Henning Schulzrinne SDP Workshop May 2018

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Freedom of Speech (Part 3)
Advertisements

Earl Comstock President and CEO COMPTEL. The World Has Changed FCC adopts Cable Modem Order and Supreme Court upholds FCC in Brand X FCC adopts Wireline.
Firewalls By Tahaei Fall What is a firewall? a choke point of control and monitoring interconnects networks with differing trust imposes restrictions.
PROTECTING THE OPEN INTERNET: EXPERIENCE AND FUTURE CHALLENGES Henning Schulzrinne FCC & Columbia University with slides by Julie Knapp, Walter Johnston,
Net Neutrality presented by: Brian G. Riesen What Is It? Service providers should remain “end-to-end neutral” The Two Sides: Telecoms (against) View.
John Windhausen, Telepoly Consulting Cathy Sloan, Computer and Communications Industry Association May 19, 2010.
Net Neutrality1. Definition Net Neutrality can be broadly defined as the policy of Internet Service Provider’s (ISP’s) and Telecom Carriers treating all.
FISPA W EBINAR M ARCH 18, 2015 T HE S KY I S NOT F ALLING : FCC D ECISION A PPLYING T ITLE II TO B ROADBAND I NTERNET Kristopher E. Twomey Law Office of.
CSE534 – Fundamentals of Computer Networks Lecture 16: Traffic Shaping + Net Neutrality Created by P. Gill Spring 2014, updated Spring 2015.
Measuring Internet Access Substitutes and Service Gaps By: Catherine J.K. Sandoval Assistant Professor Santa Clara University School of Law Presentation.
Continuing Uncertainty Under FCC Network Neutrality Rules Prof. Barbara A. Cherry Indiana University Presented at EDUCAUSE Live! Webcast January 26, 2011.
Regulation and Innovation October 7, Issues  The Internet is a public network ;  Net neutrality  Can it be regulated? How?  Why should it.
Net Neutrality – An Overview – Bob Bocher Technology Consultant, WI Dept of Public Instruction, State Division for Libraries ,
CS 268: Future Internet Architectures Ion Stoica May 1, 2006.
Net Neutrality Questions. What if? Customer Lamps for Less Luxurious Lumination Telephone Company Welcome to lamps [click] [dial tone] Welcome to Luxurious.
Network Neutrality 4/21/20111Harvard Bits. 4/21/2011Harvard Bits2.
CS 268: Future Internet Architectures Ion Stoica May 6, 2003.
1 End of Regulation? Jerry Hausman Professor of Economics MIT July 2005
Arguments Against NN - Political Difficulty of designing effective laws Poor legislation may actually cause more harm than good May interfere with existing.
Net Neutrality. Tussle Who’s battling? What’s at issue? Is it contained?
NET NEUTRALITY:THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF THE DEBATE A WHITE PAPER Author:Jon Crowcroft Speaker : 游文霖.
Chp. 3 – Industry Overview Traditional Telephone Companies & Cable TV Providers Mobile Providers Smaller Competitors Internet Based Competitors Why Governments.
The Internet, World Wide Web, and Computer Communication.
Advisor : Kuang Chiu Huang Group : Ting Wei Lin,Ting Huei Lee, Kuei Chin Fan Transit & peering Taiwan Internet Interconnection problem.
Tussel in Cyberspace Based on Slides by I. Stoica.
National Institute of Science & Technology Voice Over Digital Subscriber Line (VoDSL) Vinay TibrewalEE [1] VoDSL: Next Generation Voice Solution.
OTT and the future of the PSTN Henning Schulzrinne FCC.
Changes in State and Federal Telecommunications Policies: How Do They Affect US All? SCAN NATOA 16 th Annual Spring Conference and Star Awards Long Beach,
