This document discusses the history of net neutrality debates and regulations. It provides background on how concerns about net neutrality began in the 1990s with mergers between cable and broadband companies. It also outlines some of the key issues in net neutrality debates, such as blocking, discrimination in quality of service, and charging practices by internet service providers. The document examines approaches to net neutrality regulation in different countries and regions over time. It raises outstanding questions about practices like zero rating and discusses the development of net neutrality laws and regulations internationally.

1. Net Neutrality: Free Basics
or the Global Internet?
@ChrisTMarsden
U.Sussex
CGI
13 October 2015
10/16/2015 1

2. March 2015: Sao Paolo
10/16/2015 2

3. Congratulations to CGI
on its twenty years
• Example to the world in
multistakeholderism
o Unlike UK ‘Broadband Stakeholder Group’
o which is corporate not multi!
• IGF November 10 appropriate event to
reflect on two decades’ work!
10/16/2015 3

4. 10/16/2015 4

5. Noam 1994: Common
Carriage
• Regretted & predicted end of common
carriage
• Information service Title I Communications Act
1934
• But the debate is much older…
o De Sola Pool (1983) Technologies of Freedom?
o Kingsbury Commitment (1913) AT&T universal service
o Gladstone (1844) Railways Act UK
• Common carriage is FRAND
o Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory treatment
o permits apples and oranges charges!
10/16/2015 5

6. 1993 – an innocent age
10/16/2015 6

7. Nineteen years ago: Wired
10/16/2015 7

8. • Mergers: cable TV and broadband
companies
• AT&T/MediaOne and AOL/TimeWarner
• Lessig and Lemley FCC submission:
o‘The end of End-to-End’
o(original May 1999, article 2001)
• Fear of abuse of freedom of expression
So net neutrality debate
began in the last millenium
10/16/2015 8

9. • Council of Europe Human Rights Commission
• Mass Media Directorate, Strasbourg, France
[1999] Pluralism in the Multi-Channel TV Market
o Suggestions for Regulatory Scrutiny
• MM-S-PL [99]12 Def2.
Net Neutrality
Worries in Europe?
10/16/2015 9

10. “AOL, WorldCom and other Internet companies
• urged authorities to bar cable operators striking
exclusive deals on high-speed Internet service
• ISPs want to be sure consumers will enjoy the
same open access to their services via cable
networks that they now have over phone lines
• AT&T 's planned acquisition of MediaOne
renewed the interest of regulators & Congress.”
24 May 1999: Section 5.1
10/16/2015 10

11. Me
10/16/2015 11

12. Structure of NN book
Net Neutrality a Debate about more than Economics
1. Net Neutrality – Content Discrimination
2. Quality of Service: A Policy Primer
3. Positive Discrimination and the ZettaFlood
4. ISP Filtering: NTD and Liability Exceptions
5. European Law and User Rights
6. Institutional Innovation: Co-regulatory Solutions
7. The Mobile Internet and Net Neutrality
8. Conclusion: Towards a Co-regulatory Solution?

13. The only other Brit who
cares about net neutrality
10/16/2015 13

14. What’s new about
21st Century net neutrality?
• THREAT MODEL EVOLVING
• Internet began as an open network
• Telecoms regulated by common carriage
• Rights of way/universal service/encryption
• Any discrimination amounts to interception?
• Formidable legal obstacles
o Interoperability + Interconnection
o Privacy + Interception
o Net neutrality law concerned with interception
10/16/2015 14

15. History encapsulated
• Claffy, KC, Clark, David D. (2015) Adding Enhanced
Services to the Internet: Lessons from History
o at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2587262
• RFC 2475 (1998) An Architecture for Differentiated
Services
• ACM (2003) Workshop on Revisiting IP QoS: Why do we
care, what have we learned? (RIPQOS)
o at http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2003/workshop/ripqos
10/16/2015 15

16. Recent Research into
Measuring Problem
• Gamero-Garrido, Alexander M., Characterizing
Performance of Residential Internet Connections Using
an Analysis of Measuring Broadband America’s Web
Browsing Test Data (July 6, 2015).
o Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2588256
• Peha, Jon (2015) Appropriate Rules for Managed or
Specialized Services, GN Docket No. 14-28, Before the
FCC In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the
Open Internet,
o 5 January at
www.ece.cmu.edu/~peha/Peha_managed_specialized_services.pdf
• Princeton Computer Science Department (2015)
Workshop on Tracking Quality of Experience in the
Internet, October 21-22, sponsored by National Science
Foundation and FCC
o at http://aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/conference/276#program
10/16/2015 16

