Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions to the Network Neutrality DebateSolutions to the Network Neutrality Debate

A Presentation at theA Presentation at the

2007 Annual Conference of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Association for Education in Journalism Association for Education in Journalism

and Mass Communications and Mass Communications Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. August 10, 2007 August 10, 2007

Rob Frieden, Professor of TelecommunicationsRob Frieden, Professor of TelecommunicationsPenn State UniversityPenn State University

rmf5@psu.edurmf5@psu.eduWeb site Web site : : http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/m/rmf5/http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/m/rmf5/

Blog site: Blog site: http://telefrieden.blogspot.com/http://telefrieden.blogspot.com/

2

Goals of the PaperGoals of the Paper

Identify the real access issues resulting from the Internet’s third major Identify the real access issues resulting from the Internet’s third major evolution. evolution.

Refute the claim that no problems have or will arise, but also that any type Refute the claim that no problems have or will arise, but also that any type of discrimination will ruin the Internet.of discrimination will ruin the Internet.

Explain how “better than best efforts” packet routing can offer an Explain how “better than best efforts” packet routing can offer an worthwhile value proposition and enhancement of legacy routing worthwhile value proposition and enhancement of legacy routing arrangements.arrangements.

But also identify scenarios where discriminatory and unlawful practices But also identify scenarios where discriminatory and unlawful practices violate fair trade, antitrust and other laws.violate fair trade, antitrust and other laws.

Propose ISP reporting requirements as a transparent way to differentiate Propose ISP reporting requirements as a transparent way to differentiate real vs. artificial network congestion.real vs. artificial network congestion.

3

4

How does this threat to Internet freedom affect you? Small businesses—The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete. Innovators with the next big idea—Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for the top spots on the Web. Bloggers—Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips—silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets. Google users—Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee another search engine opens faster than Google on your computer. Ipod listeners—A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service it owns. Online shoppers—Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices—distorting your choices as a consumer. Telecommuters—When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office. Parents and retirees—Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc. Political groups—Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their Web sites and online features to work correctly. Nonprofits—A charity's website could open at snail-like speeds, and online contributions could grind to a halt if nonprofits don't pay Internet providers for access to "the fast lane."

What They've Got Planned

The threat to an open internet isn't just speculation -- we've seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. These companies, even, have said as much about their plans to discriminate online.

Ed Whitacre of AT&T told BusinessWeek in late 2005:

Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

It's Already Happening

Such corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:

In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a

contentious labor dispute. Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone

services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace. In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they'll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.

5

Internet 3.0’s Challenges and Internet 3.0’s Challenges and OpportunitiesOpportunities

The Internet has evolved from a government incubated, specialized network into a The Internet has evolved from a government incubated, specialized network into a commercialized “network of networks.”commercialized “network of networks.”

To achieve greater market penetration, service diversification and greater commercial success To achieve greater market penetration, service diversification and greater commercial success the 3the 3rdrd generation Internet must have widespread broadband access. generation Internet must have widespread broadband access.

Tier-1 Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), largely owned by incumbent telephone companies, Tier-1 Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), largely owned by incumbent telephone companies, need to make sizeable facilities upgrades to support IPTV and other bandwidth intensive need to make sizeable facilities upgrades to support IPTV and other bandwidth intensive applications.applications.

ISPs consider pricing and Quality of Service (“QOS”) discrimination/diversification as the ISPs consider pricing and Quality of Service (“QOS”) discrimination/diversification as the best way to recoup infrastructure costs and generate greater profit. best way to recoup infrastructure costs and generate greater profit.

Internet 3.0 will not have a single, “one size fits all” pricing and “best efforts” QOS.Internet 3.0 will not have a single, “one size fits all” pricing and “best efforts” QOS.

The challenge lies in supporting diversification, including “better than best efforts” routing The challenge lies in supporting diversification, including “better than best efforts” routing options, without adversely impacting the Web’s accessibility, competitiveness, synergies and options, without adversely impacting the Web’s accessibility, competitiveness, synergies and serendipity. serendipity.

