Net Neutrality at United Nations Internet Governance Forum 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Net Neutrality at United Nations Internet Governance Forum 2013

on

  • 1,421 views

My presentation at Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality - explaining the myths of net neutrality, legal framework and the US approach towards definitions of specialized services.

My presentation at Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality - explaining the myths of net neutrality, legal framework and the US approach towards definitions of specialized services.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,421
Views on SlideShare
1,373
Embed Views
48

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
20
Comments
0

2 Embeds 48

https://twitter.com 47
https://www.rebelmouse.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Net Neutrality at United Nations Internet Governance Forum 2013 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. NET NEUTRALITY: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE Professor Chris Marsden @ChrisTMarsden IGF Nusa Dua: 26 October 2013
  • 2. ISOC‟s latest word on net neutrality? • “Competition law is a key aspect of network neutrality debate and can provide sufficient answers to many of the emerging issues” • http://www.internetsociety.org/igf-daily-highlight-%E2%80%93-23-october-2013 • No it‟s not and no, it can‟t! • Net neutrality responds to a layers problem: • All ISPs need to manage traffic and • several claim to be deluged with video on HTTP
  • 3. Try transparency and switching • It‟s a mirage – more you try, more you fail • Ofcom in UK spent 6 years trying to increase both • Desperate attempt to portray as „self-regulation‟ • It‟s really co-regulation • Results: severely throttled compared to US • UK users: • very low upload speeds • See Cooper (2013) on ssrn.com
  • 4. UK late developer: very low 2006 speeds
  • 5. All ISPs have incentives to discriminate • Don‟t fall into trap of assuming dominance • Or worse, collective dominance • Ever tried to prove oligopoly? • Simple ground rules for what is acceptable • So let‟s re-phrase definition:
  • 6. TELCOS SHOULD NOT BE OVERTLY NAUGHTY AGAINST USERS Or to be a lawyer: “Allow only reasonable traffic management” Or a brand marketeer: “Don‟t be evil – and get caught”
  • 7. Corporate surveillance, civil resistance
  • 8. Charlie Dunstone, Chairman, TalkTalk • Ofcom International Conference, 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. • “I have 2 people threatening to kill me.”
  • 9. Western Europe should have no problem • Fixed traffic growth is low and manageable • 17% CAGR 2012-2017 • Way below historic growth rates 30-40% • Even mobile forecasts are falling off a cliff • Lots of Wifi hand-off – ask BBC
  • 10. MNO entrants lower data prices than duopolists
  • 11. We‟re only starting to implement NN • Netherlands 2012 law not enforced so far • Slovenia more interesting – law of 12/2012 • UK ISPs throttled for over 12 years • government doesn‟t care • Enforcement easy if you approach it logically
  • 12. Net neutrality laws 2013 Country Legal Approach Netherlands 15 May 2012 (S.7.4.a Telecoms Law) Slovenia Economic Communications Act 2012 Chile/Finland Universal access to „unfiltered‟ Internet United States FCC Open Internet Order Sept „11 Norway Co-regulation – 2009 agreement Canada CRTC rules 2009 (not implemented?) Japan, UK France Self-regulation unenforced ARCEP „Ten Principles‟
  • 13. Slovenia Economic Communications Act 2012 • http://www.scribd.com/doc/144614369/Slovenia-Net-Neutrality-law-2012 • "net neutrality means that operators will have to send internet traffic with uniform speed and permeability regardless of the content” • ISPs prevented from restricting, or slowing Internet traffic • except to solve congestion, security or addressing spam. • Commercial differentiation of QoS will be prohibited. • ISP prohibited from different connectivity prices • strong impact on mobile operators “data caps”
  • 14. 50 ways to throttle your user • Who should [a] discover [b] regulate NN? A. Discovery by researchers on behalf of govt • Geeks can help lawyers to find blocking/discrimination • But only where it‟s widespread/obvious – e.g. Skype B. Regulation by telco NRAs • Trained to remember their legal function to protect • freedom of expression and user privacy • Strangely forgetful of their constitutional functions C. Enforcement with appeal to courts • As with all other telecoms law
  • 15. All regulators can find breaches