17. Recent legal challenges to openness
Public
• Prevention of violent/child
pornography
o Self-regulation giving way to co-regulation
Prevention of terrorism/hate speech:
o Since 9/11
• Interception of communications
o Key escrow battles 1990s
o Post-Snowden 2013 onwards
Private
• Copyright violation: 3 strikes
• Behavioural advertising
o PHORM litigation UK v. EC
o what’s good for Google is good for ISPs?
10/16/2015 17

18. The problem in a graphic
10/16/2015 18

19. Discrimination and Net
Neutrality
Non Discriminatory regime
Blocking
Quality
(QOS discrimination)
Charging
(price discrimination)
10/16/2015 19

20. Telecoms law not just
competition law
• ISPs all engaged in practices?
o All discriminating against innovative users
o Block gamers and P2P file sharers in 2000-10
o Block videocalls (Skype) & services (NetFlix) 2005-
• Vertical integration discrimination?
o US Comcast (2008) Madison River (2005) cases
o FCC merger cases
• Inc. 2015 AT&T-DirecTV
• Inc. 1999 AOL-TimeWarner video IM
10/16/2015 20

21. One- Two- and Many-
Sided Markets
Su b scrib er
I SP
T h e In t ern et
T h e In t ern et
Su b scrib er
I SP
T h e In t ern et
T h e In t ern et
Onesided Two-sided n-sided
C ontent user
ISP
C ontent provider
C ontent user
ISP
C ontent provider
User
User
User
User
User User
ISP User
User
User
User
User User
ISP
10/16/2015 21

22. Market
capability
0
1
Time
Content demand
Network supply
Excess demand
Excess supply
Inflexion point
ADSL
512Kb/ s
Peer-to-peer music
ADSL2 and VDSL
8-50Mb/ s
FTTH
Peer-to-
peer video
Supply and Demand
Possibilities
10/16/2015 22

23. Cisco VNI
forecasts have
been very
accurate:
video not P2P
is issue

24. It’s not “net neutrality”
• It’s “the open Internet”
• Has been since 2010 in US & EU
• Rather like “not Internet.org”
• It’s been “Free Basics” 19 days…
10/16/2015 24

25. Why “open Internet”?
• It sounds less threatening
• No-one can object to openness?
• But alternative to net neutrality is:
• “Traffic Management”
oUnreasonable?
• “Discrimination”
10/16/2015 25

26. Politics of debate
• These may sound attractive to
economists or engineers
• Internet users do not like being
managed or discriminated against
• Or called the Taliban…
10/16/2015 26

28. Three wise monkeys of
net neutrality
‘We have received no complaints’ is NOT
‘I have not listened to any complaints’.
• Some regulators:
o Seeing no evil
o Hearing no evil
o Speaking no evil.
10/16/2015 28

29. There is the
occasional
moment of
accidental
clarity 10/16/2015 29

30. 10/16/2015 30

31. Ofcom: we have received
‘no formal complaints’
o BEREC (2010) Response to the European Commission’s consultation on
the open Internet and net neutrality in Europe, BoR (10)42
• Charlie Dunstone, Chairman, TalkTalk
o Ofcom International Conference, Nov 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.”
10/16/2015 31

32. “I’ve got 2 people that said
they’re going to kill me as a
result of not allowing them
to play certain games.”
10/16/2015 32

33. UK: throttling P2P and
gaming is fine by Ofcom
• UK regulator knew about net
neutrality violations
• It did not care.
• Broadband Stakeholder Group
organise “self regulation” Code of
Practice
• Completed only in 2014
10/16/2015 33

34. Health note: Net
neutrality is not the world
Net neutrality is important to ISPs
• Interconnection & offnet costs REALLY important
• Absent NN, chance to waste money
o BT Openwoe, Endemol, AOL-TW etc etc…
Even within NN policy:
• Developing, developed, LDCs specific
approaches
• One size doesn’t fit all, including inside EU
• Lumping every issue into one policy has limits:
o privacy, free expression, innovation policy feature elsewhere too….
10/16/2015 34

35. 10/16/2015 35

36. 10/16/2015 36

37. I examine enforcement of
transparency in TMP
• by governments and their agencies,
publication of key metrics,
• enforcement by regulators following
infringement actions where published.
• co-regulatory forums
o governments or regulators have partial private rather than
public diplomacy with ISPs
o notably in US, Norway & UK.
10/16/2015 37

