Network neutrality
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Network neutrality






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



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.

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

Network neutrality Network neutrality Presentation Transcript

  • IP traffic explosion andnetwork neutralityToshiya Jitsuzumi, Dr.Kyushu University
  • Moore’s Law a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware• Over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. • The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to Intel executive David House.• This trend has continued for more than half a century. Sources in 2005 expected it to continue until at least 2015 or 2020. (wikipedia) Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore
  • Increased traffic in the network 1,200 Nov. 2011 Nov. 2010 1,000 Nov. 2009 Nov. 2008 800 Nov. 2007Gbps 600 400 200 0 Source: MIC (2012)
  • Congestion in the core download upload
  • Degraded QoS 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Japan (Nov. 2009) 25.6% Japan (Jan. 2011) 27.2% Japan (Mar.-Apr. 2012) 24.0% US (2009, average) 51.3% US (2009. median) 44.3% UK (May 2010) 46.0% Australia (2008Q4) 65.5% Ireland (2008) 60.2% Source: Jitsuzumi (2013), FCC (2010), Ofcom(2010), and Epitiro (2009a, 2009b)
  • Basis of the problem Rich contents and applications Powerful servers ISPs’ core network Internet backbones Super fast access network Powerful terminal equipment
  • Framework of the NN problem Content Provider End users Application Provider Short-term solution Congestion control Monopoly leverage Unique business How to balance efficiency How to restrain the ISPs practices and equality? with market dominance? Internet Service Long-term solution Provider Low barrier Build an optimal capacity to entry How to determine the capacity? How to finance the investment? Natural Monopoly leverage monopoly High barriers How to discipline the market to entry power of network operators? Network Operator
  • Before introducing NN rules… Any competitive equilibrium or Walrasian equilibrium leads to a Pareto efficient allocation of resources. wnloadImage/38-17661-25817/bigstock-Competition- concept-5232812.jpg
  • Status quo of the ISP market 1 Japan U.S. BB ISP market ISP ISP ISP ISP Service -based Operators Service -basedBB access market Access Operators Wholesaler Facility-based Operators (cables) BB access line Facility-based Facility-basedwholesale market NTT-east/west Operators Operators (telco) Local Loop Unbundling Local Loop Unbundling (dry copper) (dark fiber, dry copper, and line-sharing) Structural Separation
  • Status quo of the ISP market 2 Estimated market share in Japan Estimated market share in the US BB ISP market 29.1% 3.8% 36.3% 44.2% Others OthersBB access market 49.1% 5.8% 36.7% 53.9% Other telcos Powercos BB access linewholesale market 78.6% 13.5% 43.6% 53.9% NTT Group RBOCs Cablecos 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cablecos Estimated market share Estimated market share Municipalities NTT group Power company Cables Other telcos Municipalities Others RBOC Cables Others
  • Status quo of the ISP market 3 1752.3yen NTT-ISP Telco-ISP 2050.0yen 4627.6yen 3683.0yen 3192.7yen 1314.1yen 3096.9yen 2874.2yen 2589.4yen 2088.4yen 4469.5yen 3535.8yen 3667.1yen 5009.6yen 2311.8yen Vender ISP Cable ISP 3427.7yen 4186.5yen 4050.9yen 3245.1yen 3067.3yen
  • Obstacles against the competitive solution 1• Supply side • No ISP can control the end-to-end QoE. • Positive externality of individual ISP’s effort • No central authority in the Internet backbone • No bilateral contractual obligation in interconnection • Impact of dynamic routing technology ISP ISP ISP Local Content Server ISP ISP The Internet ISP ISP ISP ISP
  • Obstacles against the competitive solution 2• Lack of market discipline from the consumer side • Insufficient QoE literacy among end users 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% FTTH, single home FTTH, apartment cable, over 100 Mbps cable, 35-100 Mbps cable, 20-35 Mbps cable, up to 20 Mbps ADSL, over 35 Mbps ADSL, 20-35 Mbps ADSL, up to 20 Mbps Download % self-estimation average As of Dec. 2010
  • For “effective” competition Advertised speed Price + ISP ranking Maximum speed achieved Average speed Jitters Latency Packet loss Down time