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