6

Explaining the Concepts—Explaining the Concepts—Network NeutralityNetwork Neutrality

Advocates for network neutrality have identified threats, scenarios and some instances where Advocates for network neutrality have identified threats, scenarios and some instances where an ISP has blocked, delayed, or otherwise thwarted the delivery of specific bitstreams. an ISP has blocked, delayed, or otherwise thwarted the delivery of specific bitstreams.

Net neutrality advocates want to convert “aspirational” views of a democratic and Net neutrality advocates want to convert “aspirational” views of a democratic and nondiscriminatory Internet into enforceable rules that would restrict ISP flexibility in terms of nondiscriminatory Internet into enforceable rules that would restrict ISP flexibility in terms of pricing, service quality and offerings.pricing, service quality and offerings.

Advocates for net neutrality believe this principle should apply to all traffic routing Advocates for net neutrality believe this principle should apply to all traffic routing arrangements, especially where content providers can secure delivery without direct payment arrangements, especially where content providers can secure delivery without direct payment to each participating carrier, e.g., Google pays for the an extensive and geographically diverse to each participating carrier, e.g., Google pays for the an extensive and geographically diverse web presence, but benefits from the “peering agreements” its paid carriers have with other web presence, but benefits from the “peering agreements” its paid carriers have with other ISPs for content delivery to users of ISPs networks for which Google makes no direct ISPs for content delivery to users of ISPs networks for which Google makes no direct payment.payment.

Net neutrality advocates believe that the Internet has contributed to national productivity, Net neutrality advocates believe that the Internet has contributed to national productivity, economic opportunity and innovation in light of “best efforts,” end-to-end connectivity.economic opportunity and innovation in light of “best efforts,” end-to-end connectivity.

7

Explaining the Concepts—Explaining the Concepts—Network FlexibilityNetwork Flexibility

Advocates for network flexibility reject constraints on their ability to price Advocates for network flexibility reject constraints on their ability to price discriminate and recoup sizeable investment in broadband infrastructure. discriminate and recoup sizeable investment in broadband infrastructure.

They view net neutrality as thwarting competition and creating They view net neutrality as thwarting competition and creating disincentives to invest in NGNs.disincentives to invest in NGNs.

Advocates for net flexibility note that ISPs do not operate as common Advocates for net flexibility note that ISPs do not operate as common carriers and qualify for an “information services” deregulatory “safe carriers and qualify for an “information services” deregulatory “safe harbor.”harbor.”

As information service providers, ISPs have flexibly negotiated As information service providers, ISPs have flexibly negotiated interconnection arrangements without evidence that any ISP or user group interconnection arrangements without evidence that any ISP or user group has faced concerted refusals to deal boycotts, or and other anticompetitive has faced concerted refusals to deal boycotts, or and other anticompetitive practices. practices.

8

Telephony

Cost Causation

The caller usually triggers a complete end-to-end network setup using facilities provided by the originating carrier and other carriers secured by the originating carrier.

Traffic measurement and tracking

Metering and tracking likely.

Parties

Agree on a multilateral basis to divide cost and share toll revenues based on ITU Recommended model.

Internet

Cost Causation

Traffic types and routing vary making it difficult to use traffic flows for determining who should pay; conduit and content merge.

Traffic measurement and tracking

Possible, but does not necessarily indicate which party initiated the link and who benefits. Upstream and downstream flows often asymmetrical.

Parties

A connectionless protocol where many carriers may be involved in switching and routing packets on “best efforts”model; evolved from zero cost peering to a commercial hierarchy of peers and clients.

Telephony and Internet Models

9

User3

Carrier A

Collectsrevenues

Collectstraffic

Carrier B

Receives half AR

Terminatestraffic

User 1 User 2 User 1 User 2 User 3

Traditional Telephone Access Arrangement

Carriers interconnect networks with the expectation of compensation for carrying and delivering traffic generated by another carrier.

