Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

CGI 20Years Net Neutrality Marsden

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Prochain SlideShare
Net Neutrality in INDIA
Net Neutrality in INDIA
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 70 Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Similaire à CGI 20Years Net Neutrality Marsden (20)

Publicité

Plus par Chris Marsden (20)

Plus récents (20)

Publicité

CGI 20Years Net Neutrality Marsden

  1. 1. Net Neutrality: Free Basics or the Global Internet? @ChrisTMarsden U.Sussex CGI 13 October 2015 10/16/2015 1
  2. 2. March 2015: Sao Paolo 10/16/2015 2
  3. 3. Congratulations to CGI on its twenty years • Example to the world in multistakeholderism o Unlike UK ‘Broadband Stakeholder Group’ o which is corporate not multi! • IGF November 10 appropriate event to reflect on two decades’ work! 10/16/2015 3
  4. 4. 10/16/2015 4
  5. 5. Noam 1994: Common Carriage • Regretted & predicted end of common carriage • Information service Title I Communications Act 1934 • But the debate is much older… o De Sola Pool (1983) Technologies of Freedom? o Kingsbury Commitment (1913) AT&T universal service o Gladstone (1844) Railways Act UK • Common carriage is FRAND o Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory treatment o permits apples and oranges charges! 10/16/2015 5
  6. 6. 1993 – an innocent age 10/16/2015 6
  7. 7. Nineteen years ago: Wired 10/16/2015 7
  8. 8. • Mergers: cable TV and broadband companies • AT&T/MediaOne and AOL/TimeWarner • Lessig and Lemley FCC submission: o‘The end of End-to-End’ o(original May 1999, article 2001) • Fear of abuse of freedom of expression So net neutrality debate began in the last millenium 10/16/2015 8
  9. 9. • Council of Europe Human Rights Commission • Mass Media Directorate, Strasbourg, France [1999] Pluralism in the Multi-Channel TV Market o Suggestions for Regulatory Scrutiny • MM-S-PL [99]12 Def2. Net Neutrality Worries in Europe? 10/16/2015 9
  10. 10. “AOL, WorldCom and other Internet companies • urged authorities to bar cable operators striking exclusive deals on high-speed Internet service • ISPs want to be sure consumers will enjoy the same open access to their services via cable networks that they now have over phone lines • AT&T 's planned acquisition of MediaOne renewed the interest of regulators & Congress.” 24 May 1999: Section 5.1 10/16/2015 10
  11. 11. Me 10/16/2015 11
  12. 12. Structure of NN book Net Neutrality a Debate about more than Economics 1. Net Neutrality – Content Discrimination 2. Quality of Service: A Policy Primer 3. Positive Discrimination and the ZettaFlood 4. ISP Filtering: NTD and Liability Exceptions 5. European Law and User Rights 6. Institutional Innovation: Co-regulatory Solutions 7. The Mobile Internet and Net Neutrality 8. Conclusion: Towards a Co-regulatory Solution?
  13. 13. The only other Brit who cares about net neutrality 10/16/2015 13
  14. 14. What’s new about 21st Century net neutrality? • THREAT MODEL EVOLVING • Internet began as an open network • Telecoms regulated by common carriage • Rights of way/universal service/encryption • Any discrimination amounts to interception? • Formidable legal obstacles o Interoperability + Interconnection o Privacy + Interception o Net neutrality law concerned with interception 10/16/2015 14
  15. 15. History encapsulated • Claffy, KC, Clark, David D. (2015) Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History o at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2587262 • RFC 2475 (1998) An Architecture for Differentiated Services • ACM (2003) Workshop on Revisiting IP QoS: Why do we care, what have we learned? (RIPQOS) o at http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2003/workshop/ripqos 10/16/2015 15
  16. 16. Recent Research into Measuring Problem • Gamero-Garrido, Alexander M., Characterizing Performance of Residential Internet Connections Using an Analysis of Measuring Broadband America’s Web Browsing Test Data (July 6, 2015). o Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2588256 • Peha, Jon (2015) Appropriate Rules for Managed or Specialized Services, GN Docket No. 14-28, Before the FCC In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, o 5 January at www.ece.cmu.edu/~peha/Peha_managed_specialized_services.pdf • Princeton Computer Science Department (2015) Workshop on Tracking Quality of Experience in the Internet, October 21-22, sponsored by National Science Foundation and FCC o at http://aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/conference/276#program 10/16/2015 16
