Lehigh net neutrality colloquium (no video) final
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•689 vues
An overview of Net Neutrality including policy, legal framework, and a high level overview of network technologies involved.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (19)
Similaire à Lehigh net neutrality colloquium (no video) final
Similaire à Lehigh net neutrality colloquium (no video) final (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Lehigh net neutrality colloquium (no video) final
- 1. Net Neutrality Inside the Network Privileged and confidential. The information contained in this material is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please destroy it immediately.
- 2. 2 Net Neutrality • Introduction • What is Net Neutrality • Key Stakeholders • Balancing Free Market Principles • History / Framework • Network Technologies • Last mile technologies deliver different user experiences • Oversubscription of edge to core • Middle mile • Content Providers • Public Engagement • Rulemaking process
- 3. 3 Don Holloway • MBA, Lehigh University • “Birds of a Feather” - Joint project between CSE and CBE • 2007 study of social networking • Telecommunications Account Executive • Sales of large scale systems • Working 12 – 24 months ahead of market • 12 - 18 month sales cycle • 12 – 18 month development cycle • Network neurologist @donholloway www.donholloway.com donholloway@gmail.com Don.Holloway@teoco.com
- 4. 4 Network Operations Optimization Priorities • 90% problem cells fixed • DCR improved by 30% • RRC Estab. FR 25% better • Coverage 10-20% better • European Operator electricity bill for cell sites: €200m p.a. • 30% of sites could be turned down 30% of time • Massive savings to realize • Traffic grows by 90% p.a. • Self Planning SON • Capitalize on planning know-how and software Coverage/capacity + neighbors + load balancing + cell outage detection SON changes applied Self Planning for traffic offload – eg Small Cells Energy Saving Self planning new coverage/capacity e.g. Small cells Capacity not needed during night time
- 5. 5 What is Net Neutrality? • Simple definition • The principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally • Key Issues • Free speech / censorship • Role of Government • Competition / Anti-trust • Legal • Technology
- 6. 6 Key Stakeholders • Last mile ISPs • Cable companies – Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter, Verizon • Wired telecom – AT&T, Verizon, Century Link, Frontier, Google • Wireless carriers – Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, TMobile, US Cellular • Government • FCC • Courts • Federal and State governments • Information Content Providers • Internet services – email, search, web-browsing, social networking • Real Time Entertainment – YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Gaming, NFL • Communications –Skype, Facetime, What’s App • Users
- 7. 7 Wireline traffic by application 1H 2014 data – www.et.gy/sandvine-internet
- 8. 8 Balancing Free Market Principles Network Value Economics • Bigger is better for consumers and for businesses • Metcalfe’s Law • More elements mean more potential connections for each user • Sarnoff’s Law • Value of a broadcast network is proportional to the number of viewers Competition • Law of the land • Sherman Anti Trust • Protection for Free Speech • “Master Switch” argument • Industrial structure, not government, that most impacts free speech
- 9. 9 History / Framework • 1860 – Telegraph “neutrality” – first in / first out (except government) • 1934 – Communications Act of 1934, Federal Law, authorizes FCC • Title I – General Provisions • Title II – Common Carriers • Title III – Provisions related to radio • Title IV – Procedural and administrative provisions • Title V – Penal provisions, forfeitures • Title VI – Cable communications (added in 1984) • Title VII – Miscellaneous provisions • 1992 – Cable Consumer Protection and Competition • Required cable to carry local broadcast and prohibited from charging • 1996 – New Telecommunications Act (amended 1934) • Section 706 empowers FCC to promote broadband competition • Regulated unbundling of network elements • 2008 – Comcast / FCC order restricting management of peer to peer traffic • 2010 – Court vacates order, FCC issues Open Internet Order (transparency, anti-blocking, anti-discriminating) for cable, DSL, fiber – citing Section 706 (promoting competition) as authority • 2011 – Verizon successfully sues FCC over authority to regulate internet. Court upholds authority of 706 with regards to net neutrality, but some regulations (anti-discrimination, anti-blocking) were reserved for Title II
- 10. 10 Net Neutrality • Introduction • What is Net Neutrality • Key Stakeholders • Balancing Free Market Principles • History / Framework • Network Technologies • Last mile technologies deliver different user experiences • Oversubscription of edge to core • Middle mile • Content Providers • Public Engagement • Rulemaking process
- 11. 11 Last Mile Networks Cable Wired telco Cellular Cable and cellular users share a common transport reducing per user bandwidth
- 12. 12 Oversubscription Cable Wired telco Cellular Oversubscription uses routing prioritization during peak volume times
- 13. 13 Middle Mile Cable Wired telco Cellular Core network transport impacts Quality of Service (QoS)
- 14. 14 Internet Content Providers
- 15. 15 Where can a Internet Content Provider invest to compete by improving the customer experience?
