NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Network Neutrality, Non-Discrimination Rules and Quality of Service
It's interesting how Neelie Kroes -- who a year ago sponsored that BEREC report Barbara refers to (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/486) -- seems almost to treat net neutrality as if it were a premium service in her recent announcement of their conclusions, here: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/netneutrality/ Simply distinguishing a channel that has a certain capacity and has no shaping of traffic, from other types of service, does more than allowing application agnostic shaping does. Allowing application-agnostic shaping does allow the network providers to misrepresent congestion: "Why are you throttling people application-agnostically?" "Couldn't say, but maybe -- just speculating here -- it's because they use that despicable Bittorrent app." If they are shaping, even application-agnostically, they are interfering with the capacity they supposedly have sold to their subscribers. A distinction allows us to even track at all when shaping has an impact on the general purpose platform. If we specify that application-agnostic shaping is in a separate service, then we can keep track, but then again, why bother making it application agnostic if it's a separate service? This is one way in which the GOOG-VZN proposal actually moved us forward -- because it did draw the distinction between Internet and other "specialized" services. The risk here is for enabling exactly the framing we see Kroes presenting in relation to the BEREC study: a rationalizing of either 1) a supposed need to shape Internet traffic on a channel where different kinds of service may impact each other, or 2) a misrepresentation of congestion as being caused by certain apps -- even if the provider cannot shape traffic based on apps. This commentary is just based on reading the quick summary of Barbara's proposition, so there might be some chance I'm off the mark here, but my critique does seem to apply just based on the way Barbara's thrust seems directed to some supposed need to do shaping, application-agnostically, apparently on the same channel. If that's not clearly distinguished, so the impact on a general-purpose service that provides a certain capacity can't be seen clearly, we may just end up beating a path backwards again to all the old misrepresentations and disinfo regarding the nature of congestion that we used to have. Not that Barbara's in any way aiming at that at all. With the right definition, drawing the distinction so it can be tracked is more the key to the matter -- with that, we know when the other stuff is detrimental. (See the Internet Distinction statement on this here: http://internetdistinction.com/statement/#Inhibiting%20Internet ) Seth On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Barbara van Schewick <schewick@stanford.edu> wrote: > Dear all, > > I just published a white paper titled “Network Neutrality and Quality of > Service: What a Non-Discrimination Should Look Like” that you may find > interesting. The paper: > > * Provides the first detailed analysis of the Federal Communications > Commissions’ non-discrimination rule and of its implications for network > providers’ ability to manage their networks and offer Quality of Service; > > * Offers the first in-depth analysis of the relationship between network > neutrality and Quality of Service; and > > * Evaluates existing proposals for non-discrimination rules and proposes a > non-discrimination rule that policy makers should adopt around the world – a > rule that the FCC adopted at least in part. > > A blog post summarizing the main results of the paper (with links to the > paper and summaries in pdf and scribd) is available here: > http://netarchitecture.org/2012/06/network-non-discrimination-and-quality-of-service-2/ > > The paper is relevant to a number of ongoing policy debates: In the US, > market participants, observers and, soon, the Open Internet Advisory > Committee, are trying to understand how the FCC’s Open Internet rules affect > network providers’ ability to offer Quality of Service. The legal appeal of > the FCC’s Open Internet Order focuses in part on the substantive merits of > the rules. Whether the FCC wins or loses that appeal, the question of which, > if any, network-discriminations require legal action will remain relevant > for years to come in the U.S. In Europe, the Commission and the member > states are still exploring which approach to network neutrality they should > take. As part of these efforts, the group of European Regulators for > Electronic Communication Networks and Services (BEREC) started a > consultation in June focused on various aspects of the relationship between > network neutrality and Quality of Service – the very topics explored in the > white paper. > > Best, > > Barbara > > --- > > Barbara van Schewick > > Associate Professor of Law and (by Courtesy) Electrical Engineering > > Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar > > Director, Center for Internet and Society > > Stanford Law School > > > > Author of "Internet Architecture and Innovation," MIT Press 2010 > > www.netarchitecture.org > > > > Crown Quadrangle > > 559 Nathan Abbott Way > > Stanford, CA94305-8610 > > > > Phone: 650-723 8340 > > E-Mail: schewick@stanford.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nnsquad mailing list > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad _______________________________________________ nnsquad mailing list http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad