DOCSLIB.ORG

The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow Luca Belli, Primavera De Filippi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow Luca Belli, Primavera De Filippi The value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow Luca Belli, Primavera de Filippi To cite this version: Luca Belli, Primavera de Filippi. The value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow: Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality. 2013. hal-01026096 HAL Id: hal-01026096 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01026096 Submitted on 19 Jul 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality Edited by Luca Belli & Primavera De Filippi Preface by Marietje Schaake TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .........................................................................................................................................1 A NEW ARRIVAL IN THE IGF FAMILY: THE DYNAMIC COALITION ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY............1 The Interest of Creating a Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality ..............................................1 An Action Plan ...............................................................................................................................2 PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION – FRAMING THE NETWORK NEUTRALITY DEBATE: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TOWARDS A POLICY BLUE-PRINT ....................................................................................................5 References: ................................................................................................................................... 10 NETWORK NEUTRALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS AN INPUT PAPER ........................................................ 11 The origin of the network neutrality concept ................................................................................. 11 Reasons and nature of Internet traffic management ........................................................................ 14 Network management may lead to human rights violations ........................................................... 16 A human-rights-oriented approach ................................................................................................ 17 ANNEXE 1: Council of Europe – Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Network Neutrality ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 ANNEXE 2: National legislation on Network Neutrality ............................................................... 20 References: ................................................................................................................................... 23 THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNET NEUTRALITY TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS ONLINE .................. 26 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 26 Designed for Free Expression ........................................................................................................ 27 The Internet and Human Rights ..................................................................................................... 29 Internet Neutrality’s Role in Fostering Human Rights ................................................................... 30 States’ Role and Guiding Principles for Neutrality Rules ............................................................... 32 NET NEUTRALITY FROM A PUBLIC SPHERE PERSPECTIVE .................................................................. 36 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 36 Structural Dimension: Access to the Network for Content Producers ............................................. 37 Interactional Dimension: “Walled Gardens” .................................................................................. 40 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 43 References .................................................................................................................................... 44 NET NEUTRALITY: ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE ................................................. 46 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 46 Benefits of net neutrality ............................................................................................................... 47 What is network discrimination? ................................................................................................... 48 What is “reasonable” traffic management? .................................................................................... 49 What are the fundamental rights impacts of filtering technologies? ................................................ 51 The current state of play in the European Union ............................................................................ 52 Principles of a net neutrality law ................................................................................................... 54 Why Europe needs net neutrality legislation now .......................................................................... 55 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 57 References .................................................................................................................................... 58 NETWORK NEUTRALITY UNDER THE LENS OF RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................... 61 Violations to Network Neutrality ................................................................................................. 64 References .................................................................................................................................... 70 NET NEUTRALITY AND QUALITY OF SERVICE .................................................................................... 71 Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... 71 Implementation of the net neutrality principle ............................................................................... 71 Net operators ................................................................................................................................ 72 Content providers .......................................................................................................................... 