  17. 17. Recent legal challenges to openness Public • Prevention of violent/child pornography o Self-regulation giving way to co-regulation Prevention of terrorism/hate speech: o Since 9/11 • Interception of communications o Key escrow battles 1990s o Post-Snowden 2013 onwards Private • Copyright violation: 3 strikes • Behavioural advertising o PHORM litigation UK v. EC o what’s good for Google is good for ISPs? 10/16/2015 17
  18. 18. The problem in a graphic 10/16/2015 18
  19. 19. Discrimination and Net Neutrality Non Discriminatory regime Blocking Quality (QOS discrimination) Charging (price discrimination) 10/16/2015 19
  20. 20. Telecoms law not just competition law • ISPs all engaged in practices? o All discriminating against innovative users o Block gamers and P2P file sharers in 2000-10 o Block videocalls (Skype) & services (NetFlix) 2005- • Vertical integration discrimination? o US Comcast (2008) Madison River (2005) cases o FCC merger cases • Inc. 2015 AT&T-DirecTV • Inc. 1999 AOL-TimeWarner video IM 10/16/2015 20
  21. 21. One- Two- and Many- Sided Markets Su b scrib er I SP T h e In t ern et T h e In t ern et Su b scrib er I SP T h e In t ern et T h e In t ern et Onesided Two-sided n-sided C ontent user ISP C ontent provider C ontent user ISP C ontent provider User User User User User User ISP User User User User User User ISP 10/16/2015 21
  22. 22. Market capability 0 1 Time Content demand Network supply Excess demand Excess supply Inflexion point ADSL 512Kb/ s Peer-to-peer music ADSL2 and VDSL 8-50Mb/ s FTTH Peer-to- peer video Supply and Demand Possibilities 10/16/2015 22
  23. 23. Cisco VNI forecasts have been very accurate: video not P2P is issue
  24. 24. It’s not “net neutrality” • It’s “the open Internet” • Has been since 2010 in US & EU • Rather like “not Internet.org” • It’s been “Free Basics” 19 days… 10/16/2015 24
  25. 25. Why “open Internet”? • It sounds less threatening • No-one can object to openness? • But alternative to net neutrality is: • “Traffic Management” oUnreasonable? • “Discrimination” 10/16/2015 25
  26. 26. Politics of debate • These may sound attractive to economists or engineers • Internet users do not like being managed or discriminated against • Or called the Taliban… 10/16/2015 26
  27. 27. Three wise monkeys of net neutrality ‘We have received no complaints’ is NOT ‘I have not listened to any complaints’. • Some regulators: o Seeing no evil o Hearing no evil o Speaking no evil. 10/16/2015 28
  28. 28. There is the occasional moment of accidental clarity 10/16/2015 29
  29. 29. 10/16/2015 30
  30. 30. Ofcom: we have received ‘no formal complaints’ o BEREC (2010) Response to the European Commission’s consultation on the open Internet and net neutrality in Europe, BoR (10)42 • Charlie Dunstone, Chairman, TalkTalk o Ofcom International Conference, Nov 2006 “We shape traffic to restrict P2P users. I get hate mail at home from people when that means we restrict their ability to play games.” 10/16/2015 31
  31. 31. “I’ve got 2 people that said they’re going to kill me as a result of not allowing them to play certain games.” 10/16/2015 32
  32. 32. UK: throttling P2P and gaming is fine by Ofcom • UK regulator knew about net neutrality violations • It did not care. • Broadband Stakeholder Group organise “self regulation” Code of Practice • Completed only in 2014 10/16/2015 33
  33. 33. Health note: Net neutrality is not the world Net neutrality is important to ISPs • Interconnection & offnet costs REALLY important • Absent NN, chance to waste money o BT Openwoe, Endemol, AOL-TW etc etc… Even within NN policy: • Developing, developed, LDCs specific approaches • One size doesn’t fit all, including inside EU • Lumping every issue into one policy has limits: o privacy, free expression, innovation policy feature elsewhere too…. 10/16/2015 34
  34. 34. 10/16/2015 35
  35. 35. 10/16/2015 36
  36. 36. I examine enforcement of transparency in TMP • by governments and their agencies, publication of key metrics, • enforcement by regulators following infringement actions where published. • co-regulatory forums o governments or regulators have partial private rather than public diplomacy with ISPs o notably in US, Norway & UK. 10/16/2015 37