  • 16. Can developing countries afford NN? • You can‟t afford not to! • You have sold GSM licences much too cheap • You don‟t have competition – duopoly or 3-way • You don‟t have fixed line alternative • NN or bust? • Mobile „Internet‟ becomes a joke without NN • That‟s all your digitally divided have to connect
  • 17. It all began in 1999 – last millenium… • Based on cable „walled garden‟ fears • Mergers: cable TV/broadband companies • AT&T/MediaOne and AOL/TimeWarner • Lessig and Lemley FCC submission: • „The end of End-to-End‟ • Before „Code and Other Laws…‟ • Fear of closed duopoly model
  • 18. Net Neutrality Worries in Strasbourg? [1999] Pluralism in the Multi-Channel Television Market: • Suggestions for Regulatory Scrutiny • Council of Europe Human Rights Commission, • Mass Media Directorate, Strasbourg, France • MM-S-PL [99]12 Def2.
  • 19. Marsden for CoE Committee of Experts on Media Pluralism [99] S.5.1 • the phenomenon of convergence in the form of integration of programming and technical bottleneck facilities – is driving this market phenomenon. • In the case of Sky and AOL, it is content allied to control of the browser, the „first screen‟; • in the case of Microsoft, • it is the browser operating system allied to the distribution platforms of cable companies
  • 20. 24 May 1999: Section 5.1 • “AOL, WorldCom and other Internet companies again • urged federal authorities to bar cable operators striking exclusive deals on high-speed Internet service • Internet providers want to be sure that • consumers will enjoy the same open access to their services via cable networks that they now have over phone lines...”
  • 21. Book launched February 2010 100,000 downloads first 2 months 2nd edition in paperback 2015 22
  • 22. Glasnost initial results
  • 23. Net neutrality will grow and grow • 1st Internet Science conference Brussels 10-11 April 2013 • Professor Ziga Turk, minister in charge of Slovenian law • Alissa Cooper, member of FCC OIAC sub-group • Carl-Christian Buhr, advisor to Neelie Kroes • UK, French and Dutch technical engineering experts
  • 24. Answers? Good questions?
  • 25. Comments? Questions? • @ChrisTMarsden • C.Marsden@sussex.ac.uk • http://chrismarsden.blogspot.co.uk/ • 5500 regular visitors (esp. Washington and Brussels)
  • 26. Toolsets/lessons for each approach Norway UK Netherlands US Measurement Self-declared with Ofcom: verification? SamKnows Consumers e.g. Glasnost/Neubot/ BitsofFreedom FCC: SamKnows Technical advice Within coregulatory pact Broadband Stakeholder Group coregulation NRA – advising ministry BITAG and OIAC self/co-regulation Legal position Co-regulation Not implemented 2009/136/EU Implemented 2009/136/EU Order December 2010, published Sept.2011 Efficiency Very fast – first mover Very slow – industry foot dragging Very fast – legislative panic Very slow – note court delay Lesson Act fast, get stakeholder buyin Death by a 1000 cuts; deny-delaydegrade; significant political damage Mobile DPI and blocking prompted action – legislative panic Lack of bipartisanship causes trench warfare
  • 27. Declaration: Neutrality 2009/140EC The Commission attaches high importance to preserving the open and neutral character of the Internet, • taking full account of the will of the co-legislators • to enshrine net neutrality as a policy objective and • regulatory principle to be promoted by NRAs
  • 28. How to Monitor and Implement NN? Ultimately impossible to check subtle non-neutrality • Obvious cases of blocking (Madison River, European mobiles) and seeding (Comcast) • Less obvious: degrading YouTube (Free, Orange France) Not at all obvious: interconnection between Tier 1 • Agreed: you only know they‟re degrading you when they can advertise it to others as a „selling point‟ How can national regulators decide what is „reasonable‟? • Issue for all regulators post-2014
  • 29. Net Neutrality: European Approaches • 2 elements separated: • present net neutrality 'lite' debate • and • the emerging net neutrality 'heavy' • concerned with fibre access networks in future
  • 30. US FCC Order 2011, challenge 2013 • FCC Report and Order (2010) Preserving the Open Internet, • 25 FCC Rcd 17905 • FCC Report and Order, In The Matter Of Preserving The Open Internet And Broadband Industry Practices, • GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket NO. 07-52, FCC 10-201 § 21-30 • Published 22 Dec 2010, appeared Federal Register 23 Sept 2011 • In Re: FCC, In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet, Report and Order, FCC 10-201, 76 Fed. Reg. 59192 (2011), • Consolidation Order - Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Oct. 6, 2011 • http://commcns.org/sOFyyT