72 End users ...................................................................................................................................... 72 Conflict generators ........................................................................................................................ 73 Quality of service (QoS) ............................................................................................................... 73 Closed internet .............................................................................................................................. 74 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 74 References .................................................................................................................................... 75 NET NEUTRALITY: PAST POLICY, PRESENT PROPOSALS, FUTURE REGULATION? ............................... 76 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 76 Policy Debate Regarding Traffic Management .............................................................................. 76 Network Neutrality Regulation in the US ...................................................................................... 78 European Legislation and Regulation of Network Neutrality ......................................................... 79 Net neutrality amendments in 2009 Directives ............................................................................... 80 Interpretation by BEREC .............................................................................................................. 81 Interpretation by other European institutions ................................................................................. 82 National Regulation since 2010: UK, France, Netherlands, Slovenia ............................................. 83 2013 Proposed European Regulation ............................................................................................. 85 Specialized Services:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Net Neutrality Is Crucial for Democracy. Please Don't Let the Broadband Monopolies Extort Every Website Owner in the World
    Net neutrality is crucial for democracy. Please don't let the broadband monopolies extort every website owner in the world. They're already screwing over their customers with their exorbitant prices and unreliably service *cough*monopoly*cough*. We use the internet to communicate. We need the internet to communicate it large groups. Comcast and friends are common carriers. This is really important. -Jason Woofenden, Northampton, MA I'm a single-mother with a home-based business. Net Neutrality is important to my ability to earn money for my family, to access a wide range of information and viewpoints, and to continue on the path as a lifelong learner. -Rachel Cullar, Oakley, CA I am sick and tired off the greed off the cable companies and the whores in Washington, DC they will get on thier knees for any reason as long as they get the money. Wheeler is just the latest The United States would be well served turning Washington, DC back into a swamp. Please include all of the politicians and lobby folks. Thanks -Edward Tharp, Capistrano Beach, CA Net Neutrality is important to me because it is a free and equal system. It is also a system that is not broken, nor in need of an overhaul or major changes. As a taxpayer, citizen and voter, I want the groups that represent me (FCC, Congress, etc) to hear my voice because our government exists not only to govern but to hear the voice of the common man. -Eric Petersen, Millville, CA Simply put, there is no reason to end Net Neutrality.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Over Net Neutrality: Why We Should Take Competition in Broadband Seriously
    ANTITRUST OVER NET NEUTRALITY: WHY WE SHOULD TAKE COMPETITION IN BROADBAND SERIOUSLY HON. MAUREEN K. OHLHAUSEN* In 2015, the FCC subjected broadband Internet service provid- ers to Title II regulation. It did so to enforce net neutrality rules, which require ISPs (internet service providers) to treat all content on their networks equally. The principal justification is to prevent ISPs, in delivering content to their subscribers, from favoring their own content or that of other creators who pay for “fast lanes.” Should such discrimination flourish—the concern goes—ISPs could relegate disfavored content providers to second-tier modes of access to consumers, degrading competition. The rationalization for net neutrality regulation, however, is hard to square with the facts. There is, after all, virtually no evi- dence of ISPs excluding rival content. Two reasons likely explain the paucity of anticompetitive conduct. First, market forces driven by consumer demand would punish broadband service providers that throttled or excluded desired content. And, second, antitrust would forbid efforts by ISPs with significant market power to fore- close rival content. Yet, the FCC’s decision to enact broad net neu- trality rules, which the D.C. Circuit subsequently upheld in 2016, repudiated the view that antitrust is a viable solution to the threat of net neutrality violations. This Article argues, however, that net neutrality proponents too easily dismiss antitrust. Competition law can indeed protect non-economic goals like free speech and democratic participation, but only to the extent that consumers actually value those goals above others. Of course, antitrust does not promote civic discourse as an end in itself.
    [Show full text]
  • NET NEUTRALITY Work Operator
