It is a Presentation On Net Neutrality...
CONTENTS:-
*What is Net Neutrality?
*Why Net Neutrality is important?
*Net Neutrality in India
*History
*TRAI rules in favor of Net Neutrality
*Why should we care?
-Sourav Dey
Mail ID: piyush.kolkata@gmail.com | piyush.kolkata@outlook.com
Mail me for the PPT version.
TRPC director Dr. John Ure's presented on "Preparing for tomorrow: Regulation in a data-drive connected world" at Session 2: "The changing rules of the game" at the Inaugural ICT Regulators' Leadership Retreat, that took place in Singapore from 18 to 20 March 2015, organized by the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) and the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA).
It is a Presentation On Net Neutrality...
CONTENTS:-
*What is Net Neutrality?
*Why Net Neutrality is important?
*Net Neutrality in India
*History
*TRAI rules in favor of Net Neutrality
*Why should we care?
-Sourav Dey
Mail ID: piyush.kolkata@gmail.com | piyush.kolkata@outlook.com
Mail me for the PPT version.
TRPC director Dr. John Ure's presented on "Preparing for tomorrow: Regulation in a data-drive connected world" at Session 2: "The changing rules of the game" at the Inaugural ICT Regulators' Leadership Retreat, that took place in Singapore from 18 to 20 March 2015, organized by the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) and the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA).
THIS IS AN ARTICLE PLEASE GIVE ANSWERS FOR THE QUESTIONS (THE PROBLE.pdfinfo824691
THIS IS AN ARTICLE PLEASE GIVE ANSWERS FOR THE QUESTIONS (THE
PROBLEM)
Closing Case Network Neutrality Wars
The explosive growth of streaming video and mobile technologies is creating bandwidth
problems over the Internet. The Internet was designed to transmit content such as e-mails and
Web pages. However, media items being transmitted across the Internet today, such as high-
definition movies, are vastly larger in size. To compound this problem, there are (in early 2015)
over 180 million smartphone users in the United States, many of whom use the Internet to stream
video content to their phones. The Internet bandwidth issue is as much about economics as it is
about technology. Currently, consumers can send 1-kilobyte e-mails or watch the latest 30-
gigabyte movie on their large-screen televisions for the same monthly broadband fee. Unlike the
system used for power and water bills where higher usage results in higher fees, monthly
broadband fees are not tied to consumer usage. A study from Juniper Networks
(www.juniper.net) highlights this “revenue-per-bit” problem. The report predicts that Internet
revenue for carriers such as AT&T (www.att.com) and Comcast (www.comcast.com) will grow
by 5 percent per year through 2020. At the same time, Internet traffic will increase by 27 percent
annually, meaning that carriers will have to increase their bandwidth investment by 20 percent
per year just to keep up with demand. Under this model, the carrier’s business models will face
pressures, because their total necessary investment will exceed revenue growth. Few industry
analysts expect carriers to stop investing in new capacity. Nevertheless, analysts agree that a
financial crunch is coming. As Internet traffic soars, analysts expect revenue per megabit to
decrease. These figures translate into a far lower return on investment (ROI). Although carriers
can find ways to increase their capacity, it will be difficult for them to reap any revenue benefits
from doing so. The heart of the problem is that, even if the technology is equal to the task of
transmitting huge amounts of data, no one is sure how to pay for these technologies. One
proposed solution is to eliminate network neutrality. (A POSSIBLE SOLUTION)Network
neutrality is an operating model under which Internet service providers (ISPs) must allow
customers equal access to content and applications, regardless of the source or nature of the
content. That is, Internet backbone carriers must treat all Web traffic equally, not charging
different rates by user, content, site, platform, or application. Telecommunications and cable
companies want to replace network neutrality with an arrangement in which they can charge
differentiated prices based on the amount of bandwidth consumed by the content that is being
delivered over the Internet. These companies believe that differentiated pricing is the most
equitable method by which they can finance the necessary investments in their network
infrastructures. .
All the q about net neutrality.1. Who is in favor of net neutralit.pdfakashborakhede
All the q about net neutrality.
1. Who is in favor of net neutrality? What reasons do they offer for this position?
2. What legal challenges are critics making against the FCC\'s rules? What three approaches are
they taking? Which is likely to succeed?
3. What affect could the FCC\'s decision have on the government, consumers, and various
internet-related companies? Are conditions expected to change drastically for any of these
groups?
