Net Neutrality Scott Jordan Department of Computer Science University - PDF document

2/28/2011 Net Neutrality Scott Jordan Department of Computer Science University of California, Irvine Quality of Service (QoS) more interactive less interactive telephone calls Internet radio web browsing email video conferencing Internet tv express mail express mail priority mail priority mail first class mail first class mail bulk mail bulk mail better performance worse performance 2 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 1

2/28/2011 Quality of Service (QoS): Only two ways to provide QoS: (1) Reserve some bandwidth for selected streams, and limit the traffic in this bandwidth segment.  Example ‐ toll lane (when toll depends on congestion to limit traffic) g ) (2) Give priority to some selected streams.  Example ‐ priority mail 3 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan Basis for QoS  the application, e.g. Cox decides which applications get low priority (in trial) pp g p y  the service provider, e.g. Cox VoIP subscribers’ packets get high priority  the source and/or destination, e.g. Comcast terminates selected connections from own subscribers to non ‐ Comcast subscribers (not anymore)  payment, e.g. ISP gives high priority to all of a subscriber’s VoIP packets if that option is purchased 4 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 2

2/28/2011 The wrong way: QoS based directly on application AT&T uses DPI & assigns priority to all VoIP packets R Verizon uses DPI & FCC FCC assigns priority to all assigns priority to all VoIP packets R G AT&T G R Verizon R G R Requires each ISP to do DPI (ugh). R Cenic Not what diffServ envisioned. G UCI R R 5 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan The wrong way: QoS purchased from each ISP on a route AT&T sells QoS to UCI R Verizon sells QoS to FCC FCC UCI R G AT&T G R Verizon R G R Requires an application provider to i li i id R R contract with multiple ISPs (ugh). Cenic G UCI R Not consistent with diffServ! R 6 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 3

2/28/2011 The right way: QoS purchased by subscriber and passed on via SLA AT&T honors priority if within subscriber agreement R Verizon honors priority p y FCC FCC assigned by AT&T if part of R G Service Level Agreement AT&T G R Verizon R Subscriber marks packet priority, e.g. to VoIP G Diff Differentiation, not Discrimination! ti ti t Di i i ti ! R R QoS available to all apps. Cenic G UCI R QoS available end ‐ to ‐ end. R This is the diffServ architecture! 7 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan The right way: QoS purchased by subscriber and passed on via SLA R FCC FCC R G AT&T G R Verizon R QoS offerings & G prices i R R Cenic subscriber ISP G UCI R R QoS selection 8 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 4

2/28/2011 Pro Net Neutrality Application Providers  e.g. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo, …  want to be able to access QoS  worried that ISPs will only use QoS for themselves  worried that ISPs will offer exclusive QoS deals  worried that QoS will not be available end to end  worried that QoS will not be available end ‐ to ‐ end  are willing to pay for QoS  but only to their own ISP  not to terminating ISP 9 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan Pro Net Neutrality Public Interest Groups  e.g. Free Press, Public Knowledge, CDT, …  want a prohibition on blocking  want to be able to access QoS  some used to be opposed to QoS  now want nondiscriminatory access to QoS y  mixed opinions about paying for QoS  usually ok with consumers paying  usually not ok with application providers paying 10 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 5

2/28/2011 Anti Net Neutrality Internet Service Providers  e.g. AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Comcast, Time Warner  using QoS for their own services  aren’t yet thinking about selling QoS  aren’t yet thinking about end ‐ to ‐ end QoS  opposed to new law/regulation  don’t want to be forced to offer QoS d ’ b f d ff Q S  want exemption for “specialized services”  want exemption for “wireless networks”  if offer QoS, don’t want regulation on exclusiveness or price 11 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan FCC Open Internet Order  Scope  Transparency  Blocking  Discrimination  Wireless  Specialized Services 12 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 6

2/28/2011 Broadband Internet Access Service  only applies to providers of mass ‐ market retail service to/from substantially all Internet endpoints  thus may exclude campus networks  but may include the ISPs of universities 13 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan Transparency  requires disclosure by ISPs of  network management practices, performance, terms of service  to consumers & to application & device providers  including congestion control, blocking, device attachment, pricing, privacy, security , p g, p y, y  not including detailed spam or security info 14 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 7

2/28/2011 Blocking on Fixed Internet Access  prohibits blocking of lawful content, applications, or non ‐ harmful devices:  blocking based on political speech  blocking based on source or destination  charging for delivery  except “reasonable network management”: except reasonable network management :  blocking for network security (e.g. DoS)  anything controlled by the end ‐ user, including spam & parental controls 15 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan Discrimination on Fixed Internet Access  prohibits unreasonable discrimination:  application ‐ based congestion control or QoS, if anti ‐ competitive  payment for QoS by remote application providers  QoS exclusively for an ISP’s own applications (but see “specialized services” later …)  except “reasonable network management”:  except reasonable network management :  anything controlled by the end ‐ user, including tiering, QoS, usage ‐ based pricing  application ‐ agnostic congestion control 16 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 8

2/28/2011 Mobile Internet Access  prohibits  blocking of lawful websites  blocking of competing voice/video applications  does not prohibit  blocking of other applications  blocking of non ‐ harmful devices  blocking of non ‐ harmful devices  unreasonable discrimination 17 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan Specialized Services  What are they?  not “broadband Internet access service”  including VoIP, video/IP  may include many other IP ‐ based services  Not regulated  but will be “monitored”  but will be monitored … 18 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 9

2/28/2011 Current Status  Courts  FCC’s legal authority to be litigated  Congress  attempts to blocking implementation  attempts to strengthen rules 19 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan Convergence Telephone network Cell phone networks Internet Everything ‐ Over ‐ IP Internet Cable tv networks 20 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 10

2/28/2011 Fixed versus mobile  Different expectations of blocking and discrimination  on smart phone versus desktop computer?  on smart phone on 3G versus on Wi ‐ Fi? 21 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan Specialized Services Netflix Skype gaming Vonage Video U ‐ verse Hulu conferencing video QoS 22 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 11

2/28/2011 End ‐ to ‐ end QoS AT&T assigns priority only to specialized services R FCC R G AT&T G R Verizon R G G R R Cenic G UCI R R 23 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan A proposal … If an ISP uses QoS for its own applications … … then it shall make QoS available without unreasonable discrimination … … to subscribers (both residential and business) … … and to other ISPs. and to other ISPs  Apply to both fixed & mobile  Don’t define “Specialized Services” 24 Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 12