38. Methods used in analysis
• Fieldwork 2003-2015
oBrazil, Chile,
oCanada, United States,
oNorway, Netherlands, Slovenia, UK
oEU FP7 EINS grant No.288021
oCouncil of Europe, OSCE, UN CEPAL
o No ISP or content provider has funded the project
since 2010, though each funded earlier stages
• Fundacion Telefonica 2010; BT 2007; others
10/16/2015 38

39. Compares
implementations
Critical analysis: reasons for ineffective regulation
• Proposes regulatory toolkit for jurisdictions
o intending effective practical implementation of
o some of the net neutrality proposals debated.
• Specific issues considered
o definitions for specialized services,
o the tolerance of zero rating practices, by mobile ISPs.
10/16/2015 39

40. Data assembled:
• Regulatory/legal/NGO/corporate press sources
• Very largely qualitative – I’m a lawyer and as Mao
said of the French Revolution……
• Empirical interviews conducted in-field with
o regulators, government officials,
o ISPs, content providers,
o academic experts, NGOs
o and other stakeholders from
• Chile, Brazil, United States, Canada, UK, Netherlands,
Slovenia, Norway.
10/16/2015 40

41. 3 outstanding questions
• What is happening with US zero rating?
o T-Mobile non-exclusive music streaming ok
o AT&T told to remove fixed Internet data caps
• Wikipedia zero rating legal in Chile
o No official declaration but correspondence
• Neutrality model laws?
o End-October battle over EU ConnectedContinent
o UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality
o Policy transfer – Brazil & India?
10/16/2015 41

42. Net neutrality laws
Country Legal Approach
Netherlands 15 May 2012 (S.7.4.a of Telecoms Law)
Chile Finland Universal access to ‘unfiltered’ Internet
USA Open Internet Order Sept 11 & Feb 15
Norway Co-regulation – 2009 agreement
Canada CRTC rules 2009 (implemented 2015)
Japan, UK Self-regulation unenforced
EC, BEREC,
France
ConnectedContinent Regulation (2016?),
papers, ARCEP ‘Ten Principles’
Brazil Regulating post-Marco Civil stage
10/16/2015 42

43. Defaulting to a neasurement
solution? SamKnows QoE
10/16/2015 43

44. Toolsets/lessons for
approach
Norway UK Netherlands US
Measurement Self-declared
with verification
Ofcom:
SamKnows
Consumers e.g.
Glasnost/Neubot
FCC: SamKnows
Technical
advice
Within co-
regulatory pact
Broadband
Stakeholder
Group co-
regulation
NRA – advising
ministry
BITAG and
OIAC
self/co-regulation
Legal
position
Co-regulation Not implemented
2009/136/EU
Implemented
2009/136/EU
Order 2010,
published Sept’11
– now Feb’15
Efficiency Very fast – first
mover
Very slow –
industry foot
dragging
Very fast – legislative
panic
Very slow – note
court delay
Lesson Act fast, get
stakeholder buy-
in
Death by 1000
cuts; deny-delay-
degrade;
significant
political damage
Mobile DPI and
blocking prompted
action – legislative
panic
Lack of
bipartisanship
causes trench
warfare
10/16/2015 44

45. Implementations
Nation Net neutrality policy Regulatory basis Major cases
Brazil Consultations 2015 Marco Civil 2014 Zero rating 2015
Chile Regulations of 2011 Law of 2010 Zero rating 2014
Norway Co-regulation 2009 Law of 2013 Zero rating 2014
Nl Regulations of 2013 Law of 2012 Zero rating 2015
Slovenia Law of 2012 Regulations of 2013 Zero rating 2015
Canada Telecom Act 1993 Hearing of 2010 Zero rating 2015
United
States
Open Internet Orders
2010, 2015
Title II, Telecoms Act
1996
Zero rating 2015
UK Code of Practice 2011 Self-regulatory & 2009
Directives
None to 2015
10/16/2015 45

46. Expert Reports EU/US
BEREC 2011-14 BITAG 2011-15 OIAC 2012-13
BoR (14) 117 Monitoring
quality of Internet access
services in the context of net
neutrality BEREC report
2014 Interconnection and
Traffic Exchange on the
Internet
August 20, 2013
Economic Impacts of Open
Internet Frameworks
2012 observations about net
neutrality for ETNO's
proposal to (ITU) WCIT
2014 VoIP Impairment, Failure,
and Restrictions
2013 Policy Issues in Data
Caps Usage-Based Pricing
2012 IP interconnection in the
context of NN
2013 Real-time Manage-ment
of Congestion
2013 Mobile Ecosystem: AT&T
FaceTime Case Study
2012 Competition issues in
the context of NN
Port Blocking 2013 2013 Specialized Services:
Summary of Findings
2012 Guidelines for Quality
of service in the scope of NN
SNMP DDoS Attacks 2013 August 20, 2013 Open Internet
Label Study
2011 – Framework for Quality
of service in NN
Large Scale Network Address
Translation 2012
January 17, 2013 Specialized
Services
2011 Guidelines for
Transparency in of NN
IPv6 DNS Whitelisting 2011 2013 Economic Impact Data
Cap
10/16/2015 46

