet,
>where websites and services that are willing to
>pay are thrust into the ³fast lane², while those
>that don¹t are left fighting for scraps of
>bandwidth or even blocked outright. They¹re not
>so much ripping up the cherished notion of net
>neutrality as pouring petrol over the pieces and
>lighting the match. The only question is: can
>they get away with it?
>
>No such thing as net neutrality
>
>It¹s worth pointing out that the concept of net
>neutrality ISPs treating different types of
>internet traffic or content equally is already
>a busted flush. ³Net neutrality? We don¹t have
>it today,² argues Andrew Heaney, executive
>director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk,
>Britain¹s second biggest ISP.
>
>³We have an unbelievably good, differentiated
>network at all levels, with huge levels of
>widespread discrimination of traffic types.
>[Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low
>speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy
>less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped.
>³So the suggestion that oh dear, it is
>terrible, we might move to a two-tiered internet
>in the future'... well, let¹s get real, we have
>a very multifaceted and multitiered internet
>today,² Heaney said.
>
>Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be
>³unthinkable² to return to an internet where
>every packet of data was given equal weight.
>³Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in
>which all data, all the bits and the packets
>were treated in the same way as they passed
>through the network,² said Simon Milner, BT¹s
>director of group industry policy. ³That was an
>internet that wasn¹t about the internet that we
>have today: it wasn¹t about speech, it wasn¹t
>about video, and it certainly wasn¹t about
>television.
>
>³Twenty years ago, the computer scientists
>realised that applications would grab as much
>bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some
>tools were needed to make this network work more
>effectively, and that¹s why traffic management
>techniques and guaranteed quality of service
>were developed in the 1990s, and then
>deep-packet inspection came along roughly ten
>years ago,² he added. ³These techniques and
>equipment are essential for the development of
>the internet we see today.²
>
>It¹s interesting to note that some smaller (and,
>yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen Internet
>don¹t employ any traffic shaping across their
>network, and Zen has won the PC Pro
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/>Best
>Broadband ISP award for the past seven years.
>
>Even today¹s traffic management methods can
>cause huge problems for certain websites and
>services. Peer-to-peer services are a common
>victim of ISPs¹ traffic management policies,
>often being deprioritised to a snail¹s pace
>during peak hours. While the intended target may
>be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients
>to download illicit copies of the latest movie
>releases, legitimate applications can also fall
>victim to such blunderbuss filtering.
>
>³Peer-to-peer applications are very wide
>ranging,² said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of
>government and regulatory affairs at VoIP
>service Skype. ³They go from the lovely
>peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that were
>referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all the
>way to things such as the BBC iPlayer [which
>used to run on P2P software] or Skype. So what
>does that mean? If I manage my traffic from a
>technical perspective, knowing that Skype
>actually doesn¹t eat up much bandwidth at all,
>why should it be deprioritised because it¹s
>peer-to-peer?²
>
>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic
>management been felt more vividly than on the
>mobile internet
>
>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic
>management been felt more vividly than on the
>mobile internet. Websites and services blocked
>at the whim of the network, video so compressed
>it looks like an Al-Qaeda propaganda tape, and
>varying charges for different types of data are
>already commonplace.
>
>Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile
>networks fearful of losing phone call revenue;
>02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC
>iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all
>networks outlaw tethering a mobile phone to a
>laptop or tablet on standard ³unlimited data²
>contracts.
>
>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open
>Rights Group, has this chilling warning for
>fixed-line broadband users: ³Look at the mobile
>market, think if that is how you want your
>internet and your devices to work in the future,
>because that¹s where things are leading.²
>
>Video blockers
>
>Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted
>the more drastic blocking measures chosen by the
>mobile operators. But if there¹s one area in
>which ISPs are gagging to rip up what¹s left of
>the cherished concept of net neutrality, it¹s
>video.
>
>Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer
>to become the largest single category of
>internet traffic, according to Cisco¹s Visual
>Networking Index. It¹s the chief reason why the
>amount of data used by the average internet
>connection has shot up by 31% over the past
>year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month.
>
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070>
>Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major
>headache for ISPs and broadcasters alike. ISPs
>are introducing ever tighter traffic management
>policies to make sure networks don¹t collapse
>under the weight of video-on-demand during peak
>hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters such as the BBC
>and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks
>(CDNs) such as Akamai millions of pounds every
>year to distribute their video across the
>network and closer to the consumer; this helps
>avoid bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of
>thousands of people attempt to stream The
>Apprentice at the same time.
