Upload
toshiya-jitsuzumi
View
190
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
From my lecture for NBTC at Bangkok
Citation preview
Network Neutrality and Quality of ExperienceToshiya Jitsuzumi, Dr.
Kyushu University
Moore’s Lawa 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
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
According to CISCO’s VNI
Consumer - Video76392.7 PB
Consumer - File Sharing8856.3 PB
Business – Web and other data8316.6 PB
Consumer – Web and other data13465.1 PB
Business - Video12037.3 PB
http://www.ciscovni.com/
Increased traffic in the JPN network1:
00~
3:
00~
5:
00~
7:
00~
9:
00~
11:
00~
13:
00~
15:
00~
17:
00~
19:
00~
21:
00~
23:
00~
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000 Nov. 2004 Nov. 2005
Nov. 2006 Nov. 2007
Nov. 2008 Nov. 2009
Nov. 2010 Nov. 2011
Nov. 2012 Nov. 2013
Gbps
http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/s-news/01kiban04_02000077.html
Congestion in the coredownload
upload
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/4114774698_0e6c37e653.jpg
2 4 6 8 10 12 140%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Average Actual Download Speed( Mbps)
Actual / Stated Speed(%)
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)
Basis of the problem
Rich contents and applications
Super fast access network
Powerful terminal equipment
ISPs’ core networkInternet backbones
Powerful servers
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
Before introducing NN rules…
http://communities.vmware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadImage/38-17661-25817/bigstock-Competition-concept-5232812.jpg
Any competitive equilibrium or Walrasian equilibrium leads to a Pareto efficient allocation of resources.
Status quo of the ISP market 1
BB access line wholesale market
BB access market
BB ISP market
NTT-east/west
AccessWholesaler
ISP
Service-based
Operators
Facility-basedOperators
NTT-east/west
Structural Separation
Local Loop Unbundling(dark fiber, dry copper, and line-sharing)
ISP
Facility-basedOperators
(telco)
Service-based
Operators
ISP
Facility-basedOperators(cables)
ISP
Local Loop Unbundling (dry copper)
U.S.Japan
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
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)
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.
FCC Order on Comcast (Aug. 1, 2008)
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.
Open Internet Order (Dec. 21, 2010)
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.
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).
A new trend in the market
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
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
A new trend in the market
A problem still remains.
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth
“Strong” net neutrality?
A new order will come soon.
NPRM on May 15, 2014
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?
Network Neutrality and Quality of ExperienceToshiya Jitsuzumi, Dr.
Kyushu University