Quinta's weblog in english

(five) Quinta's Net Neutrality principles

The Norvegian operators have agreed on how to deal with the issue of Network Neutrality and enumerated these three principles

1. Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection with a predefined capacity and quality.
2. Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that enables them to
     - send and receive content of their choice
     - use services and run applications of their choice
     - connect hardware and use software of their choice that do not harm the network.
3. Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address.

I think they are good, but I think they fail to fully capture some other important aspects, which I try to explain below.

Why there's an issue with Net Neutrality ?

We are discussing about Net Neutrality because all traffic is collapsing on one IP network and latency sensitive traffic needs to be protected by excessive resource usage; while latency sensitive traffic and IP best effort traffic traveled on separated networks, there was little issue (except clear anticompetitive behaviours) for traffic management. In those times the discrimination was total: "premium traffic" on one wire, best effort on the other.

I have seen many variations in the possible definition of Network Neutrality; there are many angles the issue can be looked at and, when you get into details, "net neutrality" tends to mean different things to different people.

Three classes of motivations for traffic management

IMHO, the three main possible reasons I see for traffic inspection and/or management over a network are

A) to review content flowing on the network in search of specific kind of traffic and take consequent actions
B) to manage traffic in order to optimize throughput of specific  applications
C) to manage traffic in order to favour applications provided by specific entities

Is content filtering useful ?

A) can include bans on specific contents issued by some authority, something that, if not supported by adequate guarantees in the legal system, could lead to censorhsip.
I am not going to argue about civil and political rights, which, IMHO,  are the most important reason why any citize should oppose content inspection; I'll try to focus on technology alone.
Inspections have always been carried to be at bottlenecks between state borders. If there's nothing to inspect because nothing is inspectable, the border does not exist anymore.
It is common to hear politicians asking if this technology can inspect traffic and technology providers argue that it does. First of all it's present kind of traffic and secondly it's the wrong question.
They should not ask if it works (indeed you can evaporate wter, it works!) but if it can be a mean for enforcement (you cannot solve tsunamis by evaporating water). The right question is "how difficult is to circumvent these filtering ?" and the answer is obviously, not at all.
We must understand that the growing power of electronic devices puts strong criptography into the hands of consumers and these technologies are unstoppable, thanks to electronics and furthermore are needed in order to ensure authentication of users, corporate VPN traffic, digital signatures, etc.
The side effect of these idea of content filtering is therefore that, if such practices were widespread, it would become an incentive for applications developers to build applications that put the power of strong criptography in the hands of the average Joe to "defend" themeselves, something that would cause the hiding of the traffic. An effect clearly against the interests of those who propose content filtering.

Network optimization and the users' point of view

B) can include prioritization of time-sensitive applications (such as internet telephony, videoconferencing, application sharing) or degradation of traffic which might be considered "harmful" for the network carrying it, such as peer to peer traffic. The level of management needed depends on the available capacity of the network as users compete for a limited, rival resource. If network capacity was larger than the sum of the capacity of the local loops connecting the users (e.g, if the capacity was not a rival resource), the management of traffic would be limited to the end user's local loop in order to ensure the grateful flowing of time-sensitive applications' data. As backhauling and core networks will increasingly rely on optical fibres and optoelecronics prices decline, the backbone will tend to be a nonrival resource and this kind of traffic management need will decline. Actually, the backbone capacity needs to be far less than the sum of the capaicites of the local loops, as there is a limit to the amount of traffic an endpoint can consume; this seems to be the case considering the slowdown of traffic growth in certain economies where fibre networks are widespread.  

(B1) Operators tend to think of network management as a way to save them costs, rather than as a service to the users. In this way, they look at traffic management as something they decide and enact that customers have no option but getting it. Another possible way would be to offer traffic management, on user's request, with a differentiated pricing. Personally, I am paying a premium to use an ISP which prioritizes VoIP traffic so that my voice calls don't get crippy. Following this schema, I think there is a latent need by many users to demote their low priority file transfer traffic, promote the web traffic and have a premium VoIP traffic. Why not trying selling quality of service as an additional feature users might request rather than imposing it to all users ?