Internet Basics Monopoly Concerns & Review TC 310 May 22, 2008.
FROM TRADITIONAL LANDLINE TO IP TELEPHONY: A POSSIBLE ANOTHER WAY Bill Levis Colorado Consumer Counsel June 10, 2013.
1 Managing the Transition to IP-Based Public Phone Networks in the United States Joe Gillan CRNI November 22, 2013 Gillan Associates.
Chapter 1 Communication Networks and Services Network Architecture and Services.
Implications of VoIP TC 310 May 28, Questions from Reviews Duty to Interconnect Reciprocal compensation Line of business v statutory line of business.
Overview of Network Neutrality Kyle D. Dixon Senior Fellow & Director, Federal Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics The Progress & Freedom Foundation.
1 © 2006 Nokia Fixed Mobile Convergence The future of communication networks János Kurtz 11/05/2006.
April 30, 2007 NYC network neutrality hearing Network Neutrality Prof. Henning Schulzrinne Dept. of Computer Science Columbia University.
The Regulation of Network Industries Simon Wilkie. Caltech Lecture for May 7, 2004.
1. Principle before laws (or technical standards)
Monopoly Pros –Easier to effect social policy (universal service for example) –Economies of scale and scope Cons –Lack of incentive for innovation –Inefficiencies.
Net Neutrality: The fight to control the Internet.
Issues in New Media: Net Neutrality. What is “net neutrality?” What is Net Neutrality? (Video)(Video) Net Neutrality (Video)(Video) Save the Internet!
Network Neutrality: An Internet operating principle which ensures that all online users are entitled to access Internet content of their choice; run online.
Constructing An Effective Statutory & Regulatory Framework for Broadband Networks Phoenix Center Symposium December 1, 2005 Disclaimer: Views presented.
September 2009Network Neutrality – the Norwegian ApproachPage 1 Network Neutrality – the Norwegian Approach Senior Adviser Frode Soerensen Norwegian Post.
Internet Myth Busting and Control of the Internet: Are Internet Service Providers the New Internet Gatekeepers? By Catherine Sandoval Assistant Professor.
Comparative Telecommunications Law Spring, 2007 Prof. Karl Manheim 16: Internet III (Net Neutrality) Copyright © 2007.
Introduction to Information Networks COMT 625 Hans Kruse.
Internet Options Physical Lines Copper Wire DSL Coaxial cable Electrical lines Optical fiber Wireless Satellite Mobile Carriers 5G Wi-Fi Providers: Hughes.
5G Wireless Technology.
INTERNET PROTOCOL TELEVISION (IP-TV)
Seminar on 4G wireless technology
Net Neutrality in the US Past, present, possible future(s)
CS590B/690B – Measuring Network Interference (Fall 2016)
Chapter 14 A Manager’s Guide to the Internet and Telecommunications.
Different Traffic Management Techniques for Mobile Broadband Networks
Chapter 1 Communication Networks and Services
Computer Data Security & Privacy
ENUM/Convergence Workshop
Firewalls.
Chapter 1: WAN Concepts Connecting Networks
INTERNET PROTOCOL TELEVISION (IP-TV)
Lecture 1 Overview of Communication Networks and Services
Net Neutrality – Economics and other things
Henning Schulzrinne IIT-RTC Chicago October 2018
Net Neutrality The Great Debate.
August 5, 2005 Presented by Jason Livingood
Regulation and Procedures of Interconnection
EEC4113 Data Communication & Multimedia System Chapter 1: Introduction by Muhazam Mustapha, July 2010.
The Use and Abuse of the Carterfone Principle
Net Neutrality: a guide
Presentation transcript:

Henning Schulzrinne SDP Workshop May 2018 Network Neutrality is About Money, not Packets (Price discrimination, not packet discrimination) Henning Schulzrinne SDP Workshop May 2018 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (CNS-1218977). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

A simplified evolution of network neutrality Early (2003-2009) no blocking attach non-harmful devices competition Intermediate (2010) no discrimination transparency Advanced (2015-) privacy interconnection zero rating & caps tethering Reversal (2017?) semi-voluntary? anti-trust? Authority unclear Section 706 Title II Information service?

How to be non-neutral deep packet inspection block Skype application user tracking application block transport protocol block ports insert RST transport block IP addresses QoS discrimination zero-rating network Not all practices are necessarily violations

Some high-profile cases VPN blocking (Comcast, roughly 2001) - unconfirmed WiFi blocking (AT&T AUP, 2002) Madison River (2005) DSL provider blocked SIP ports fined $15,000 by FCC based on Section 201 “just and reasonable” Comcast (late 2007) insert TCP RST into BitTorrent traffic later overturned on appeal in DC Circuit Court RCN (2009): P2P FaceTime on AT&T Comcast vs. Level 3 (2010, in dispute) - interconnection Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, … vs. Netflix termination (2013-2014) Zero-rating (AT&T, T-Mo, VZ, Comcast) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A1.pdf http://www.zeropaid.com/news/88573/comcast-prevails-in-bittorrent-throttling-case/ http://www.practicallynetworked.com/news/comcast.htm AT&T 2002 terms for DSL - https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history/ Examples of prohibited programs and equipment include, but are not limited to, mail, ftp, http, file sharing, game, newsgroup, proxy, IRC servers, multi-user interactive forums and Wi-Fi devices Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer’s account with AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law and can result in both civil and criminal penalties.

2015 Open Internet rules Applied to both fixed and mobile wireless networks Transparency  Measuring Broadband America reports No blocking No unreasonable discrimination (“reasonable network management” exception) historically, not contentious Interconnection as ”area of observation” General conduct rule

It used to be simple (ca. 1990) MVPD cable (CATV) satellite (SAT) ISP ILEC RLEC CLEC LEC

Vertical integration happened content video distribution advertising

Residential telecom is highly concentrated Leichtman, 1Q18

Economic incentives for carriers Reducing competition for vertically-integrated services make competitor less attractive (quality, price) e.g., only offer higher speed tiers for MVPD subscribers volume discrimination (zero-rating for own content or service)  Madison River VoIP, Comcast RST, Netflix interconnection Two-sided market termination monopoly  no “fair” price cost for incremental quality or traffic can’t be determined objectively very little of the fixed network cost depends on volume overlaps with first concern third-party paid services  Netflix interconnection, ”intercarrier compensation” Leveraging customer information

QoS Well-known: no end-to-end (inter-provider) QoS But local QoS  “specialized services” VoIP, MVPD video Problem: for any reasonable service, most of the time, high-QoS ≡ basic-QoS  users will only upgrade rarely (see Paris Metro pricing) No good charging mechanism: carrier-provided application: advantages provider negotiated individually: scaling problems for small providers or small ISPs paid by third party automatically: end-to-end signaling? block chain! subscriber paid by bucket: plausible zero cost: e.g., “get 2 Mb/s at low latency, up to 1 GB/month”  consumer choice

Principle 1: User choice User choice as metric for reasonable carrier behavior in addition to network protection against attack or abuse Encapsulate no blocking, no discrimination Allows QoS differentiation users can designate traffic requires UNI signaling mechanism  SDN simplifies probably API rather than (say) RSVP easy except for differential charging

Principle 2: Virtual Structural Separation Structural separation theoretically avoids vertical integration concerns traditionally, separate layer 3 and layer ½ here, layer 3 vs. applications But price setting is unsolved problem easier for QoS than base rate (smaller $!) margin squeeze problem use non-vertically-integrated provider as benchmark?

Principle 3: Transparency Not just performance, but price see 2015 OI order ISPs are only large consumer expenditure that’s non-transparent and health care – but there is no Packet Insurance “taxes, fees, and surcharges not included” Try predicting second-year charge for residential ISP Price discrimination by obfuscation

NN challenge: customer differentiation Inconvenient for both sides of NN debate: business vs. residential users with fiber, speed, quality, facilities likely similar Download speed increases reaching diminishing returns Volume limitations are unpopular but may be sufficient to separate home ”edge computing” from residential use Prediction: three tiers Variable-speed mobile for price-sensitive (small) households Near-flat fiber access with below-server cap Business volume metered (similar to cloud services)

Conclusion NN is an economics (charging) problem, not a QoS or network management problem Price discrimination, not packet discrimination Made much more difficult by vertical integration and lack of competition Including difficulty of using multiple services at once Reach same conclusion as for voice telephony: flat rate, with $0 ICC