Qo E E2 E4 Net Neutrality Leo Van Audenhove


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Qo E E2 E4 Net Neutrality Leo Van Audenhove

  1. 1. Situating Net neutrality in its broader context Towards an analytical framework for the distribution of content on the Internet Leo Van Audenhove (IBBT-SMIT) Luciano Morganti (IBBT-SMIT) Net neutrality Net neutrality Refers to the use of technology in distribution of content Network management technologies g g Negative term Objecting to any interference in local/national networks Focused on single ISPs Internet end-to-end network Crossing networks Crossing national boundaries Use of technologies to shape the flow of content Related to the struggle of the distribution of content Element in control of value chains for online products and services Should be analyzed in a much broader framework. 2 1
  2. 2. Theoretical contributions Many of the works from legal field Lessig’s work on regulation - different forms of regulation Government, Markets, Social norms, ‘Code’ Software and architecture regulating ‘what’ can be done in cyberspace = network Work mainly focuses on copyright and DRM Zittrain similar argument at level of appliances and devices Many of the new devices are ‘closed’ devices iPhone, iPod, mobile phones, Game platforms, Tivo’s, etc. Zittrain argues that our access to the Internet might change from generative devices, devices such as computers to closed devices such as e g Nintendo Wii computers, e.g. Both authors argue that ‘generative’ end-to-end nature of internet might disappear Due to changing technology Due to changing laws supporting technology Due to market mechanisms 3 Building an analytical framework Definitions Start from a broad definition of governance Adhere to the conceptualization of ‘code’ as means of regulation code Analytical framework to systematize thinking How industry and governments starting to: 1.Use ‘code’ to exert control 2.Changing regulatory environments in support of use of ‘code’ Distinction in a layered model between: 1.Internet actors 2.Dimensions of control 3.Technologies of control 4.Regulation 4 2
  3. 3. Building an analytical framework Focus Distribution of content (audiovisual) End-to-end Server – first mile – cloud – last mile – device - user Looking at how technology is developed/used To control specific aspects of distribution To control specific aspects of access To control attention of the user Looking at how industry is using these technologies To protect current and new business models Looking at why government supports certain uses through regulation Main argument is That you have to look at the whole distribution chain That you have to look at interaction of technologies of control 5 Controlling distribution - Dimensions Time – Who can access what when? Space – Who can access what where? Speed – What contents can travel at what speed? Quality – What contents gets prioritized at what quality? Access – Who gets access to what under what conditions? Attention – Who sees what under what conditions? Are central dimension of control in distribution of content Developments in technology strengthen p p gy g possibility of control y 6 3
  4. 4. Control over time and space Questions idea of Internet as a global economic space Interest of the private sector Diversification of markets Windowing in audiovisual markets Licensing of content material in different markets Price differentiation According to purchasing power e.g. online g g gaming industry g y Different currencies E.g. iTunes has different offerings in different markets E.g. Audible restricts access due to rights issues E.g. many online VOD restricted to national markets 7 BBC iPlayer, Channel4D, Movielink Control over speed and quality Questions idea of Internet as ‘neutral’ platform Interest of the private sector Compete on b i of speed of d li C t basis f d f delivery Compete on basis of quality of service – video Compete on better ‘global’ presence Both at local level as on global level important E.g. CNN, BBC, etc. use overlay networks such as Akamai E.g. Google, Microsoft, etc. invest in own infrastructures close to ‘Western’ consumers E.g. blocking/narrowing of P2P by Viacom and BellCanada 8 4
  5. 5. Control over access and attention Questions internet as an ‘open/unmediated’ space Interest of private sector (positive) Competition on prime content Guide towards prime content Adapt offering according to taste and place E.g. research results of search/websites Interest of private sector (negative) Filter out illegal or unwanted content E.g. wikipedia blocks certain content related to child foto’s Interest of government Prohibition to access harmful content Hate speech, decency, etc. Political content 9 Technological means of control GeoIP ID Management Bank Card Information DRM CDN Content Delivering Networks Overlay networks Serverparks Peering Network management techniques Filtering/Identification Watermarking Fingering Deep packet inspection 10 5
  6. 6. Introducing a model 11 Video industry: control and instruments 12 6
  7. 7. ISPs: control and instruments 13 Control in the distribution chain 14 7
  8. 8. The model and regulation 15 Integration 16 8
  9. 9. Current discussions Identification – filtering – graduated response Geographic differentiation – multi territory licensing Net neutrality 17 Graduated response France ISP will monitor Internet traffic Enforcement overseen by new state agency HADOPI High Authority for Copyright Protection and Dissemination of Work son the Internet After three infringements thrown of of the network 18 9
  10. 10. Graduated response Applications France, will be implemented 2009 with enforcement UK, UK voluntary and no enforcement Italy considers following French example Japan, P2P solution under discussion South Korea, New Zeeland, Australia under discussion EU parliament voted against disconnecting infringers European Commission Creative Content Online questions to stakeholders Report will appear shortly 19 Graduated response UK Agreement between BPI and 6 biggest ISPs Content industry monitors illegal content on P2P ISP retains relation with costumer ISP not responsible for monitoring or policing BPI turns over IP address information to ISP ISPs duty to notify subscribers about infringement No enforcement foreseen yet-discussion with Ofcom yet discussion 20 10
  11. 11. Quid Filtering ? Content industry likely to keep pushing for filtering Raises lots of questions Puts policing role on ISP P li i l ISPs Puts costs at level of ISPs Apparently has negative effects on network Question whether technology ready Especially for video finger printing, hashing, watermarking, watermarking but quality not certain All other filtering technology (at level of firms, universities, homes) have serious flaws For whom? Hollywood, music majors, local industry, etc. 21 Geographical differentiation Content availability depends on national licensing systems Can be supported by geoIP identity management geoIP, Leads to diversification of markets Within Europe in conflict with single market idea Creative Content Online questions on multi-territory licencing 22 11
  12. 12. Conclusions Regulation Code (instruments) improve to control aspects of the Internet Legal environment is changing and will be different for video than for audio Slow globalization of copyright law - but stronger in centre Net neutrality discussion and outcome uncertain Possible stimulation of EU of European content platforms Copyright protection Possible move and push towards filtering Trade off between compliance and prime content Questions role of ISP as just carrier Brings regulation into muddy waters (many legal issues concerning privacy, role of ISPs, liability, etc.) Different legal systems and case law might result in different solutions in different countries 23 12