Mac309 Network Effect: Net Neutrality

712 views
655 views

Published on

MAC309 slides form the workshop on net neutrality. Works with a screening of (BBC) The Virtual Revolution, Episode 2

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
712
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
95
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mac309 Network Effect: Net Neutrality

  1. 1. The Network Effect: Net Neutrality MAC309
  2. 2. e d c b a A basic network 5 points 10 connections
  3. 3. A medium sized network 10 points 45 connections a b c d e k j h i g f l
  4. 4. A medium sized network 10 points 45 connections Data roams freely? Proxy servers a b c d e k j h i g f l
  5. 5. Global root servers ICANN map
  6. 6. 2 sides?
  7. 7. T he layers principle <ul><li>Content layer </li></ul><ul><li>Logical layer </li></ul><ul><li>Physical layer </li></ul>
  8. 8. 1 – the content layer
  9. 9. 2 – the logical layer
  10. 10. 3 – the physical layer
  11. 11. 1 – the content layer <ul><li>Battle around copyright and intellectual property (cut & paste) </li></ul><ul><li>T ougher laws </li></ul><ul><li>ISPs refusing to ‘police’ the ‘net </li></ul>
  12. 12. 2 – the logical layer <ul><li>B attle against software misuse </li></ul><ul><li>P2P, BitTorrent </li></ul><ul><li>Domain phishing </li></ul><ul><li>O pen source </li></ul>
  13. 13. Phishing site example
  14. 14. 3 – the physical layer <ul><li>B attles around hardware </li></ul><ul><li>F ree wi-fi </li></ul><ul><li>Internet enabled devices </li></ul><ul><li>Generativity (Zittrain, 2008) </li></ul>
  15. 15. ‘ Internet regulation is about more than just law’ <ul><li>Interaction between various aspects: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>S ocial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ Net neutrality … is a debate about regulation and influence at the interface of the logical and physical layers’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Ganley & Algrove, 2006: 456) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. B it parity INTERNET <ul><li>A ‘dumb network’ </li></ul><ul><li>A ll data packets treat the same </li></ul><ul><li>Devices at the end do the work </li></ul><ul><li>The network shows no preferences </li></ul><ul><li>S hould it stay this way? </li></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>‘ Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network . The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant &quot;end-to-end&quot; design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good.’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lessig & McChesney, 2006 </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. 2 tiered Internet?
  19. 19. They who own the pipes, own the future … <ul><li>Control in the hands of the network operators </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(ie the ISPs) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Currently, ISPs attempt to manage traffic via: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A pplication of ‘bit parity’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C ontrol flow during peak times; certain data prioritised </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>24/7 ‘deep packet inspection’ discrimination </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. <ul><li>Comcast (US) secretly disrupted customer connections when using BitTorrent application </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Also interfered with other services (Lotus Notes) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Forced to reveal behaviour to FCC </li></ul><ul><li>Customers not entitled to use their bandwidth as they wish </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anderson, 2008 </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21.
  22. 22. INTERNET
  23. 23. INTERNET
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28. Service provider discrimination
  29. 29. VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) INTERNET
  30. 30. INTERNET WTF!? I can’t hear U. T eh interwebs is borked!
  31. 31. Application discrimination INTERNET That’s better! Lulz
  32. 32. What if ISPs enter video market?
  33. 33. T r affic management already happens <ul><li>Blocking and tiering </li></ul><ul><li>2004: ISP Madison River blocked Vonage’s VoiP services </li></ul><ul><li>2006: ISP AOL blocked access to www.dearaol.com </li></ul><ul><li>2007: ISP Comcast blocked BitTorrent </li></ul><ul><li>2008: ISP Tele2 blocked access to http://thepiratebay.org </li></ul><ul><li>2008: ISP Pakistan Telecom blocked YouTube </li></ul><ul><li>2009: IPRED law to monitor all Swedish web traffic </li></ul><ul><li>2010: Italian ISPs block access to Pirate Bay </li></ul>
  34. 34. <ul><li>‘ Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider. And that’s just bad business.’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre, 2006, http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-147323.html </li></ul></ul>