>
>Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and
>get video broadcasters to pay them instead of
>the CDNs for guaranteed bandwidth. So if, for
>example, the BBC wants to guarantee that
>TalkTalk customers can watch uninterrupted HD
>streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing
>to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at
>a major broadcaster told PC Pro that his company
>has already been approached by two leading ISPs
>looking to cut such a deal.
>
>Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the
>³fast lane²; those who don¹t will be left to
>fight their way through the regular internet
>traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a
>video, perhaps even one you¹ve paid for, may no
>longer depend on the raw speed of your
>connection or the amount of network congestion,
>but whether the broadcaster has paid your ISP
>for a prioritised stream.
>
>³We absolutely could see situations in which
>some content or application providers might want
>to pay BT for a quality of service above best
>efforts,² admitted BT¹s Simon Milner at a recent
>Westminster eForum. ³That is the kind of thing
>that we¹d have to explain in our traffic
>management policies, and indeed we¹d do so, and
>then if somebody decided, well, actually I
>don¹t want to have that kind of service¹, they
>would be free to go elsewhere.²
>
>We absolutely could see situations in which some
>content or application providers might want to
>pay BT for a quality of service above best
>efforts
>
>It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum
>whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut off
>access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of
>YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big
>enough cheque, TalkTalk¹s Andrew Heaney replied:
>³We¹d do a deal, and we¹d look at YouTube and
>we¹d look at BBC and we should have freedom to
>sign whatever deal works.²
>
>That¹s the country¹s two biggest ISPs with
>more than eight million broadband households
>between them openly admitting they¹d either
>cut off or effectively cripple video streams
>from an internet
>broadcaster if it wasn¹t willing to hand over a wedge of cash.
>
>Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters
>are fearful. ³The founding principle of the
>internet is that everyone from individuals to
>global companies has equal access,² wrote the
>BBC¹s director of future media and technology,
>Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net
>neutrality. ³Since the beginning, the internet
>has been neutral¹, and everyone has been
>treated the same. But the emergence of fast and
>slow lanes allow broadband providers to
>effectively pick and choose what you see first
>and fastest.²
>
>ITV also opposes broadband providers being
>allowed to shut out certain sites or services.
>³We strongly believe that traffic throttling
>shouldn¹t be conducted on the basis of content
>provider; throttling access to content from a
>particular company or institution,² the
>broadcaster said in a recent submission to
>regulator Ofcom¹s consultation on net neutrality.
>
>Sky, on the other hand which is both a
>broadcaster and one of the country¹s leading
>ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit
>from shutting out rival broadcasters raised no
>such objection in its submission to Ofcom.
>³Competition can and should be relied upon to
>provide the necessary consumer safeguards,² Sky
>argued.
>
>Can it? Would YouTube which was initially run
>from a small office above a pizzeria before
>Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion
>takeover have got off the ground if its three
>founders had been forced to pay ISPs across the
>globe to ensure its videos could be watched
>smoothly? It seems unlikely.
>
>Walled-garden web
>
>It isn¹t only high-bandwidth video sites that
>could potentially be blocked by ISPs. Virtually
>any type of site could find itself barred if one
>of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with
>an ISP, returning the web to the kind of AOL
>walled-garden approach of the late 1990s.
>
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073>
>This isn¹t journalistic scaremongering: the
>prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked
>by ISPs is already being debated by the
>Government. ³I sign up to the two-year contract
>[with an ISP] and after 18 months my daughter
>comes and knocks on the lounge door and says
>father, I can¹t access Facebook any more¹,²
>hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of
>international ICT policy at the Department for
>Business, Innovation and Skills. ³I say Why?¹.
>She says It¹s quite obvious, I have gone to the
>site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin,
>Sky, whatever, don¹t take Facebook any more.
>Facebook wouldn¹t pay them the money, but
>YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube¹:
>Minister, is that acceptable? That is the sort
>of question we face.²
>
>Where¹s the regulator?
>
>So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to
>say ³yes², think about the prospect of ISPs
>putting some sites in the fast lane and leaving
>the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth?
>It ran a consultation on net neutrality earlier
>this year, with spiky contributions from ISPs
>and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be
>coming down on the side of the broadband
>providers.
>
>³I think we were very clear in our discussion
>document [on net neutrality] that we see the
>real economic merits to the idea of allowing a
>two-sided market to emerge,² said Alex Blowers,
>international director at Ofcom.