Solution
1. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all
data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site,
platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. Nearly anyone
and any business not involved with the cable and phone companies supports keeping the Internet
as the open marketplace that it is today. Consumer groups, small businesses, innovators, family
and religious groups, financial services, retailers as well as major Internet brands such as Google,
Yahoo!, Amazon.com, Earthlink, eBay, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage are fighting to keep the
Internet open.
2.The FCC just voted in favor of a strong net neutrality rule to keep the Internet open and free.A
legal fight against the Federal Communications Commission\'s new Internet traffic rules has
begun with a suit by the United States Telecom Association, an industry group that represents
companies including AT&T and Verizon. The FCC is honing in on three areas of oversight: the
blocking of access to any content, the \'throttling\' of Internet traffic (slowing it down for reasons
other than what may be technically necessary to maintain a network\'s operations), and paid
prioritization (in which providers may favor some Internet traffic over others by creating \'fast
lanes\' for websites and services that can pay for them). One of the key legal arguments to expect
in the months to come, according to Werbach, is that the FCC previously said a company can
either be a telecommunications service or an information service, but not both. ISPs may argue
that they are elements of both and that the FCC must prove that they are not information
companies before it can reclassify them, says Werbach.
3.It will be a long time before anything materialises. Netflix won\'t stream any faster for you and
ISPs won\'t stop investing in their networks or high speed fiber cables as a result. Internet service
providers say they back the concept. But they don\'t want to face more, costly regulation and
claim it would hurt the economy.
Their argument is the internet has been progressing just fine the way it is currently set up, thanks
in parts to their expensive investments in network upgrades that have improved the quality of
high-speed service and expanded its availability.
More regulation will cost them more money - money they would otherwise spend on expanding
and improving their networks, they say. That would have the trickle-down effect of hurting
b.
CASE STUDY -1 BA 633 Information Systems Inf.docxhallettfaustina
CASE STUDY -1
BA 633: Information Systems Infrastructure.
Prof: Fred Rose.
NET NEUTRALITY
Anvesh Veldandi
Student no: 558046.
1. This case focuses on the Net Neutrality debate in the United States. Do some Internet research on international
views of Net Neutrality and summarize how views of this issue differ within and across other countries.
Network neutrality has been a contentious issue in the United States for several years, but is increasingly debated
elsewhere, with the EU, several European countries, and the Japanese government all examining the issue.
Net neutrality does not have a single, unanimously accepted definition even within, let alone across, countries.
Nevertheless, proponents of net neutrality generally believe that a structure in which the Internet’s intelligence lies
primarily at the edges of the network, with the edges connected by relatively “dumb pipes” is responsible for the
Internet’s diversity and innovation. They fear that without some regulation broadband providers may discriminate in
favor of their own or sponsored applications, or might degrade traffic to sites that do not pay for better quality of
service tiers.
Net neutrality debates in the U.S. have focused primarily on regulations regarding how broadband providers could
price and manage traffic on their networks. The debate in Europe, has generally focused instead on the role
unbundling mandatory network sharing can play in keeping networks neutral. Unbundling
proponents argue that if the infrastructure provider does not offer retail services or is only one of many retailers
offering service over its infrastructure it will have less incentive to discriminate in favor of or against particular
content. Unbundling opponents typically do not discuss it in the context of net neutrality, but note that it can reduce
incentives to invest in the underlying infrastructure. This paper first examines the net neutrality debate in countries
other than United States. It explores net neutrality in the U.K., France, Denmark, the Netherlands,
Germany, Sweden, South Korea, and Japan. Because net neutrality is another type of mandatory network sharing
and because unbundling is a key component of the EU’s general response to net neutrality, the second part of the
paper uses a new dataset to test empirically the effects of unbundling on investment in fiber-to-the-home.
The net neutrality debate began in other countries much later than it began in the U.S. Most European countries
embrace the general idea of net neutrality. While they address the issue differently, most have so far stated that
unbundling combined with rules governing firms with significant market power, rather than specific n ...
What may economists be concerned about in terms of information health?Toshiya Jitsuzumi
Presentation at the side event of GPAI summit 2022
Informational health is an experimental concept proposed by Prof. Toriumi of the University of Tokyo and Prof. Yamamoto of Keio University. Although a detailed definition has not yet been reached, it implies a state of being free from the negative effects of echo chambers and filter bubbles and have access to diverse and "neutral" information.
