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

2/28/2011 1

Net Neutrality

Scott Jordan Department of Computer Science University of California, Irvine

Quality of Service (QoS)

more interactive less interactive telephone calls video conferencing Internet radio Internet tv web browsing email express mail priority mail first class mail bulk mail

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 2

better performance worse performance express mail priority mail first class mail bulk mail

2/28/2011 2

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 3

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 4

2/28/2011 3

The wrong way: QoS based directly on application

FCC R Verizon uses DPI & assigns priority to all AT&T uses DPI & assigns priority to all VoIP packets Verizon AT&T FCC R G R G R G assigns priority to all VoIP packets Cenic

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 5

UCI R R G R R

Requires each ISP to do DPI (ugh). Not what diffServ envisioned.

The wrong way: QoS purchased from each ISP on a route

FCC R Verizon sells QoS to AT&T sells QoS to UCI Verizon AT&T FCC R G R G R G

R i li i id

UCI Cenic

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 6

UCI R R G R R

Requires an application provider to contract with multiple ISPs (ugh). Not consistent with diffServ!

2/28/2011 4

The right way: QoS purchased by subscriber and passed on via SLA

FCC R Verizon honors priority AT&T honors priority if within subscriber agreement Verizon AT&T FCC R G R G R G Subscriber marks packet priority, e.g. to VoIP

Diff ti ti t Di i i ti !

p y assigned by AT&T if part of Service Level Agreement

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 7

Cenic UCI R R G R R

Differentiation, not Discrimination! QoS available to all apps. QoS available end‐to‐end. This is the diffServ architecture!

The right way: QoS purchased by subscriber and passed on via SLA

FCC R Verizon AT&T FCC R G R G R G QoS offerings & i

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 8

Cenic UCI R R G R R ISP subscriber prices QoS selection

2/28/2011 5

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 9

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 10

2/28/2011 6

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

d ’ b f d ff Q S

 don’t want to be forced to offer QoS  want exemption for “specialized services”  want exemption for “wireless networks”  if offer QoS, don’t want regulation on exclusiveness or

price

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 11

FCC Open Internet Order

• Scope
• Transparency
• Blocking
• Discrimination
• Wireless
• Specialized Services

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 12

2/28/2011 7

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 13

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 14

2/28/2011 8

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 15

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 16

2/28/2011 9

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

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 17

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 …

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 18

2/28/2011 10

Current Status

• Courts

 FCC’s legal authority to be litigated

• Congress

 attempts to blocking implementation  attempts to strengthen rules

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 19

Convergence

Telephone network Cell phone networks Internet Everything‐Over‐IP

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 20

Internet Cable tv networks

2/28/2011 11

Fixed versus mobile

• Different expectations of blocking and

discrimination

 on smart phone versus desktop computer?  on smart phone on 3G versus on Wi‐Fi?

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 21

Specialized Services

Netflix Hulu Skype Vonage gaming Video conferencing U‐verse video

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 22

QoS

2/28/2011 12

R AT&T assigns priority only to specialized services

End‐to‐end QoS

Verizon AT&T FCC R G R G R G

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 23

Cenic UCI G R R G R R

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”

Net Neutrality / Scott Jordan 24