10

ISP A

ExchangesTraffic with other ISPs

ISP B

Collectsrevenues

Requestsand terminatestraffic

One-way (thick pipe)

User 1 User 2 User 3

Large ISP A “peers” on a 0 cost basis with other large ISPs, but charges ISP B for access

Small ISP B has to pay for access to ISP A’s network and peering access to other networks

Two-way (thin pipe)

Web 1 Web 1 Web 1

Internet Access

11

What Network Neutrality What Network Neutrality Advocates WantAdvocates Want

Network Neutrality advocates want to preserve the status quo where ISPs Network Neutrality advocates want to preserve the status quo where ISPs offer nondiscriminatory “best efforts” routing and reciprocal carriage offer nondiscriminatory “best efforts” routing and reciprocal carriage agreements from other ISPs information service providers.agreements from other ISPs information service providers.

They like “All You Can Eat” service options, but do not fully recognize the They like “All You Can Eat” service options, but do not fully recognize the different costs in serving “power users” (gamers, P2P networkers).different costs in serving “power users” (gamers, P2P networkers).

““Nethead” philosophy about the Internet emphasizes lofty notions about Nethead” philosophy about the Internet emphasizes lofty notions about ubiquitous access with less emphasis on cost recovery and analysis of cost ubiquitous access with less emphasis on cost recovery and analysis of cost causation.causation.

Netheads favor zero payment Sender Keep All/Bill and Keep “peering.”Netheads favor zero payment Sender Keep All/Bill and Keep “peering.”

12

What Network Neutrality What Network Neutrality Opponents WantOpponents Want

Because the major telecoms carriers own the major ISPs, a Bellhead Because the major telecoms carriers own the major ISPs, a Bellhead management and telecoms cost recovery template predominates.management and telecoms cost recovery template predominates.

The telecom template has a route specific focus with comprehensive route The telecom template has a route specific focus with comprehensive route tracking, usage metering and cost accounting. tracking, usage metering and cost accounting.

Until recently Internet metering costs exceeded the benefits, and Until recently Internet metering costs exceeded the benefits, and “tunneling” a complete end-to-end link was technologically difficult. Now “tunneling” a complete end-to-end link was technologically difficult. Now both are doable, often accruing consumer benefits, e.g., March Madness both are doable, often accruing consumer benefits, e.g., March Madness real time streaming of tournament games to over 100,000 simultaneous real time streaming of tournament games to over 100,000 simultaneous viewers.viewers.

Network neutrality perceived as a constraint on price/QOS discrimination, Network neutrality perceived as a constraint on price/QOS discrimination, harmful government oversight and a confiscation of private propertyharmful government oversight and a confiscation of private property

13

Calibrating ISP Rights and Calibrating ISP Rights and Responsibilities Responsibilities

Justified ApprehensionJustified Apprehension: Just as Enron employees found ways to create artificial congestion of : Just as Enron employees found ways to create artificial congestion of electricity flows, ISPs have the capability and incentive to discriminate against a specific type electricity flows, ISPs have the capability and incentive to discriminate against a specific type of bitstream or generator of a bitstream without an operational justification. This includes of bitstream or generator of a bitstream without an operational justification. This includes blocking ports and “sniffing” bits to identify and block, delay or drop certain types of traffic, blocking ports and “sniffing” bits to identify and block, delay or drop certain types of traffic, e.g., a competitor’s VoIP traffic.e.g., a competitor’s VoIP traffic.

ISPs can and should drop bits and deny service based on congestion and the inability to route ISPs can and should drop bits and deny service based on congestion and the inability to route bits. Net bias occurs when an ISP denies access even though ample capacity to switch and bits. Net bias occurs when an ISP denies access even though ample capacity to switch and route the traffic exists. Net bias may not always violate contractual terms, because no contract route the traffic exists. Net bias may not always violate contractual terms, because no contract may apply to participating upstream and downstream ISPs.may apply to participating upstream and downstream ISPs.