47. FRAND as a solution –
keeps end user in charge
10/16/2015 47

48. How to be neutral
• BBC 2006:
• “Neutrality for us is not neutrality at all”
• “Public service websites must argue for
true neutrality”.
• Ridiculous to suggest anything else is a
remotely sustainable position:
o https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/net-
neutrality-towards-a-co-regulatory-solution/ch4-positive-
discrimination-and-the-zettaflood
10/16/2015 48

49. Wikimedia Foundation
2014
“We believe in net neutrality in America”
o “We have a complicated relationship to neutrality
• "Partnering with telcos in the near term,
• blurs the net neutrality line in those areas
• It fulfils our overall mission, though,
• which is providing free knowledge.”
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-
switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-
with-net-neutrality/
10/16/2015 49

50. 10/16/2015 50

51. 10/16/2015 51

52. Wikimedia mobile strategy: FBK
10/16/2015 52

53. 2011: Brazil example why zero
rating needed
10/16/2015 53

54. June 2011 ethnographic study:
Sao Paolo + Porto Alegre
10/16/2015 54

55. Mobiles want exclusivity
10/16/2015 55

56. Wikipedia Zero (2014)
59 nations; 67 operators
10/16/2015 56

57. Brazil going mobile
10/16/2015 57

58. Mobile tiny
proportion but
important
segment
10/16/2015 58

59. Sandvine CEO May 2015
• In Latin America,
• Facebook and Google:
• Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp,
• YouTube, Google Play
• control 60%+ of mobile network traffic
o http://www.lightreading.com/video/ott/why-netflix-traffic-keeps-soaring/d/d-
id/715984
10/16/2015 59

60. Dilma (in FBK hoodie) &
Zuck (in a suit)
10/16/2015 60

61. Internet.org
becomes Free Basics 24/9
10/16/2015 61

62. Is Facebook the Internet?
Some Brazilians think so?
10/16/2015 62

63. President Dilma & neutrality?
10/16/2015 63

64. Zuck: "Some may argue for an extreme
definition of net neutrality…”
• that it’s somehow wrong to offer any more
services to support the unconnected,
• but a reasonable definition of net neutrality
is more inclusive.
• Access equals opportunity.
• Net neutrality should not prevent access.“
o Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An
'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor from the new-AOL,-brought-
to-you-by-Mother-Teresa dept,
o Bode, Karl, Tech Dirt May 5th 2015
o https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150504/0834173088
5/tone-deaf-zuckerberg-declares-opposition-to-zero-rated-apps-extremist-
position-that-hurts-poor.shtml
10/16/2015 64

65. Claim 1: Internet access
can be subsidised
• “Nothing about opposing zero rating
prevents access"
• “nobody is stopping Facebook or
Internet.org
• funding discounted access
• to the real Internet.”
• So what is a reasonable position?
10/16/2015 65

66. Claim 2: Competition &
Dominance
• “Zuckerberg's basically cementing
• his company's gatekeeper authority over
• developing nations for generations to come
o under the bright banner of selfless altruism,
• then taking offense when told that
• these countries might just be better off with
• un-apertured, subsidized access to the real
Internet.”
10/16/2015 66

67. Principled solutions?
• Don’t blame Facebook, blame mobiles
• They want exclusive in-country deals
• If Wikipedia + FBK want zero rating:
• Claim [1] time limited – say 3 months
• Claim [2] NEVER exclusive
• FRAND terms (like specialized services)
10/16/2015 67

68. Net neutral nations ban
Zero rating
• Canada,
• Netherlands,
• Norway,
• Slovenia, Estonia,
• Japan,
• Finland
• Chile: http://historico.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-
neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralidad-y-redes-
sociales-gratis
10/16/2015 68

69. What’s the future of
net neutrality?
• From theory, legislation
and regulation
• To enforcement
10/16/2015 69

70. Network Neutrality
(2016)
• Sequel to 2010 book….
• Manchester University Press
o Paperback & CC licence
• Questions?
10/16/2015 70