The document discusses developing an analytical framework for understanding how content is distributed on the internet. It examines how technologies, industry practices, and regulation can be used to control various dimensions of content distribution such as time, space, speed, quality, access, and attention. A multi-layer model is proposed to analyze actors, technologies of control, and forms of regulation across the distribution chain from servers to end users. Key issues discussed include geo-blocking, network management, and graduated response copyright enforcement policies.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Introducing a model
11
Video industry: control and instruments
12
6

7. ISPs: control and instruments
13
Control in the distribution chain
14
7

8. The model and regulation
15
Integration
16
8

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. 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. 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. 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