Traffic management and its anticompetitive risks

C) this behaviour can be enacted to benefit the same operator's applications or some operator's "friend"'s applications. In the first case there's a point for an antitrust case (as the operator owns an essential facility for those users connected to his network), and even the second cannot be as evident. This kind of management does not require to be specifically technical; it could be based on pricing with a price structure designed to discourage specific kind of traffic. For example, a pricing that would include a high session-setup fee as we find in wireless data plans, discourages the use of sporadic, short data sessions, such as the traffic required by messaging, thus protecting the operator's SMS business. (*)

(C1) I have been personally (successfully) envolved in a case whereby an incumbent operator argued that a new IPTV service he provided to his retail customers was a "new service" encompassing a vertical integration between data transport and the TV content. The operator argued that it should have not been looked at this service from an antitrust perspective related to the data transport, but rather looking a the the TV market, where the operator had a marginal presence. The point I brought to the court was that, if a competitor wanted to build a similar service (with on demand content), he would have needed to buy from the incumbent the data transport with similar characteristics and thus even that layer should have been exeamined and be replicable to other possible competitors. This case clearly shows that when "new services" come into the regulatory arena whereby an operator argues there should be a vertical integration, it is not that obvious that a court would rule in favour of an "horizontal unbundling" of the service.

(C2) One other case I have been envolved with was an incumbent operator who intended to benefit from network effects providing his customers a higher quality service (videotelephony) refusing to interoperate with other operators at the peering points (and even not releasing the codec and signalling protocols) in order to attract more customers. When formally requested for interoperability with the same quality of service at the peering points and full details of the signalling, the operator preferred to withdraw the service from the market. (this leads me to think that the service was a loss making service designed just to increase the customer base by exploiting network effects). Referring to the Norwegian principle 2 above, it's not enough to receive and send content and use applications of their choice; it needs to happen on a level playing field. In the happy times when networks were separated, voice came in nice and handy G711 quanta, which was handled on one wire, while the fully liquid best effort traffic was handled on another wire. The "interoperability" concept was an easy one: either fully guaranteed or no guarantee. Interoperability is an on/off condition.
The merge of the voice traffic on IP networks prompted for some network management, but it still is voice in handy well standardized quanta and the good old on/off interoperability concept applies. What happens when a new set of services appear which are neither latency-guaranteed voice nor best effort ? there's not just 2 forms of traffic, there might be many more, and interoperability is not just on/off but there might be many colors of it.
Interoperating is not enough. You need to interoperate with a comparable Quality of Service; otherwise there will be users with a better users experience which would, in turn, lead to network effects.
Interoperability, without comparable QoS interoperability, paves the ground for anticompetitive behaviours.

(*) Be it noted that, while there's a bitstream wholesale offer, any ISP can compete anywhere in a country, purchasing wholesale at cost oriented (and hence flat) conditions, so any operator can provide a flat rate retail offer, so there will be one who does. As bitstream wholesale offers are not part of the regulation in the wireless market, so it is an excludable reource; furthermore spectrum is limited (rival) so traffic discrimination based on pricing in wireless is likely to stay with us for a long time, unless there's a very competitive wireless market.

Quinta's Network Neutrality principles

Based on the above, one could think that, rather than trying to give a technical definition of Network Neutrality, it could be possible to enumerate a set of principles which avoid the aforementioned problems, to the benefit of the customer.

So, this is my proposal for five principles:

1. users have the right to know what they are offered by their ISPs
2. users have the right to purchase, based on their free choice, an access which encompasses some network management; users have the right to purchase a best effort access, with non discriminatory pricing, with similar characteristics (**) (ref. B1)
3. to ensure privacy of communications, traffic should not be discriminated on content (ref. A)
4. traffic should not be discriminated by technology or pricing, based on who  the endpoints of the communication are (ref. C1)
5. operators offering a determined quality of service on their network should provide the same quality of service at the peering points to other operators who request it, at reasonable, non discriminatory, transparent conditions. (ref. C2)

(**) e.g. best effort should not cost more than managed and if there's a 20Mbps managed, there should be a 20Mbps best effort

I'd welcome your comments...

financial doping

In Italy we had a football (soccer) scandal which was called financial doping: team's balance sheets were inflated by false trading amongst top teams of hyper-valuated players.

If not for this illegal behaviour, the top teams would have had to write-off some assets (the player's contracts), recapitalize the companies and therefore stop hiring world-class players. Morover, as the rules for the championships require that participating clubs (companies) must have a financially sound position, for some of them, if not for this "doping", would have been impossible to take part to these championships. (Falso in bilancio Ora c’è l’Inter nel mirino dei giudici).

Now I read of the difficulties of blip.fm: Holy Bleep! Blip.fm is in Trouble.

he is going shut down Fuzz.com but will be keeping the Blip.fm going since the company has some money. But that money can’t keep the lights forever. Blip, a hit with the early adopters and there is a good chance might attract some bargain hunters.

One could argue: what'd you expect ? if you don't have a business model...

But the Internet is full of services that don't have a business model (much of the innovative stuff on the web) and can survive only because they're kept alive by other companies/VCs/angels who, in turn, have a rock-solid business model.

These services could not have the performances and visibility they have if they'd have to compete on a level playing ground with other services, with other startups. This is why I make this analogy with the "financial doping".