- 16. 16 Additional Capacity in the Middle Mile
- 17. 17 Collocate Content Delivery Node
- 18. 18 Net Neutrality • Introduction • What is Net Neutrality • Key Stakeholders • Balancing Free Market Economics and Principles • History / Framework • Network Technologies • Last mile technologies deliver different user experiences • Oversubscription of edge to core • Middle mile • Content Providers • Public Opinion • Rulemaking process
- 19. 19 Public engagement in process • February 19, 2014 • Chairman Wheeler issues a statement on Open Internet Rules • Intent to propose new rules • Explore use of Section 706 • Solicit public comment • Enhance competition, keep Title II authority • May 15, 2014 • FCC approves Notice of Proposed Rulemaking • Should the FCC should bar paid prioritization completely? • Should the FCC apply Open Internet rules to mobile broadband Internet service, not just fixed broadband Internet? • Should the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act? • July 15, 2014 • Public comment period extended until September 10th 8/5/14 FCC released a bulk machine readable archive of 1.1 million comments received during first comment period 10/19/14 FCC released an additional 2,444,672 comments received during additional comment period Previous highest comments were 1.48M over Janet Jackson “nipplegate” Superbowl half time show
- 20. 20 Public Opinion • Survey • University of Delaware Center for Political Communication (www.et.gy/DelCPC) • Only 10% of the population were familiar with the issue • Most of them get information from satirical shows • Strong opposition to the concept of fast lanes • Public Comment • Sunlight Foundation analysis of first 800,000 (www.et.gy/sunlight-net) • Less than 1% oppose Net Neutrality • 60% form letters (less than typical) • About 2/3rd were opposed to paid prioritization or speed tiers • Roughly the same asked for Title II classification
- 21. 21 Key Issue Summary • Role of government • Strong Title II regulation vs. promoting competition through Section 706 • FCC considering at hybrid approach • Free Speech • Explicit anti-discrimination law through Title II • Monopolistic structures risk market led censorship • Impact of tiered services • Competition • Last mile • Information Content Providers • This is where the disruptive innovators are
Notes de l'éditeur
- This presentation is my personal opinions only and do not reflect those of my employer, wife, or anyone else. My interest is in trying to understand where things are at and where they are going, not to influence it in any particular direction.
- This slide shows you the kinds of things that the operations side of networks care about. They care about dropped calls, radio resource control, and most importantly, saving money though things like reducing electricity costs. We are all looking at self optimizating networks (SON) which has not been part of the network neutrality discussion at all. This presentation does not go deep on the network side, but I wanted to give a flavor of how network people look at things.
- This followed a showing of the New York Times net neutrality video.
- Key stakeholders and the introduction of different types of services, particularly real time entertainment and the demands that it puts on the network. There has been some discussion around different treatment for different types of services (real time vs. non) but I don’t think that is the current focus.
- The type of analysis shown here is produced through Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). Typically a network only cares about the IP address, this type of inspection is relatively expensive. It is also worth highlighting the amount of upstream traffic that torrents use, which is particularly problematic for cable and wireless last mile infrastructures. The other takeaway is the amount of traffic that real time entertainment is taking up. This slide is only wireless, there is a similar one for wireless at the link shown.
- This slide needs work. I’m trying to show that both profiting from making things better for end users and protecting free speech and competition are “free market” principles, admittedly in opposition to each other. The value of the network to the end user goes up the more people on the network. Noone wants to be on a wireless network with only a couple of people. The same is true of social media networks of course.
- There are more than three last mile technologies, but these are most relevant to the discussion. Both cable and wireless share a common “pipe” and bandwidth is reduced based upon the number of users on the network at any given time. Wireless has additional variability as the users can move from one cell to another, and wireless bandwidth can change based upon the weather and environment.
- Every step along the path has some level of oversubscription. A router might have 48 – 1MB downstream connections but only 36MB upstream. We have networking measurements and distributions, typically called Erlangs that help us engineer the network based upon highest expected volume for a given quality. There are real costs to the backhaul, so this directly goes to profit for a network provider. The main message is that in peak times, some type of prioritization is going to happen.
- I’m starting to see discussions of this backhaul referred to as the “Middle Mile”. I had mentioned Deep Packet Inspection earlier and it is worth mentioning that everyone cares about the Quality of Service for and end user. One way to measure is through DPI. A cheaper way is to simply increase the bandwidth of the middle mile to reduce limits through oversubscription. This middle mile could be owned by the same company as the last mile, or may also go through a Tier 2 or interconnection carrier. The main concept is that the last mile company has an economic interest to keep that cost as low as possible while delivering the quality of service they promised their customers.
- In my opinion, these Internet Content Providers are the examples of innovation and competition that we want to protect and encourage.
- So the question is, as in this example, where can a company invest to improve their customer experience? I’ve chosen this example, as You Tube’s (#2 video competitor) parent actually owns fiber last mile, and Hulu’s parent owns lots of cable last mile. If they increase the pipe into the cloud that doesn’t address any downstream issues on the other side. You can, and most have put CDNs out into the cloud and done what they can to reduce latency and bandwidth. You Tube, for example has an incentive program for ISPs that pays them to increase bandwidth to support HD video.
- One approach is to allow internet content providers to invest to increase bandwidth to the serving office. This diagram is admittedly oversimplified, but shows the idea that Netflix doesn’t simply want a bigger pipe, which would also benefit their competitors, but wants to make sure that their content isn’t limited by middle mile limits. In this case, Netflix is the one charging the customers $7 a month more, so they would be the ones that profit from the increased bandwidth to the users.
- Putting a CDN in the actual office represents another approach. This approach can minimize the need for bandwidth throughout the network, as they typically use torrents to keep content in sync. Either of these two approaches will require some type of last mile mechanism, typically discussed as a fast lane or paid prioritization.
- The process has been open and transparent. The public response has more than doubled the highest ever public engagement.
- I spoke to the people at the CPC in Delaware, they started a survey in 2013 before this recent bit of activity. They have done a good and objective approach. They used as non-buzzword language and discussed the concepts and the result was that something like 80% of the population is opposed to fast lanes, and that number increases the more that people know about the subject. The public comments support that although with lower numbers.