ISPs can and should offer end users different bandwidth and throughput speeds as well as ISPs can and should offer end users different bandwidth and throughput speeds as well as different interconnection and access arrangements both upstream and downstream. different interconnection and access arrangements both upstream and downstream.

Net bias occurs when an ISP deliberately degrades service, drops packets and otherwise tries Net bias occurs when an ISP deliberately degrades service, drops packets and otherwise tries to punish a specific ISP or content source. to punish a specific ISP or content source.

Unjustified ApprehensionUnjustified Apprehension Net bias does not include services differentiation based on Net bias does not include services differentiation based on bandwidth, throughput, QOS, etc.bandwidth, throughput, QOS, etc.

14

Net Bias Versus Reasonable Price and Service Net Bias Versus Reasonable Price and Service DiscriminationDiscrimination

Impermissible Net BiasImpermissible Net Bias

Deliberate Packet LossDeliberate Packet Loss

Creating (Enron-like) Artificial CongestionCreating (Enron-like) Artificial Congestion

Targeting Large Volume ContentTargeting Large Volume ContentGenerators for Punishment or ExtortionGenerators for Punishment or Extortion

Most Types of Port Blocking (but not to control Most Types of Port Blocking (but not to control spam and denial of service attacks)spam and denial of service attacks)

Unilaterally Imposing Upstream and Downstream Unilaterally Imposing Upstream and Downstream Rules That Violate Existing Service Level Rules That Violate Existing Service Level AgreementsAgreements

Affiliate Favoritism That Violates service level Affiliate Favoritism That Violates service level agreements , Fair Trade and Antitrust Laws agreements , Fair Trade and Antitrust Laws

Fees for Overriding Firewalls and FiltersFees for Overriding Firewalls and Filters

Permissible Network BiasPermissible Network Bias

Variable Bandwidth and ThroughputVariable Bandwidth and Throughput

Bandwidth PartitioningBandwidth Partitioning

Metered ServiceMetered Service

Better Than Best Efforts RoutingBetter Than Best Efforts Routing

Akamai-type Enhanced Traffic Routing and Akamai-type Enhanced Traffic Routing and ManagementManagement

Special or Exclusive Content DealsSpecial or Exclusive Content Deals

15

A Call for Best PracticesA Call for Best Practices

Network flexibility in pricing, service provisioning and quality of service options can make Network flexibility in pricing, service provisioning and quality of service options can make economic sense.economic sense.

However deliberate blocking or degrading traffic does not. ISPs should agree not to drop However deliberate blocking or degrading traffic does not. ISPs should agree not to drop packets and create congestion when actual traffic conditions do not necessitate such action.packets and create congestion when actual traffic conditions do not necessitate such action.

ISPs should be able to partition bandwidth and offer downstream end users and upstream ISPs ISPs should be able to partition bandwidth and offer downstream end users and upstream ISPs different levels of bandwidth and QOS. However these options should be available to any user different levels of bandwidth and QOS. However these options should be available to any user without retaliation and targeted degradation of service for refusing to pay for premium without retaliation and targeted degradation of service for refusing to pay for premium services.services.

Better than best efforts is not a contradiction, but existing interconnection and Service Level Better than best efforts is not a contradiction, but existing interconnection and Service Level Agreements may restrict this option as might competition laws.Agreements may restrict this option as might competition laws.

ISPs should fully disclose terms and conditions. Requiring transparency does not foreclose net ISPs should fully disclose terms and conditions. Requiring transparency does not foreclose net flexibility.flexibility.

The FCC should assert its ample “ancillary jurisdiction” to require ISPs to compile reports The FCC should assert its ample “ancillary jurisdiction” to require ISPs to compile reports about network usage and congestion. about network usage and congestion.