    Database NET NEUTRALITY work operator. In October 2007, Comcast was ac- cused of secretly deploying filtering technologies to manage its network in order to keep some peer-to- Net neutrality denotes the neutral transmission of peer traffic from overloading its network and hence data via the Internet, i.e., every packet of data, affecting the accessing speeds of its other Internet regardless of its content, origin and the application subscribers. The FCC deemed it unreasonable for that created it, is treated the same way and the best Comcast to discriminate against particular Internet effort should always be made to forward it.This con- applications and not to disclose its practice ade- cept is often regarded as a fundamental characteris- quately to its customers and therefore ruled against tic of the Internet. However, the amount of data that Comcast’s practices of throttling Internet traffic and is transported via the Internet is increasing rapidly, delaying peer-to-peer traffic. Comcast appealed to especially because of applications like music and vi- the US Court of Appeals, claiming that no legally deo downloads, Internet TV,and Internet telephony. enforceable standards or rules on the matter existed. All these applications require large capacities. This In April 2010 the federal appeals court ruled that the may lead to a capacity overload and delays of data FCC had limited power over Internet traffic under transmissions.The current technological state allows current law. This decision allows network operators for assigning different priorities to different data to block or slow specific sites and charge sites to packets. Therefore, the discussion has emerged deliver their content faster to users.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Freedom in China: U.S. Government Activity, Private Sector Initiatives, and Issues of Congressional Interest
    Internet Freedom in China: U.S. Government Activity, Private Sector Initiatives, and Issues of Congressional Interest Patricia Moloney Figliola Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy May 18, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45200 Internet Freedom in China: U.S. Government and Private Sector Activity Summary By the end of 2017, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had the world’s largest number of internet users, estimated at over 750 million people. At the same time, the country has one of the most sophisticated and aggressive internet censorship and control regimes in the world. PRC officials have argued that internet controls are necessary for social stability, and intended to protect and strengthen Chinese culture. However, in its 2017 Annual Report, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières, RSF) called China the “world’s biggest prison for journalists” and warned that the country “continues to improve its arsenal of measures for persecuting journalists and bloggers.” China ranks 176th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index, surpassed only by Turkmenistan, Eritrea, and North Korea in the lack of press freedom. At the end of 2017, RSF asserted that China was holding 52 journalists and bloggers in prison. The PRC government employs a variety of methods to control online content and expression, including website blocking and keyword filtering; regulating and monitoring internet service providers; censoring social media; and arresting “cyber dissidents” and bloggers who broach sensitive social or political issues. The government also monitors the popular mobile app WeChat. WeChat began as a secure messaging app, similar to WhatsApp, but it is now used for much more than just messaging and calling, such as mobile payments, and all the data shared through the app is also shared with the Chinese government.
    [Show full text]
  • City Zoning & Subdivision Ordinances
    Printed via Website Updated 1/3/20 CITY ZONING & SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES (Updated: January 3, 2020) Printed via Website Updated 1/3/20 CITY ZONING & SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE INDEX Updated: January 3, 2020 SECTION 1. Title and Application Subd. 1. Title ..................................................................................... 1-1 Subd. 2. Intent and Purpose .............................................................. 1-1 Subd. 3. Relation to Comprehensive Municipal Plan ....................... 1-1 Subd. 4. Standard, Requirement ....................................................... 1-1 Subd. 5. Interpretations and Application .......................................... 1-1 Subd. 6. Conformity .......................................................................... 1-1 Subd. 7. Building Permit Conformity ............................................... 1-2 Subd. 8. Uses Not Provided For Within Zoning Districts ................ 1-2 Subd. 9. Authority ............................................................................. 1-2 Subd. 10. Separability ....................................................................... 1-2 Subd. 11. Rules ................................................................................. 1-2 SECTION 2. Definitions Subd. 1-197. .......................................................................... 2-1 – 2-24 SECTION 3. General Provisions Subd. 1. Nonconforming Buildings, Structures and Uses ................ 3-1 Subd. 2. General Building and Performance Requirements ............. 3-9 Subd.
    [Show full text]
  • Net Neutrality Reloaded
    Luca Belli Editor Net Neutrality Reloaded: Net Neutrality Reloaded: Zero Rating, Specialised Service, Ad Blocking and Traffic Management Zero Rating, Specialised Service, Annual Report of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality Ad Blocking and Traffic Management Luca Belli Editor Annual Report of the UN IGF This Report is the 2016 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN). The Report gathers a series of case studies on a variety Dynamic Coalition of net neutrality issues from the perspective of different stakeholders. The double purpose of this report is to trigger meaningful discussion on net on Net Neutrality neutrality trends, while providing informative material that may be used by researchers, policy-makers and civil society alike. Researchers, practitioners and policy-makers regularly contribute to the DCNN report, providing a wide range of heterogeneous views. Preface by Tim Wu In 2016, Zero Rating was by large the most debated net neutrality issue, as reflected by the considerable number of contributions focusing on the topic within this report. Such high number of analyses on zero rating seems particularly useful to meet the increasing demand of research exploring the pros and cons of price discrimination practices. Furthermore, the report examines other very relevant and discussed topics, such as specialised services, ad blocking and reasonable traffic management, providing useful insight on some of the most recent policy evolutions in a variety of countries. Net Neutrality Reloaded: Zero Rating,
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing the Queerness of Ec-Static Images
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Dissertations Department of Communication Fall 12-2013 Oblique Optics: Seeing the Queerness of Ec-static Images Kristopher L. Cannon Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_diss Recommended Citation Cannon, Kristopher L., "Oblique Optics: Seeing the Queerness of Ec-static Images." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2013. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_diss/48 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OBLIQUE OPTICS: SEEING THE QUEERNESS OF EC-STATIC IMAGES by KRISTOPHER L. CANNON Under the Direction of Alessandra Raengo ABSTRACT Oblique Optics contends that studies of visual culture must account for the queerness of images. This argument posits images as queer residents within visual culture by asking how and where the queerness of images becomes visible. These questions are interrogated by utilizing queer theories and methods to refigure how the image is conceptualized within traditional approaches to visual culture studies and media studies. Each chapter offers different approaches to see the queerness of images by torquing our vision to see "obliquely," whereby images are located beyond visible surfaces (like pictures or photographs) through ec-static movements within thresholds between bodies and beings. Chapter One rethinks how images are conceptualized through metaphorical language by exploring how images emerge from fantasies about will-be-born bodies in fetal photographs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Best Path Forward on Net Neutrality
    POLICY BRIEF The Best Path Forward on Net Neutrality BY ROBERT LITAN AND HAL SINGER SEPTEMBER 2014 Introduction Net neutrality—the notion that all Internet traffic, regardless of its source or type, must be treated the same by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)—is back on the na- tion’s political radar. The catalyst was the D.C. Court of Appeals’ decision last January in Verizon v. FCC, which overturned the Federal Communications Com- mission’s (FCC) “Open Internet Order.” The essence of the Court’s ruling was that the FCC lacked legal authority to impose the specific non-discrimination re- quirements embodied in that order, which prohibited ISPs and content providers from negotiating rates for speedier delivery or “paid prioritization.” The Court’s rationale was that the FCC had previously declined to designate Internet access “common carriage” under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, a classification that the Court essentially suggested could have justified its order. Importantly, the Court also articulated a less-invasive path for regulating such arrangements, in which ISPs and content providers could voluntarily negotiate the terms for priority delivery. The FCC could serve as a backstop to adjudicate disputes if negotiations broke down and discrimination was to blame. Moreover, the Court signaled that the FCC could invoke this alternative approach under its existing (Section 706) authority without reclassifying ISPs. The Court’s decision has unleashed a vigorous debate over both paid prioritiza- tion and whether Internet access now should be subject to Title II. Broadly speak- ing, public interest and some consumer groups, coupled with some in the tech community (collectively, the “netizens”), want the same (zero) price for all types of online content, regardless of the volume of traffic on each site.
    [Show full text]
  • AB 1699 Page 1
    AB 1699 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 30, 2019 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Ed Chau, Chair AB 1699 (Levine) – As Amended April 22, 2019 SUBJECT: Telecommunications: public safety customer accounts: states of emergency SUMMARY: This bill would prohibit, among other things, a mobile internet service provider (ISP) from impairing or degrading the lawful internet traffic of its public safety customer accounts, subject to reasonable network management, as specified, during a state of emergency declared by the President or the Governor, or upon the declaration of a local emergency by an official, board, or other governing body vested with authority to make such a declaration in any city, county, or city and county. This bill would state that the Legislature finds and declares that this bill is adopted pursuant to the police power granted to the State of California under the United States Constitution and cannot be preempted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and that the bill ensures police and emergency services personnel have access to all of the resources necessary for them to operate effectively during a state of emergency. EXISTING LAW: 1) Declares it unlawful for a fixed or mobile ISP, insofar as the provider is engaged in providing fixed broadband internet access service, to engage in certain activities, including, among other things: Blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. Impairing or degrading lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, subject to reasonable network management. Unreasonably interfering with, or unreasonably disadvantaging, either an end user’s ability to select, access, and use broadband internet access service or the lawful internet content, applications, services, or devices of the end user’s choice, or an edge provider’s ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users, subject to reasonable network management.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero-Rating Practices in Broadband Markets
    Zero-rating practices in broadband markets Report by Competition EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Competition E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels [Cataloguenumber] Zero-rating practices in broadband markets Final report February 2017 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Les informations et opinions exprimées dans ce rapport sont ceux de(s) l'auteur(s) et ne reflètent pas nécessairement l'opinion officielle de la Commission. La Commission ne garantit pas l’exactitude des informations comprises dans ce rapport. La Commission, ainsi que toute personne agissant pour le compte de celle-ci, ne saurait en aucun cas être tenue responsable de l’utilisation des informations contenues dans ce rapport. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 Catalogue number: KD-02-17-687-EN-N ISBN 978-92-79-69466-0 doi: 10.2763/002126 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Is Multimedia Quality of Experience Assessment a Challenging Problem?
    Received August 5, 2019, accepted August 18, 2019, date of publication August 21, 2019, date of current version September 5, 2019. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2936470 Why Is Multimedia Quality of Experience Assessment a Challenging Problem? ZAHID AKHTAR 1, (Senior Member, IEEE), KAMRAN SIDDIQUE2, (Member, IEEE), AJITA RATTANI3, (Member, IEEE), SYAHEERAH LEBAI LUTFI4, AND TIAGO H. FALK 5, (Senior Member, IEEE) 1Department of Computer Science, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA 2Department of Information and Communication Technology, Xiamen University Malaysia, Sepang 43900, Malaysia 3Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260, USA 4School of Computer Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia 5INRS-EMT, University of Quebec, Montreal, QC H5A 1K6, Canada Corresponding authors: Zahid Akhtar ([email protected]) and Kamran Siddique ([email protected]) This work was supported by the Office of Research and Innovation, Xiamen University Malaysia under the XMUM Research Program Cycle 3, under Grant XMUMRF/2019-C3/IECE/0006. ABSTRACT Quality of experience (QoE) assessment occupies a key role in various multimedia networks and applications. Recently, large efforts have been devoted to devise objective QoE metrics that correlate with perceived subjective measurements. Despite recent progress, limited success has been attained. In this paper, we provide some insights on why QoE assessment is so difficult by presenting few major issues as well as a general summary of quality/QoE formation and conception including human auditory and vision systems. Also, potential future research directions are described to discern the path forward. This is an academic and perspective article, which is hoped to complement existing studies and prompt interdisciplinary research.
    [Show full text]
  • Zscaler Bandwidth Control Ensures Your Mission-Critical Applications, Like Office 365, Don’T Take a Back Seat to Youtube, OS Updates, and Streaming Content
    DATA SHEET Zscaler™ Bandwidth Control Prioritize business applications over recreational traffic Zscaler Bandwidth Control ensures your mission-critical applications, like Office 365, don’t take a back seat to YouTube, OS updates, and streaming content. The challenge of managing bandwidth in a UTM/Firewall Appliance Sprawl cloud world Leading organizations are moving toward local Internet breakouts to ensure a fast user experience and realize the full agility and cost-saving benefits of the cloud. With more traffic bound for the Internet, it is essential that business apps, like Office 365, are prioritized over YouTube, Spotify, and other recreational traffic like live-streaming sporting events. One way to route traffic locally and police bandwidth is to deploy next- generation firewalls or UTM appliances in each location, but this approach creates costly, unmanageable appliance sprawl. User experience also HQ DATA CENTER suffers with an appliance-based approach because appliances are not designed for bandwidth shaping and will drop packets and interrupt streaming video. And, because this approach is implemented in the last mile, instead of the cloud, the enterprise itself remains vulnerable to bottlenecks and bandwidth contention. Break Free with Zscaler A better approach: Zscaler Bandwidth Control With the majority of your users and applications in the cloud, and most of your traffic now bound for the Internet, it makes sense to move your security and controls to the cloud, too. By implementing Zscaler Bandwidth Control — part of the Zscaler Cloud Security Platform — you can route traffic locally to the Internet, providing great performance and the same level of protection for all users, across all locations.
    [Show full text]