Is this good or bad for innovation ? I think it might be good, provided there's a market (even doped) where new talents have several possibilities to emerger. Let's say where there are a number of teams competing to contract the new young talents.

But is this the case on the Internet ? and is this the case given the current crisisi ? At Leweb in paris, as I wrote in my italian blog, the most heard topic was "how di I sell my company", much, much more than how do I position my product, how do I increase usage ?

In the current market conditions, are there a number of players or there's just a top team ? and if there's only a top team, one could ask himself why ? Are there excessive revenues in some part of the business which sustain loss-making business in other parts, de facto daunting competition ?

because, if there are, maybe we have a problem.

Spending on Cell Phone Services Has Exceeded Spending on Residential Phone Services

Quick question: which is the rival good and which the non rival good ?
Here  why I believe the network will be neutral and wireless access will be charged per-use.

Spending on Cell Phone Services Has Exceeded Spending on Residential Phone Services.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) show that cellular phone expenditures increased rapidly from 2001 through 2007. Cellular phone expenditures surpassed spending on residential landline phone services beginning in 2007

Ridiculous Criminal Trial Of Google Execs Begins In Italy | Techdirt

Ridiculous Criminal Trial Of Google Execs Begins In Italy | Techdirt.

Well, I think this post on techdirt misses the point by asserting a position without complete knowledge of the facts and very little knowledge of european regulations and no knowledge of italian laws and legal system.

Definition of ISP in Italy is very clear and definitely Google is not an ISP. (BTW, it requires registering to the local FCC equivalent).

There is a european law (ecommerce directive) which excludes responsibility for "mere conduits". (update: as Andrea correctly remembers, it's also for caching and hosting)

Is YT a "mere conduit" ? this remains to be seen. (re. the update above, I considered the mere conduit because it is obviously not caching and, IMHO, it's unlikely that it can be considered hosting, a there's a bunch of applications that work on specific contents doing classification, organizaztion, tagging, removal, automated audio editing, etc.)

the charges are "diffamazione aggravata e di trattamento illecito di dati a fini di profitto", sorry, I don't know a legal translation for this.

the sanction is up to 3 years and up to 1032 Euros (that was 2M lire before switching to Euros)

the offenses contained in the video were aimed at the disabled kid and Google (Youtube) helped increasing its visibility, therefore deriving "editorial responsibilities", according to the prosecutors. this is in accordance with the forthcoming european Audio Visual Directive.

to support this position from prosecutors are the fact that it was classified as "funny", inserted in an organized content system, in a catalogue, it was tagged, all activities that do not fall into the classification of a "mere conduit".

second charge is of illegal handling of personal data, according to privacy laws.

that boy had health problems which were evident to anyone watching the video. they were evident in the video as they would have been on stolen photos.

who authorizes YT to make those informations available to anyone ? in such conditions (as is releated to health), the authorization can be given only in writing by the parents of the boy. and so definitely not obtainable online.

the mistake YT probably did in this case is that they did not state in the terms and conditions of the service that some kind of videos ca NEVER be uploaded and the result was an illegal handling of personal "sensible" data (as it is qualified by law; some kind of informations (such as health related infos) are not only private but also "sensible" and have more restrictions).

IMHO, it is not impossible that a Google exec is found guilty, has to pay the fine of 1032 Euros and sentenced to some months.

In Italy, if your sentence is less than 2 years, you don't go to jail and the possible fine is extremely low.

if it was just for the direct legal consequences of the specific case, IMHO, we would not be here discussing about it.

the critical issue is that the European Audio Visual Directive is going to enter into effect soon and any precedent on implementation of what constitutes a "mere conduit" activity can have significant impacts.

is tagging, classification, ranking, etc a "mere conduit" activity ? up to what point the automated processing of a system can fall into the "mere conduit" classification ?

it was much easier before, where certain "analysis" of content could be performed only by humans.

building a service that looks at content and proposes specific illegal content used to require human intervention and hence it was clearly recognizable as an "editorial" activity and therefore prosecuted. (for example, a site with content which promotes racial hate or drugs abuse)

now, automated tools can deliver the same results (even on a much larger scale, trascending human processing capabilities) thanks to semantic interpretation, voice recognition, face and physical attributes detection and indexing and correlation, etc.. and could be programmed to produce the same output with no human intervention.

is this enough to say that the entity which economically benefits from this activity is just a "mere conduit", just because there's no human envolved in the process ?

we will soon know what italian justice will decide in this specific case, but I believe it might be just the first of a string of other similar cases, as technology evolves.

Which direction the world is turning

I guess you notice the direction the world is turning when you attend, during the Mpeg meetings in Lausanne (Switzerland), the ad hoc meeting group on next generation IPTV set top boxes and, in a room full of oriental persons, you're one of the three occidental ones.