seserv workshop alissa cooper - net neutrality practices
DESCRIPTION
In the context of net neutrality debates occuring around the world, a central question concerns the extent to which network operators should be free to manage certain Internet applications differently from others. Some stakeholders advocate for regulatory intervention on the basis that this sort of traffic management gives network operators too much power over which applications succeed or fail, while others argue for reliance on competition between network operators to discipline operator behavior. Yet evidence from the UK and the US suggests that the practical reality of how network operators have gone about managing traffic in the last half decade is not entirely consistent with expectations about the disciplining power of either regulatory or competitive forces in the marketplace. Understanding why Internet traffic ultimately gets managed in a particular way requires a deeper understanding of the interplay between technical, economic, political, and social dynamics confronting network operators.TRANSCRIPT
Internet Traffic Management in the UK
Alissa CooperChief Computer Scientist
2
Discrimination
differential treatment of different Internet traffic
on the basis of application or content
3
Potential avenues for discrimination
Blocking/filteringPrioritization/QoS
Traffic shapingInterconnection
Caching
4
Potential avenues for discrimination
Blocking/filteringPrioritization/QoS
Traffic shapingInterconnection
Caching
Traffic management Everything else
Operator’s initiativeNo payment
Performance justification
Negotiated with app provider Payment
Revenue + performance justification
5
Potential avenues for discrimination
Blocking/filteringPrioritization/QoS
Traffic shapingInterconnection
Caching
Traffic management Everything else
Operator’s initiativeNo payment
Performance justification
Negotiated with app provider Payment
Revenue + performance justification
6
Potentially discriminatory traffic management examples
• Blocking/filtering– Preventing pure BitTorrent seeding
• Traffic shaping– Allocating small % of peak bandwidth to
identified P2P protocols– Limiting identified streaming video
traffic to 1 Mbps at peak time
7
ISP 0 ISP 1 ISP 2 ISP 3 ISP 4 . . . ISP N
8
ISP 0 ISP 1 ISP 2 ISP 3 ISP 4 . . . ISP N
9
Competition
Competition reduces operator’s incentive to discriminate because discrimination may drive
customers to competitors
10
Competition
Competition reduces operator’s incentive to discriminate because discrimination may drive
customers to competitors
11
BT Wholesalebackhaul
BT Openreach access
ISP network
ISP backhaul BT Openreach access
ISP network
Unbundled exchange
Urban
Rural
12
UK broadband connection shares
13
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
BT Retail
Everything Everywhere
O2
O2 off-net
TalkTalk
Sky
Sky off-net
Virgin
Virgin off-net
Hints of UK application shaping
P2PVideo
P2P, Video
P2P, News
P2P
P2P, News
P2P
P2P
User-reported limits: App experiences 0.5% to 10% of headline speed.Weekdays afternoon to midnight, weekends mid-day to midnight.
P2P, News
14
BT Wholesalebackhaul
Openreach access
ISP network
£££
Cost savings
15
BT Wholesalebackhaul
Openreach access
ISP network
£
Cost savings
16
Price competition
17
TM platforms get entrenched
18
Why?
• Cost savings• Price competition• Traffic management platforms get
entrenched
Sdf Competition has not safeguarded nondiscriminatory traffic
management in the UK
19
BT TalkTalk Virgin Sky, O2 Everything smaller ISPs Everywhere
20
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
AT&T
CenturyLink
Comcast
Cox
Other cable
Verizon
Hints of US app limitations
Observed behavior consisted primarily of preventing pure BitTorrent seeding.
P2P
P2P
P2P
FCC Enforcement FCC Rules
21
Conclusions
• Traffic management strategies can be highly influenced by market structure
• Competition does not necessarily prevent discriminatory traffic management
• Designers of future traffic management technologies should recognize primacy of incentive structures into which they want to deploy