Acorn Recovery: Restore IT infra within minutesIP ServerOne
Introducing Acorn Recovery as a Service, a simple, fast, and secure managed disaster recovery (DRaaS) by IP ServerOne. A DR solution that helps restore your IT infra within minutes.
0x01 - Newton's Third Law: Static vs. Dynamic AbusersOWASP Beja
f you offer a service on the web, odds are that someone will abuse it. Be it an API, a SaaS, a PaaS, or even a static website, someone somewhere will try to figure out a way to use it to their own needs. In this talk we'll compare measures that are effective against static attackers and how to battle a dynamic attacker who adapts to your counter-measures.
About the Speaker
===============
Diogo Sousa, Engineering Manager @ Canonical
An opinionated individual with an interest in cryptography and its intersection with secure software development.
Sharpen existing tools or get a new toolbox? Contemporary cluster initiatives...Orkestra
UIIN Conference, Madrid, 27-29 May 2024
James Wilson, Orkestra and Deusto Business School
Emily Wise, Lund University
Madeline Smith, The Glasgow School of Art
Have you ever wondered how search works while visiting an e-commerce site, internal website, or searching through other types of online resources? Look no further than this informative session on the ways that taxonomies help end-users navigate the internet! Hear from taxonomists and other information professionals who have first-hand experience creating and working with taxonomies that aid in navigation, search, and discovery across a range of disciplines.
This presentation by Morris Kleiner (University of Minnesota), was made during the discussion “Competition and Regulation in Professions and Occupations” held at the Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 10 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/crps.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
5. Netflixによるeyeball-ISPの選別
Time Warner, net neutrality foes cry foul over Netflix Super HD demands (2013/1/18)
◦ Netflix recently said it will offer what it calls Super HD and 3D content—but only to customers whose Internet
service providers agree to use Netflix's "Open Connect" content delivery network.
T. JITSUZUMI@IGF 2021/10/28)
事前会合(
出典:https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/timewarner-net-neutrality-foes-cry-foul-netflix-requirements-for-super-hd/
Netflixは先日、スーパーHDや3Dと呼ばれる
コンテンツを提供すると発表しましたが、こ
れはNetflixのコンテンツ配信ネットワーク
「オープン・コネクト」の利用に同意したイ
ンターネットサービスプロバイダーの顧客に
限られます
6. eyeball-ISP側の主張が通ったケース
The Case Against ISP Tolls (NETFLIX, 2014/4/24)
Paid Peeringを強いられたケース
◦ Netflixは、コムキャストのネットワーク上での会員の映像体験が許
容できないほど低下していることを解消するため、コムキャストに
直接相互接続の対価を支払うことに合意
◦ Netflix agreed to pay Comcast for direct interconnection to reverse
an unacceptable decline in our members’video experience on the
Comcast network. These members were experiencing poor
streaming quality because Comcast allowed its links to Internet
transit providers likeLevel3, XO, Cogent and Tata to clog up, slowing
delivery of movies and TV shows to Netflix users.
T. JITSUZUMI@IGF 2021/10/28)
事前会合(
Source: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html
7. eyeball-ISP側の主張が通ったケース、但し相手もISP
France Telecom vs. Cogent (2012/9/20)
米国Cogent社の主張
◦ France Telecomが、Orange加入者へのアクセスのために
追加の技術的能力を開放する際に支払いを要求すること
で、トランジット事業者が使用するピアリングの枠組み
を侵害
フランス競争当局の決定
◦ 交換トラフィックの非対称性を考慮すると、このような
支払い要求はそれ自体が反競争的行為を構成するもので
はない。
◦ 問題を引き起こしていた要因の一つはCogentの顧客で
あったMegaUpload
T. JITSUZUMI@IGF 2021/10/28)
事前会合(
Photo by Hagen Hopkins
“Open Transit”
フランステレコムが提供して
いたIXサービスのブランド名
8. ISP側の主張が通ったケース?
SK broadband vs. Netflix(2021/6/25)
ソウル中央地裁の判決
◦ SK Broadband社が要求するネット利用料に関して交渉を行う義務が存在しないという点を否定
◦ 支払い義務自体について言及なし
T. JITSUZUMI@IGF 2021/10/28)
事前会合(
eyeball-ISP
クラウド
実際は無数のISPの集
合体
課金可能
課金交渉は可能
SK Broadbandが、Netflixに過去3年間使
用した帯域への支払いを要求。
韓国メディアによると、SK Broadbandは
ネットワークの利用に対して年間2300万
ドル(約25億5000万円)を請求する計画。