  35. 35. <ul><li>‘ this net neutrality thing is a load of bollocks’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Virgin Media CEO Neil Berkett, 2008 http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a93556/virgin-media-ceo-attacks-net-neutrality.html </li></ul></ul>
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
  38. 38. Who are the interested parties? <ul><li>ISPs! </li></ul><ul><li>Large content providers (eg games developers, movie studios, etc) </li></ul><ul><li>Established online businesses </li></ul><ul><li>Police </li></ul><ul><li>Internet users! </li></ul>
  39. 39. Infrastucture <ul><li>The Internet as we know it is at breaking point </li></ul><ul><ul><li>V ideo streaming </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P2P </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>VPN </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cyberwarfare (DDoS attacks) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2006: BT invested £10 billion in 21CN </li></ul><ul><li>July 2008: BT announced further £1.5 billion investment in NGA </li></ul><ul><li>40 Mb/s to 10m homes by 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Cost to update entire UK: £25 billion </li></ul>
  40. 40. ISPs on infrastructure proportionality <ul><li>‘‘ They don’t have any fibre out there. They don’t have any wires. They use my lines for free – and that’s bull. For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!’’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre, 2006 </li></ul></ul>
  41. 41. Who to charge? <ul><li>Successful content providers? </li></ul><ul><li>Customers? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A lready been paying for years? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are ISPs even entitled to a cut of the revenue for a successful service like eBay, YouTube, Facebook, etc? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What impact will this have on new services? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What impact will this have on end-users? </li></ul></ul>
  42. 42. Irony? <ul><li>Pro-net neutrality = regulation </li></ul><ul><li>Anti-net neutrality = ISPs free reign </li></ul><ul><li>R e gulation usually stifles competition but in this case will it do the opposite? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The early Internet was largely unregulated </li></ul></ul>
  43. 43. F r om Digital Britain 2008 report: <ul><li>[ISPs] can take action to manage the flow of data … on their networks to retain levels of service to users or for other reasons. The concept of so-called ‘net neutrality’, requires those managing a network to refrain from taking action to manage traffic on that network. It also prevents giving to the delivery of any one service preference over the delivery of others . Net neutrality is sometimes cited by various parties in defence of internet freedom, innovation and consumer choice. The debate over possible legislation in pursuit of this goal has been stronger in the US than in the UK. </li></ul>
  44. 44. F r om Digital Britain 2008 report: <ul><li>Ofcom has in the past acknowledged the claims in the debate but have also acknowledged that ISPs might in future wish to offer guaranteed service levels to content providers in exchange for increased fees. In turn this could lead to differentiation of offers and promote investment in higher-speed access networks. Net neutrality regulation might prevent this sort of innovation . </li></ul>
  45. 45. F r om Digital Britain 2008 report: <ul><li>Ofcom has stated that provided consumers are properly informed, such new business models could be an important part of the investment case for Next Generation Access, provided consumers are properly informed. </li></ul><ul><li>On the same basis, the Government has yet to see a case for legislation in favour of net neutrality . In consequence, unless Ofcom find network operators or ISPs to have Significant Market Power and justify intervention on competition grounds, traffic management will not be prevented. </li></ul>
  46. 46. Questions <ul><li>Where does this debate lead to? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the implications of a two-tiered Internet? </li></ul>
  47. 47. Role play <ul><li>See role play handouts </li></ul>
  48. 48. Asides <ul><li>Google wants its own fast track on the Web </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html?mod=googlenews_wsj </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bloggers trash Journal’s tale of cyber queue-jumping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/21/blogging-google-wall-street-journal-murdoch </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The made-up drama’s of the Wall Street Journal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do we need a new Internet? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://futureoftheinternet.org/do-we-need-a-new-internet </li></ul></ul>

×