[governance] net neutrality
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 23 03:31:40 EST 2011
Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed through it, but plan to read it
fully later.
However, I am unable to agree to the conclusions that it is difficult to
say what is a NN violation or not, and a one-size-fit-all set of
guidelines are difficult, and in any case any ex ante NN regulation is
extremely diffcult.
Can you suggest why for instance Norway's clear NN guidelines cannot
work, and work universally?
(see
http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf
)
It all really depends on what our basic point of departure is. If it is
human rights, or rights of all people on the Internet, then that becomes
basic and most important and profit-models etc come much later. NN has
to be seen from such a huan rights angle. Anyone can argue to any length
how ensuring say democratic rights is an expensive model, or media
rights interfere with business models and the such. Precisely to avoid
such problem we have the concept of rights.
So, for many of us net neutrality, or net equality, is a basic right. We
start from here. Companies have to adjust their business models to it,
and regulators have to ensure that this right is ensured.
Now for practical translation of this right. I dont see how it is
difficult to understand or enforce a simple regulation that 'there will
be no content provider specific pay-for-priority on the public Internet'
and if any such practices are found there will be heavy penalty and
eventual cancellation of license. This however does exclude public
interest communication like emergency services etc about which
guidelines will be issued separately.
The above is a very specific and clear NN guideline. I will like to hear
why is it not enforceable.
Lee, managed services of the kind Akamai offers is a different thing.
Here they do not use the public internet but private IP based channels.
More elaborate NN guidelines will also cover issues about how public
Internet and such private IP based networks will co-exist in a manner
that larger pulbic interest and people's basic rights are ensured.
Not only Norway has clear NN guidelines, even FCC has come up with a NN
framework for wired internet and the framework covers all issues. In
fact the guidelines and the individual commissioner's comments make very
interesting reading. I have no confusion about NN when I read them.
Things are crystal clear, as they must be because they are real
enforcable laws of the land. The only problem is that FCC left out
wireless networks from NN ambit and that is the key issue we need to
discuss.
In this context it may be considered rather surprising that the main
civil society group in IG arena continues to think that NN issue is too
complex to be able to be discussed or applied with any degree of
coherence. I am not a techie, but I can clearly understand it - to the
extent that any 'real life' issue can ever be understood'.
On the notion that competitive markets will take care of the NN problem
- let me repeat, India's mobile market is perhaps the world's most
competitive, and there is a large scale NN violation going on there
right now.
parminder
Adam Peake wrote:
> 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 OEoh 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, OEwell, 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 OEneutral¹, 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 OEfather, 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 OEWhy?¹. She says OEIt¹s
>> 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 OEbest 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 OEoh 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, OEwell, 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 OEneutral¹, 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 OEfather, 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 OEWhy?¹. She says OEIt¹s
>> 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 OEbest 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
>
>
--
PK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110123/75da873b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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