Jordan, Scott. Network neutrality proposal. 16 February 2011
From Driscollwiki
Scott Jordon
- Feb 16, 2011
Contents |
QoS
- Prioritization
QoS paradigms
- Application
QoS implementation
- Priority is numerically marked in the packet header
QoS by application
- Requires Deep Packet Inspection (DPI)
- Not the way the internet is imagined, standards are built
QoS by payment
Originally the central complaint of Google and others
- Requires individual contracts with countless ISPs
QoS by subscriber payment via Service Level Agreement (SLA) ("The right way")
Tier 2 + 1 providers honor the SLA of a subscriber and ISP
Differentiation, not discrimination
- QoS available to all apps
- QoS available end-to-end
- "diffServ architecture"
Subscriber and ISP negotiate QoS offerings and prices
- "Tiered service" with additional fees
Problems
Significant problems in terminology and technical definitions
Wireless networks
- FCC exempted mobile (not all wireless) broadband internet access from many regulations
- Fixed wireless treated like landline
- Still wrestling with it
Emphasis on user expectations
- That moving between different networks should be seamless
- Is this a reasonable assumption?
Specialized services
- Telecomms offer many services that "users don't think of" as internet
- FCC may exempt "specialized services" from many regulations
- What are "specialized services"?
- What is the "internet"?
Does the internet resist definition?
Wireless networks
Does wireless merit a different definition of Network Neutrality?
- Should you be able to run any app you want on your smartphone?
Is "reasonable network management" different for wireless?
- Is there a "basic air interface" (internet by tap?)?
Jordan's bias & goal:
- Focus on tech (over econ and law)
- Level playing field between ISPs and application providers
- Does NOT maximize social welfare, for example
How are wireless nets different?
Brief review of networking stack
- Content (OSI layer 7)
- Applications (5-7)
- TCP (4 transport)
- IP (3 network, routing)
- LAN-link (1 physical, 2 data)
Layers 4-7 are the same for wireless
- Applications shift, fewer voice calls more data
Wireless incurs a lot of addition tech challenges
- Noise, interference, multipath, freq allocation, propagation, etc.
- These problems exist in wireline but they are predictable
- In wireless, it is considerably more random
Status quo
- More prioritization of voice
Layer 1 and 2 are expensive
- Infrastructure
- Spectrum
How does this affect NN?
Proponents (e.g. Tim Wu article)
- Right to use any applications
- (Can you tether? Can you use Skype?)
- How do you apply to "internet" but not calls?
- How d you define "harmful interference"?
Opponents
- Sufficient competition will solve these problems
- Shouldn't competition lead to more freedom instead of less?
Proposed wireless NN: Reclassification
Conventional distinguishing of data services (somewhat maps on OSI layers)
- Information services (OSI 4-7)
- Communications services (OSI 1-3)
New classification
"Communication services"
- Over a network that uses a public right of way
- That reside at or below the network layer or are required to manage the network
"Information services"
- Everything else (applications, transport, etc.)
"Reasonable traffic management"
Common sense is that RTM happens in layers 1-3
- It's ok to treat wireless differently from wireline
What's possible?
- Tiering
- Monthly caps
"Reasonable network management"
Common sense says these are bad:
- Prioritizing my VoIP/streaming video over Skype/Netflix
Proposed FCC rule
"If an ISP uses QoS in communication services to support its own information services, then it should be required to offer this QoS to subscribers (both residential & application providers), peering ISPs without unreasonable discrimination"
- Sticking point is level-playing field, "unreasonable discrimination"
- Can't charge different prices to different companies
- Tough to manage, monitor, regulate
Useful acceptable analogy?
- Media, Bulk, First Class mail: menu of options, customers chooses categories
- Second-degree price discrimination
- Most common in common carrier scenarios
Why this isn't so bad:
Not requiring unbundling
- Only concerned with the interface between TCP (layer 4) and IP (layer 3)
Specialized services problem
In addition to "internet", telecomms offer:
- Telemedicine
- U-verse video, u-verse voice
- Video conferencing
- Distance education
- Gaming
- Public safety
Tech characteristics? They all require QoS
- Higher performance
- Lower tolerance for delay
- Demanding of bandwidth and response time
Challenge: Convergence:
- Internet == "everything-over-IP"
- So what makes these services "special"?
Which services may want QoS in the future?
- Skype, Hulu, Netflix, Vonage, games, etc.
- Can they transition into becoming a "specialized service"?
If "specialized services" are walled off, forecloses possibility for new entrants
- Rational economic decision is to not offer comparable QoS at any price
Jordan vision:
- QoS is available to everyone
- QoS is end-to-end
Bottom line: "Open interface"
Right to run applications
- Service providers cannot dictate which apps you can use
ISPs can ...
- Limit usage and charge for usage
- Charge for QoS
ISPs can't ...
- Restrict apps
- Restrict tethering
Discussion
Why is there discrimination on the app layer?
- Market segmentation: making extra cash off of texting (extremely low data, high cost)
- Laziness: didn't want to mess with contracts, limiting bittorrent traffic the easy way to ensure that people will have uninterrupted web browsing
- Contra conspiracy regarding competition with comcast TV service
In a neutral scenario, the products are commodities
- Money is made in content
Does this solution offer a "get out of jail free card"?
- Entrenched stakeholders can price out new players by offering expensive tariffs
- Will the "small guys be able to afford it"?
- Charges are per unit volume with no minimum
Changes over time
- From no prioritization ("all packets treated the same") to nuanced concern over "unreasonable network management")
- Entrenched players are concerned about losing their business models
VoIP providers put money into Universal Service Fund
- If they are reclassified as info service, they cease paying and USF goes bankrupt
- Clearly there is a need for a re-write
- For the meantime, they aren't going to reclassify VoIP
- Need for a new Communication Act?
Jump offs
- Basic air interface