>
>³Particularly for applications such as IPTV,
>where it seems to us that the consumer
>expectation will be a service that¹s of a
>reasonably consistent quality, that allows you
>to actually sit down at the beginning of a film
>and watch it to the end without constant
>problems of jitter or the picture hanging,² he
>said. Taking that argument to its logical
>conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse to
>pay the ISPs¹ bounty will be subject to
>stuttering quality.
>
>Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be
>tougher. ³We are concerned that Ofcom isn¹t
>currently taking a firm stance in relation to
>throttling,² ITV said in its submission to the
>regulator. The BBC also said it has ³concerns
>about the increasing potential incentives for
>discriminatory behaviour by network operators,
>which risks undermining the internet¹s
>character, and ultimately resulting in consumer
>harm².
>
>Ofcom¹s Blowers argues regulation would be
>premature as ³there is very little evidence²
>that ³the big beasts of the content application
>and services world are coming together and doing
>deals with big beasts of the network and ISP
>world².
>
>The regulator also places great faith in the
>power of competition: the theory that broadband
>subscribers would simply jump ship to another
>ISP if their provider started doing beastly
>things for example, cutting off services such
>as the iPlayer. It¹s a theory echoed by the ISPs
>themselves. ³If we started blocking access to
>certain news sites, you could be sure within
>about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and
>we¹d be chastised for it, quite rightly too,²
>said TalkTalk¹s Heaney.
>
>First and foremost, users should be able to
>access and distribute the content, services and
>applications they want
>
>Yet, in the age of bundled packages where
>broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as
>part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile
>services hopping from one ISP to another is
>rarely simple. Not to mention the 18-month or
>two-year contracts broadband customers are
>frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in
>its submission to the regulator, ³Ofcom¹s 2009
>research showed that a quarter of households
>found it difficult to switch broadband and
>bundled services², with the ³perceived hassle of
>the switching process² and ³the threat of
>additional charges² dissuading potential
>switchers.
>
>³Once you have bought a device or entered a
>contract, that¹s that,² argued the Open Rights
>Group¹s Jim Killock. ³So you make your choice
>and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the
>internet is you make your choice, you don¹t like
>it, you change your mind.²
>
>The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a
>free and open internet may lie with the EU
>(although even its determination is wavering).
>The EU¹s 2009 framework requires national
>regulators such as Ofcom to promote ³the ability
>of end users to access and distribute
>information or run applications and services of
>their choice² and that ISPs are transparent
>about any traffic management.
>
>It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting
>favoured partners in the ³fast lane² and
>crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to
>set ³minimum quality of service requirements²
>forcing ISPs to reserve a set amount of
>bandwidth so that their traffic management
>doesn¹t hobble those sites that can¹t afford to
>pay.
>
>It¹s a concept enthusiastically backed by the
>BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom,
>which doesn¹t have to use this new power handed
>down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so.
>³There doesn¹t yet seem to us to be an
>overwhelming case for a public intervention that
>would effectively create a new industry
>structure around this idea of a guaranteed best
>efforts¹ internet underpinned by legislation,²
>said Ofcom¹s Blowers.
>
>It¹s an attitude that sparks dismay from
>campaigners. ³Ofcom¹s approach creates large
>risks for the open internet,² said Killock. ³Its
>attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are
>weak, by relying on transparency and competition
>alone, and it¹s unfortunate it hasn¹t addressed
>the idea of a minimum service guarantee.²
>
>At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn¹t
>be permitted to block legal websites or services
>that conflict with their commercial interests.
>³First and foremost, users should be able to
>access and distribute the content, services and
>applications they want,² said European
>Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier
>this year.
>³Discrimination against undesired competitors
>for instance, those providing voice-over the
>internet services shouldn¹t be allowed.²
>
>Yet, Ofcom doesn¹t even regard this as a major
>issue. ³When VoIP services were first launched
>in the UK, most [mobile] network operators were
>against permitting VoIP,² Blowers said. ³We now
>know that you can find packages from a number of
>suppliers that do permit VoIP services.
>So I¹m not as pessimistic as some may be that
>this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking
>services will be a real problem.²
>
>If the EU doesn¹t drag the UK¹s relaxed
>regulator into line with the rest of the world,
>it will be British internet users who have the
>real problem.
>
>Author: Barry Collins
>
>
>Read more:
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y>The
>end of the net as we know it | Broadband |
>Features | PC Pro
><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y
>
>
>--
>PK
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list