This document discusses network neutrality and quality of experience issues related to increasing internet traffic volumes. It notes that internet traffic has increased dramatically in recent years due to factors like faster access networks and more powerful devices. This increased traffic has led to network congestion issues. The document explores debates around how to ensure neutral treatment of all internet traffic and how costs of network upgrades should be allocated. It also examines the roles of government regulation versus market forces in addressing these challenges.

1. Network Neutrality and
Quality of Experience
Toshiya Jitsuzumi, Dr.
Kyushu University

2. 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

3. Faster access network
https://fiber.google.com/img/about/video-endframe-8-30.jpg
http://asia.cnet.com/images/speedtest/chart.gif
One year later

4. According to CISCO’s VNI
Consumer - Video
76392.7 PB
Consumer - File Sharing
8856.3 PB
Business – Web and other data
8316.6 PB
Consumer – Web and other data
13465.1 PB
Business - Video
12037.3 PB
http://www.ciscovni.com/

5. Increased traffic in the JPN network
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Gbps
Nov. 2004 Nov. 2005
Nov. 2006 Nov. 2007
Nov. 2008 Nov. 2009
Nov. 2010 Nov. 2011
Nov. 2012 Nov. 2013
http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/s-news/01kiban04_02000077.html

6. Congestion in the core
download
upload
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/4114774698_0e6c37e653.jpg

7. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Actual / Stated
Speed（％）
Average Actual Download Speed（Mbps）
Degraded QoS
JPN（Nov. 2009）
JPN（Nov. 2011）
JPN（May-Apr. 2012）
JPN（May 2013）
US（2009）
UK（May 2010）
Australia（2008Q4）
Ireland（2008）
Source: Akamai, Epitiro, FCC, Jitsuzumi (2013)

8. Basis of the problem
Rich contents and
applications
Super fast access network
Powerful terminal
equipment
ISPs’ core network
Internet backbones
Powerful servers

9. Framework of the NN problem
Congestion control
Build an optimal capacity
Monopoly leverage
Short-term solution
Long-term solution
How to balance efficiency
and equality?
How to determine the capacity?
How to finance the investment?
Low barrier
to entry
Unique business
practices
Natural
monopoly
High barriers
to entry
Monopoly leverage
How to discipline the market
power of network operators?
How to restrain the ISPs
with market dominance?
Internet
Service
Provider
Network Operator
End users
Content Provider
Application Provider

10. Before introducing NN rules…
http://communities.vmware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/do
wnloadImage/38-17661-25817/bigstock-Competition-
concept-5232812.jpg
Any competitive equilibrium or
Walrasian equilibrium leads to a
Pareto efficient allocation of
resources.

11. Status quo of the ISP market 1
BB access line
wholesale market
BB access market
BB ISP market
NTT-east/west
Access
Wholesaler
ISP
Service
-based
Operators
Facility-based
Operators
NTT-east/west
Structural Separation
Local Loop Unbundling
(dark fiber, dry copper, and line-sharing)
ISP
Facility-based
Operators
(telco)
Service
-based
Operators
ISP
Facility-based
Operators
(cables)
ISP
Local Loop Unbundling (dry copper)
U.S.Japan

12. 78.6%
49.1%
29.1%
13.5%
5.8%
3.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Estimated market share
NTT group Power company Cables
Other telcos Municipalities Others
BB access line
wholesale market
BB access market
BB ISP market
NTT Group
Powercos
Other telcos
Cablecos
Others
Municipalities
Estimated market share in Japan
43.6%
36.7%
36.3%
53.9%
53.9%
44.2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Estimated market share
RBOC Cables Others
Estimated market share in the US
RBOCs Cablecos
Others
Status quo of the ISP market 2

13. Net Neutrality “Cases” in the US
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/41101.html
Madison River Communication Case (2005)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/#.UupRsPl_t8E
Comcast Case (2007)

14. The Internet Policy Statement (Aug. 5, 2005)
to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and
accessible to all consumers, the Commission adopts the following principles:
1. To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the
open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are
entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
2. To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the
open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are
entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject
to the needs of law enforcement.
3. To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the
open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are
entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the
network.
4. To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the
open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are
entitled to competition among network providers, application and
service providers, and content providers.

15. FCC Order on Comcast (Aug. 1, 2008)

16. Comcast Corp. v. FCC (Apr. 6, 2010)
United States Court of
Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated a 2008
order issued by the FCC that
asserted jurisdiction over
Comcast's network
management policies and
censured Comcast from
interfering with its subscribers'
use of peer-to-peer software.

17. Open Internet Order (Dec. 21, 2010)

18. Open Internet Order
Transparency.
• Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network
management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and
conditions of their broadband services
No blocking.
• Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications,
services, or non-harmful devices.
• Mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block
applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.
No unreasonable discrimination.
• Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in
transmitting lawful network traffic.

19. Verizon v. FCC (Jan. 14, 2014)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit case vacated
portions of the FCC Open
Internet Order 2010 that the
court determined could only be
applied to common carriers.
Of the three orders that make up
the FCC Open Internet Order
2010, two were vacated (no
blocking and no unreasonable
discrimination) and one was
upheld (transparency).

20. A new trend in the market

21. A new trend in the market
A Comcast distribution center’s cables and routers, which send video
and more to customers.
CreditJoe Raedle/Getty Images

22. Result of peering agreement
http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/results/usa/graph?field_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Byear%5D=2012&field_date_value%5Bmin
%5D%5Bmonth%5D=2&field_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Byear%5D=2014&field_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bmonth%5D=7
COMCAST

23. A new trend in the market

24. A problem still remains.

25. http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth

26. “Strong” net neutrality?

27. A new order will come soon.

28. NPRM on May 15, 2014

30. Issues involved in the NN discussion
• What does “network neutrality” mean?
• Who should bear the cost of the Internet and how?
• How much capacity do we need to accommodate the demand
efficiently?
• How should we pick up the prioritized or dis-prioritized packets
during traffic congestion?
• How much a government should intervene? Or how much
we can trust the market dynamism?
• And how much the society can pay for the non-economic
value of the Internet?

31. Network Neutrality and
Quality of Experience
Toshiya Jitsuzumi, Dr.
Kyushu University