Qo E E2 E4 Net Neutrality Leo Van Audenhove
Transcript of Qo E E2 E4 Net Neutrality Leo Van Audenhove
1
Situating Net neutrality in its broader context
Towards an analytical framework for the distribution of content on the InternetInternet
Leo Van Audenhove (IBBT-SMIT)Luciano Morganti (IBBT-SMIT)
Net neutrality
Net neutralityRefers to the use of technology in distribution of content
Network management technologiesg gNegative term
Objecting to any interference in local/national networksFocused on single ISPs
Internet end-to-end networkCrossing networksCrossing national boundaries
Use of technologies to shape the flow of contentRelated to the struggle of the distribution of contentElement in control of value chains for online products and servicesShould be analyzed in a much broader framework.
2
2
Theoretical contributions
Many of the works from legal fieldLessig’s work on regulation - different forms of regulation
Government, Markets, Social norms, ‘Code’Software and architecture regulating ‘what’ can be done in cyberspace = networkWork mainly focuses on copyright and DRM
Zittrain similar argument at level of appliances and devicesMany of the new devices are ‘closed’ devices
iPhone, iPod, mobile phones, Game platforms, Tivo’s, etc.Zittrain argues that our access to the Internet might change from generative devices such as computers to closed devices such as e g Nintendo Wiidevices, such as computers, to closed devices such as e.g. Nintendo Wii
Both authors argue that ‘generative’ end-to-end nature of internet might disappear
Due to changing technologyDue to changing laws supporting technologyDue to market mechanisms
3
Building an analytical framework
DefinitionsStart from a broad definition of governanceAdhere to the conceptualization of ‘code’ as means of regulationAdhere to the conceptualization of code as means of regulation
Analytical framework to systematize thinkingHow industry and governments starting to:
1.Use ‘code’ to exert control2.Changing regulatory environments in support of use of ‘code’
Distinction in a layered model between:1.Internet actors2.Dimensions of control3.Technologies of control4.Regulation
4
3
Building an analytical framework
Focus Distribution of content (audiovisual)End-to-end
Server – first mile – cloud – last mile – device - user Looking at how technology is developed/used
To control specific aspects of distributionTo control specific aspects of accessTo control attention of the user
Looking at how industry is using these technologiesTo protect current and new business models
Looking at why government supports certain uses through regulationMain argument is
That you have to look at the whole distribution chainThat you have to look at interaction of technologies of control
5
Controlling distribution - Dimensions
Time – Who can access what when?Space – Who can access what where?Speed – What contents can travel at what speed?Speed – What contents can travel at what speed?Quality – What contents gets prioritized at what quality?Access – Who gets access to what under what conditions?Attention – Who sees what under what conditions?
Are central dimension of control in distribution of contentDevelopments in technology strengthen possibility of controlp gy g p y
6
4
Control over time and space
Questions idea of Internet as a global economic spaceInterest of the private sector
Diversification of marketsDiversification of markets Windowing in audiovisual marketsLicensing of content material in different markets
Price differentiationAccording to purchasing power
e.g. online gaming industryg g g y
Different currenciesE.g. iTunes has different offerings in different marketsE.g. Audible restricts access due to rights issuesE.g. many online VOD restricted to national markets
BBC iPlayer, Channel4D, Movielink 7
Control over speed and quality
Questions idea of Internet as ‘neutral’ platformInterest of the private sector
C t b i f d f d liCompete on basis of speed of deliveryCompete on basis of quality of service – videoCompete on better ‘global’ presence
Both at local level as on global level importantE.g. CNN, BBC, etc. use overlay networks such as AkamaiAkamaiE.g. Google, Microsoft, etc. invest in own infrastructures close to ‘Western’ consumersE.g. blocking/narrowing of P2P by Viacom and BellCanada
8
5
Control over access and attention
Questions internet as an ‘open/unmediated’ spaceInterest of private sector (positive)
Competition on prime contentCompetition on prime contentGuide towards prime contentAdapt offering according to taste and placeE.g. research results of search/websites
Interest of private sector (negative)Filter out illegal or unwanted contentFilter out illegal or unwanted content
E.g. wikipedia blocks certain content related to child foto’s
Interest of governmentProhibition to access harmful content
Hate speech, decency, etc.Political content 9
Technological means of control
GeoIPID Management
Bank Card InformationDRMCDN
Content Delivering NetworksOverlay networksServerparks
Peering Network management techniquesFiltering/Identification
WatermarkingFingeringDeep packet inspection
10
6
Introducing a model
11
Video industry: control and instruments
12
7
ISPs: control and instruments
13
Control in the distribution chain
14
8
The model and regulation
15
Integration
16
9
Current discussions
Identification – filtering – graduated responseGeographic differentiation – multi territory licensingNet neutrality
17
Graduated response
France ISP will monitor Internet trafficEnforcement overseen by new state agency HADOPIEnforcement overseen by new state agency HADOPI
High Authority for Copyright Protection and Dissemination of Work son the Internet
After three infringements thrown of of the network
18
10
Graduated response
ApplicationsFrance, will be implemented 2009 with enforcementUK voluntary and no enforcementUK, voluntary and no enforcementItaly considers following French exampleJapan, P2P solution under discussionSouth Korea, New Zeeland, Australia under discussion
EU parliament voted against disconnecting infringersvoted against disconnecting infringers
European CommissionCreative Content Online questions to stakeholdersReport will appear shortly
19
Graduated response
UKAgreement between BPI and 6 biggest ISPsContent industry monitors illegal content on P2PContent industry monitors illegal content on P2P
ISP retains relation with costumer ISP not responsible for monitoring or policing
BPI turns over IP address information to ISPISPs duty to notify subscribers about infringementNo enforcement foreseen yet-discussion with OfcomNo enforcement foreseen yet discussion with Ofcom
20
11
Quid Filtering ?
Content industry likely to keep pushing for filteringRaises lots of questions
P li i l ISPPuts policing role on ISPsPuts costs at level of ISPsApparently has negative effects on network
Question whether technology readyEspecially for video finger printing, hashing, watermarking but quality not certainwatermarking, but quality not certainAll other filtering technology (at level of firms, universities, homes) have serious flaws
For whom?Hollywood, music majors, local industry, etc.
21
Geographical differentiation
Content availability depends on national licensing systemsCan be supported by geoIP identity managementCan be supported by geoIP, identity management
Leads to diversification of marketsWithin Europe in conflict with single market ideaCreative Content Online questions on multi-territory licencing
22
12
Conclusions
RegulationCode (instruments) improve to control aspects of the InternetLegal environment is changing and will be different for videoLegal environment is changing and will be different for video than for audioSlow globalization of copyright law - but stronger in centreNet neutrality discussion and outcome uncertainPossible stimulation of EU of European content platforms
Copyright protectionPossible move and push towards filtering
Trade off between compliance and prime content
23
Trade off between compliance and prime content Questions role of ISP as just carrierBrings regulation into muddy waters (many legal issues concerning privacy, role of ISPs, liability, etc.)Different legal systems and case law might result in different solutions in different countries