  • 31. Verizon v. FCC, Case No: 11-1356 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals • FCC Order: In the Matter of: Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices • (rel. Dec. 23, 2010) • FCC 10-201; GN Docket No. 09-191; WC Docket No. 07-52 • Petition for Review filed September 30, 2011. • 2011 Order consolidates case numbers 11-1356, 11-1403, 11-1404, and 11-1411 with lead case number 11-1355 • Open Internet Order legitimacy court case • expected judgment now winter 2013
  • 32. Special and Managed Services • FCC excludes Quality of Service • Private „managed‟ or „specialized‟ services • IPTV, VOIP, emergency calls and telemedicine • These use the IP pipe, but a reserved section • How big is the private pipe? 10% or 90% • Who gets access? Anyone who pays? • Or only those „preferred partners‟ to ISPs? • Do you only see certain IPTV channels? • Its making part of the pipe back into cable!
  • 33. FCC uses two advisory groups: [1] BITAG • Self-regulation: • http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032233 • Broadband Industry Technical Advisory Group • Set up by Dale Hatfield from Colorado in 2010 • Multi-stakeholder – techie-heavy • http://www.bitag.org/bitag_organization.php?action=history • Takes on test cases from 2012 as no referred cases • Handles FCC cases free of charge • Industry pays $60,000 per case (if there were any)
  • 34. [2] Open Internet Advisory Committee • Co-regulatory: appointed by FCC in May 2012 • http://www.fcc.gov/document/open-internet-advisory-committeemembers-announced • Chair: Jonathan Zittrain (Harvard Law), • Vice-chair David Clark (MIT/IETF/engineer) • Multi-stakeholder – includes NGOs and industry • 'Specialized Services' definitions sub-group • When can a managed service lane be partitioned out of the regular open IP stream?
  • 35. Working assumptions - require case studies to flesh out their details: • "Specialized services is a term that is • meaningful only within context of the Order. • It is a way to talk about “anything else” • that is IP-based over a physical access path. • It is NOT a new category of service • for which a class of regulation is applicable."
  • 36. “Service is NOT a specialized service, and is subject to the Order if: [1] The service is a general service e.g. a service like IP on which higher-level services can run, [2] It reaches most… of end-points of the Internet As opposed to a specific “user-level” service like telephony or home security, which is presumably a specialized service • E.g. one cannot evade the Order • by offering an Internet-like service • that cannot reach a small country somewhere."
  • 37. Limits the reach of specialized services that evade the Order Example: • "If [a DSL or cable ISP] decided to offer a “poor” Internet service, would we view this as: • “Better than nothing or unacceptably slow[?] Perhaps they can call it Internet but not broadband? • Do we: • [1] impose FRAND conditions and • [2] insist that slow service is NOT the 'real' Internet'?
  • 38. • Marsden, C. [1999] Pluralism in the Multi-Channel Television Market: • • • • • • • • • Suggestions for Regulatory Scrutiny, Council of Europe, MM-S-PL [99]12 Def2. Lemley and Lessig (2001) The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era, UCLA L. REV. 48: 925 Marsden, C. [2005] Contribution to Impact Assessment of the revision of the Television Without Frontiers Directive, with E. Horlings, C. Van Oranje, M. Botterman, TR-334-EC DGJS Santa Monica: RAND Marsden, C. and J.Cave [2006] Assessing Indirect Impacts of the EC Proposals for Video Regulation, TR-414 for Ofcom. Santa Monica: RAND Marsden, C. [2008] Net Neutrality: The European Debate 12 Journal of Internet Law 2 pp1, 7-16 Marsden, C. (2010) Net Neutrality – Towards a Co-Regulatory Solution? Bloomsbury Academic Marsden, C. [2013] Network Neutrality: A Research Guide Chapter 16 in „Research Handbook On Governance Of The Internet‟, I. Brown, ed., Edward Elgar. Marsden, C. [2012] Internet Co-Regulation and Constitutionalism: Towards European Judicial Review, 26 Int. Rev. of Law, Computers & Tech 2. pp.212-228. Marsden, C. [2012] Regulating Intermediary Liability and Network Neutrality, Chapter 15, pp701-750 „Telecommunications Law and Regulation‟ (Oxf, 4th ed) Marsden, C. [2011] Network Neutrality and ISP Liability Regulation: Are the Wise Monkeys of Cyberspace Becoming Stupid? 2 Global Policy 1 pp.1-12 Marsden, C. [2013] Regulating Code: Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age with Ian Brown, MIT Press: Cambridge MA. 312pp.