  37. 37. Methods used in analysis • Fieldwork 2003-2015 oBrazil, Chile, oCanada, United States, oNorway, Netherlands, Slovenia, UK oEU FP7 EINS grant No.288021 oCouncil of Europe, OSCE, UN CEPAL o No ISP or content provider has funded the project since 2010, though each funded earlier stages • Fundacion Telefonica 2010; BT 2007; others 10/16/2015 38
  38. 38. Compares implementations Critical analysis: reasons for ineffective regulation • Proposes regulatory toolkit for jurisdictions o intending effective practical implementation of o some of the net neutrality proposals debated. • Specific issues considered o definitions for specialized services, o the tolerance of zero rating practices, by mobile ISPs. 10/16/2015 39
  39. 39. Data assembled: • Regulatory/legal/NGO/corporate press sources • Very largely qualitative – I’m a lawyer and as Mao said of the French Revolution…… • Empirical interviews conducted in-field with o regulators, government officials, o ISPs, content providers, o academic experts, NGOs o and other stakeholders from • Chile, Brazil, United States, Canada, UK, Netherlands, Slovenia, Norway. 10/16/2015 40
  40. 40. 3 outstanding questions • What is happening with US zero rating? o T-Mobile non-exclusive music streaming ok o AT&T told to remove fixed Internet data caps • Wikipedia zero rating legal in Chile o No official declaration but correspondence • Neutrality model laws? o End-October battle over EU ConnectedContinent o UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality o Policy transfer – Brazil & India? 10/16/2015 41
  41. 41. Net neutrality laws Country Legal Approach Netherlands 15 May 2012 (S.7.4.a of Telecoms Law) Chile Finland Universal access to ‘unfiltered’ Internet USA Open Internet Order Sept 11 & Feb 15 Norway Co-regulation – 2009 agreement Canada CRTC rules 2009 (implemented 2015) Japan, UK Self-regulation unenforced EC, BEREC, France ConnectedContinent Regulation (2016?), papers, ARCEP ‘Ten Principles’ Brazil Regulating post-Marco Civil stage 10/16/2015 42
  42. 42. Defaulting to a neasurement solution? SamKnows QoE 10/16/2015 43
  43. 43. Toolsets/lessons for approach Norway UK Netherlands US Measurement Self-declared with verification Ofcom: SamKnows Consumers e.g. Glasnost/Neubot FCC: SamKnows Technical advice Within co- regulatory pact Broadband Stakeholder Group co- regulation NRA – advising ministry BITAG and OIAC self/co-regulation Legal position Co-regulation Not implemented 2009/136/EU Implemented 2009/136/EU Order 2010, published Sept’11 – now Feb’15 Efficiency Very fast – first mover Very slow – industry foot dragging Very fast – legislative panic Very slow – note court delay Lesson Act fast, get stakeholder buy- in Death by 1000 cuts; deny-delay- degrade; significant political damage Mobile DPI and blocking prompted action – legislative panic Lack of bipartisanship causes trench warfare 10/16/2015 44
  44. 44. Implementations Nation Net neutrality policy Regulatory basis Major cases Brazil Consultations 2015 Marco Civil 2014 Zero rating 2015 Chile Regulations of 2011 Law of 2010 Zero rating 2014 Norway Co-regulation 2009 Law of 2013 Zero rating 2014 Nl Regulations of 2013 Law of 2012 Zero rating 2015 Slovenia Law of 2012 Regulations of 2013 Zero rating 2015 Canada Telecom Act 1993 Hearing of 2010 Zero rating 2015 United States Open Internet Orders 2010, 2015 Title II, Telecoms Act 1996 Zero rating 2015 UK Code of Practice 2011 Self-regulatory & 2009 Directives None to 2015 10/16/2015 45
  45. 45. Expert Reports EU/US BEREC 2011-14 BITAG 2011-15 OIAC 2012-13 BoR (14) 117 Monitoring quality of Internet access services in the context of net neutrality BEREC report 2014 Interconnection and Traffic Exchange on the Internet August 20, 2013 Economic Impacts of Open Internet Frameworks 2012 observations about net neutrality for ETNO's proposal to (ITU) WCIT 2014 VoIP Impairment, Failure, and Restrictions 2013 Policy Issues in Data Caps Usage-Based Pricing 2012 IP interconnection in the context of NN 2013 Real-time Manage-ment of Congestion 2013 Mobile Ecosystem: AT&T FaceTime Case Study 2012 Competition issues in the context of NN Port Blocking 2013 2013 Specialized Services: Summary of Findings 2012 Guidelines for Quality of service in the scope of NN SNMP DDoS Attacks 2013 August 20, 2013 Open Internet Label Study 2011 – Framework for Quality of service in NN Large Scale Network Address Translation 2012 January 17, 2013 Specialized Services 2011 Guidelines for Transparency in of NN IPv6 DNS Whitelisting 2011 2013 Economic Impact Data Cap 10/16/2015 46
