Search Results for: neutrality

Network World reports that some people in the US are arguing that any economic stimulus funding for broadband service expansion should be tied to strong net neutrality commitments.

the stimulus legislation says that any networks built with the funds must adhere to the “nondiscrimination and network interconnection obligations” that the Federal Communications Commission first outlined in 2005. These principles state that networks must allow users to access any lawful Internet content of their choice, to run any legal Web applications of their choice, and to connect to the network using any device that does not harm the network. Additionally, the principles state that consumers are “entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers and content providers.”

However, some net neutrality advocates argued during the debate Monday that these principles are not written strongly enough to specifically bar networks from slowing down competitors’ content in favor of their own.

We have two relevant sessions at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June. On June 15, we have a panel looking at building broadband networks – what issues are there for universal service. The panel includes Ian Collins (Cogeco Data Services), Mike Dixon (Motorola), John Maduri (Barrett Xplore), Derek Slater (Google) and Robert Watson (SaskTel). On June 16, we are taking an in depth look at the Net Neutrality debate in Canada, with Mike Lee (Rogers), Chris Libertelli (Skype) and Dave Caputo (Sandvine).

Have you registered yet to attend Canada’s leading telecom industry event?

Technorati Tags:
net neutrality, broadband, Canadian Telecom Summit

Telephony Online has an article about the availability of a portfolio of deep packet inspection products and services from Continuous Computing targeted at the mobile industry.

There was a quote from CTO Mike Coward that caught my eye and defines the essence of why DPI technologies are being considered by mobile service providers:

Everywhere else in the network, you can throw more bandwidth at the problem. You can lay more fiber and convert from 1 Gb/s to 10 Gig, but you can’t make more spectrum.

The CRTC is looking at network management practices of ISPs in the context of its Public Notice 2008-19.

Will thoughts turn to mobile internet in the course of comments that are due to be filed next week?

We have a special session looking at net neutrality issues at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit, taking place in June in Toronto. Early bird registration rates are available until the end of February. Have you registered yet?

On Thursday of last week, the UK released its interim Digital Britain report, setting out a strategy for building their knowledge economy.

The report contains more than 20 recommendations, including specific proposals on network issues as well as cultural issues such as the future of radio and intellectual property rights.

Of most immediate relevance to regulatory activities underway in Canada, the report sees no grounds for net neutrality legislation. It is concerned that net neutrality regulation might prevent pricing innovation, differentiation of offers and serve to discourage investment in higher-speed access networks.

Ofcom has stated that provided consumers are properly informed, such new business models could be an important part of the investment case for Next Generation Access, provided consumers are properly informed.

On the same basis, the Government has yet to see a case for legislation in favour of net neutrality. In consequence, unless Ofcom find network operators or ISPs to have Significant Market Power and justify intervention on competition grounds, traffic management will not be prevented.

The full report can be downloaded [ pdf, 1.07MB]. It sets out 5 main objectives:

• Upgrading and modernizing Britain’s digital networks – wired, wireless and broadcast – so that Britain has an infrastructure that enables it to remain globally competitive in the digital world;
• Creating a dynamic investment climate for UK digital content, applications and services, that makes the UK an attractive place for both domestic and inward investment in our digital economy;
• UK content for UK users: content of quality and scale that serves the interests, experiences and needs of all UK citizens; in particular impartial news, comment and analysis;
• Fairness and access for all: universal availability coupled with the skills and digital literacy to enable near-universal participation in the digital economy and digital society; and
• Developing the infrastructure, skills and take-up to enable the widespread online delivery of public services and business interface with Government.

Note that in the fourth bullet, universal availability is tied to near-universal adoption. As I wrote in November, as we increase broadband service availability, we need to focus on getting people to actually get on-line.

The Digital Britain report calls for a digital Universal Service Commitment to be effective by 2012, delivered by a mixture of fixed and mobile, wired and wireless means. Their target is a modest 2Mbps service. There are no suggestions on how to fund this Commitment – that is left to later.

How will Britain address service adoption? It will encourage the development of public service champions of universal take-up.

Technorati Tags:
Digital Britain, net neutrality

Much chatter has surrounded potential policy changes on the horizon impacting network operators south of the border. With a new president and a new FCC chair, some Canadian observers are speculating that it is only a matter of time before a spill-over effect drives law-makers in Canada to impose regulation on the internet.

I don’t think it is going to work that way. I think that the FCC and US industry observers should be looking northward for guidance on how to govern the behaviours of internet service providers.

We’ll have a public hearing on network management practices in early July and a final decision out before the end of the year, if all goes according to schedule.

Some of the loudest voices in Canada keep ignoring the fact that we already have legislation and regulatory precedents that provide protections that are missing from the toolkit available to the FCC in disciplining abuse in the United States.

To start with, the FCC has an internet policy statement that serves as a proxy for formal regulation of carrier behaviours; Canada has in place some key legislation, such as the non-discrimination provisions of Section 27(2) and the non-blocking provisions of Section 36.

Will the FCC significantly vary or backtrack on the views expressed [ pdf, 88KB] by outgoing Chair Kevin Martin at a conference in Denmark in September:

Our action was not about regulating the Internet. Instead, we took a cautious approach that merely requires operators to use an even and fair hand as they control the flow of traffic on their networks. Adopting broader regulations in this area could have unintended consequences that could stifle innovation.

We have our network management proceeding underway. Responses to CRTC interrogatories are already available on the CRTC website. Written comments will be due on February 16.

Based on the comments that are received, the Commission may ask an additional round of questions, or address questions to any of the other parties who submitted comments. The Commission asked parties to respond to specific questions in the Public Notice.

There is a lot of noise about net neutrality among the unaffiliated technophile community. Will there be sufficient focus in their submissions to permit a meaningful discussion of the issues?

We have a special session planned to explore the issues at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June. We expect that people will be testing their arguments in advance of the CRTC proceeding a few weeks later. Have you registered yet?

Technorati Tags:
ISP, net neutrality, Canada, CRTC

I have been troubled by the assertion by some advocate that net neutrality regulations are required in order to maintain the conditions that would allow the next great innovations to emerge. Other than emotional outbursts, there is little in the way of evidence to back up this view.

Conversely, we know that specific net neutrality regulations have never to date existed and so all the great internet applications we love have emerged in an era of unregulated internet service.

This has allowed market-based competition to flourish and fail among ISPs, providing choices for applications, content delivery as well as their consumers. Choices in network architecture and choices in pricing models.

Some spread fear about the idea that companies might deliver different quality for different payment schemes, as if every other product delivered in the world was on the basis of communal equivalence.

We may wish to give some thought to a proposition that a priority access service from some ISPs may actually facilitate a “new or poorly funded provider” (in the words of one of my commenters) to more effectively compete against more entrenched applications providers.

Some existing application providers own their own backbone facilities and directly interconnect with ISPs around the world, yielding outstanding network performance world-wide. How can a new entrant compete against such a well established application provider?

A start-up (say, with an application that needs low latency) that can’t replicate such a global reach may wish to buy a service on a flexible payment plan (such as % of revenues, number of simultaneous streams, etc.) which an ISP may sell to help them get exposed to a global audience faster.

Cisco is suggesting that half of all internet traffic will be video by the year 2012 compared to 22% in 2007. Streaming and interactive gaming services won’t tolerate average network latency. Add in the laws of physics that come into play if a user in Asia tries to connect to a server located in Canada.

Why would we want legislation that prevents innovators from buying network access to cost effectively compete the global reach of the entrenched software giants?