  46. 46. FRAND as a solution – keeps end user in charge 10/16/2015 47
  47. 47. How to be neutral • BBC 2006: • “Neutrality for us is not neutrality at all” • “Public service websites must argue for true neutrality”. • Ridiculous to suggest anything else is a remotely sustainable position: o https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/net- neutrality-towards-a-co-regulatory-solution/ch4-positive- discrimination-and-the-zettaflood 10/16/2015 48
  48. 48. Wikimedia Foundation 2014 “We believe in net neutrality in America” o “We have a complicated relationship to neutrality • "Partnering with telcos in the near term, • blurs the net neutrality line in those areas • It fulfils our overall mission, though, • which is providing free knowledge.” • http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship- with-net-neutrality/ 10/16/2015 49
  49. 49. 10/16/2015 50
  50. 50. 10/16/2015 51
  51. 51. Wikimedia mobile strategy: FBK 10/16/2015 52
  52. 52. 2011: Brazil example why zero rating needed 10/16/2015 53
  53. 53. June 2011 ethnographic study: Sao Paolo + Porto Alegre 10/16/2015 54
  54. 54. Mobiles want exclusivity 10/16/2015 55
  55. 55. Wikipedia Zero (2014) 59 nations; 67 operators 10/16/2015 56
  56. 56. Brazil going mobile 10/16/2015 57
  57. 57. Mobile tiny proportion but important segment 10/16/2015 58
  58. 58. Sandvine CEO May 2015 • In Latin America, • Facebook and Google: • Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, • YouTube, Google Play • control 60%+ of mobile network traffic o http://www.lightreading.com/video/ott/why-netflix-traffic-keeps-soaring/d/d- id/715984 10/16/2015 59
  59. 59. Dilma (in FBK hoodie) & Zuck (in a suit) 10/16/2015 60
  60. 60. Internet.org becomes Free Basics 24/9 10/16/2015 61
  61. 61. Is Facebook the Internet? Some Brazilians think so? 10/16/2015 62
  62. 62. President Dilma & neutrality? 10/16/2015 63
  63. 63. Zuck: "Some may argue for an extreme definition of net neutrality…” • that it’s somehow wrong to offer any more services to support the unconnected, • but a reasonable definition of net neutrality is more inclusive. • Access equals opportunity. • Net neutrality should not prevent access.“ o Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor from the new-AOL,-brought- to-you-by-Mother-Teresa dept, o Bode, Karl, Tech Dirt May 5th 2015 o https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150504/0834173088 5/tone-deaf-zuckerberg-declares-opposition-to-zero-rated-apps-extremist- position-that-hurts-poor.shtml 10/16/2015 64
  64. 64. Claim 1: Internet access can be subsidised • “Nothing about opposing zero rating prevents access" • “nobody is stopping Facebook or Internet.org • funding discounted access • to the real Internet.” • So what is a reasonable position? 10/16/2015 65
  65. 65. Claim 2: Competition & Dominance • “Zuckerberg's basically cementing • his company's gatekeeper authority over • developing nations for generations to come o under the bright banner of selfless altruism, • then taking offense when told that • these countries might just be better off with • un-apertured, subsidized access to the real Internet.” 10/16/2015 66
  66. 66. Principled solutions? • Don’t blame Facebook, blame mobiles • They want exclusive in-country deals • If Wikipedia + FBK want zero rating: • Claim [1] time limited – say 3 months • Claim [2] NEVER exclusive • FRAND terms (like specialized services) 10/16/2015 67
  67. 67. Net neutral nations ban Zero rating • Canada, • Netherlands, • Norway, • Slovenia, Estonia, • Japan, • Finland • Chile: http://historico.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138- neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralidad-y-redes- sociales-gratis 10/16/2015 68
  68. 68. What’s the future of net neutrality? • From theory, legislation and regulation • To enforcement 10/16/2015 69
  69. 69. Network Neutrality (2016) • Sequel to 2010 book…. • Manchester University Press o Paperback & CC licence • Questions? 10/16/2015 70

×