DOCSLIB.ORG

Landmark EU and US Net Neutrality Decisions: How Might Pending Decisions Impact Internet Fragmentation?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Landmark EU and US Net Neutrality Decisions: How Might Pending Decisions Impact Internet Fragmentation? PAPER SERIES: NO. 18 — JULY 2015 Landmark EU and US Net Neutrality Decisions: How Might Pending Decisions Impact Internet Fragmentation? Ben Scott, Stefan Heumann and Jan-Peter Kleinhans LANDMARK EU AND US NET NEUTRALITY DECISIONS: HOW MIGHT PENDING DECISIONS IMPACT INTERNET FRAGMENTATION? Ben Scott, Stefan Heumann and Jan-Peter Kleinhans Copyright © 2015 by Ben Scott, Stefan Heumann and Jan-Peter Kleinhans Published by the Centre for International Governance Innovation and Chatham House. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre for International Governance Innovation or its Board of Directors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Non-commercial — No Derivatives License. To view this license, visit (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- nd/3.0/). For re-use or distribution, please include this copyright notice. 67 Erb Street West 10 St James’s Square Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2 London, England SW1Y 4LE Canada United Kingdom tel +1 519 885 2444 fax +1 519 885 5450 tel +44 (0)20 7957 5700 fax +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.cigionline.org www.chathamhouse.org TABLE OF CONTENTS vi About the Global Commission on Internet Governance vi About the Authors 1 Executive Summary 1 Introduction: Central Issues in the Net Neutrality Debate 3 Net Neutrality in the United States 5 Net Neutrality in the European Union 7 Threat of Internet Fragmentation 10 Conclusion 10 Works Cited 14 About CIGI 14 About Chatham House 14 CIGI Masthead GLOBAL COMMISSION ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPER SERIES: NO. 18 — JuLY 2015 ABOUT THE GLOBAL ABOUT THE AUTHORS COMMISSION ON INTERNET Ben Scott is managing director of the stiftung neue GOVERNANCE verantwortung (snv) in Berlin, and concurrently senior adviser to the Open Technology Institute at New The Global Commission on Internet Governance was America in Washington, DC. He was the policy adviser established in January 2014 to articulate and advance a for innovation at the US Department of State, where strategic vision for the future of Internet governance. The he worked in a small team of advisers to Secretary of two-year project conducts and supports independent State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Prior to joining the State research on Internet-related dimensions of global public Department, he led the Washington office of Free Press policy, culminating in an official commission report that for six years. He holds a Ph.D. in communications from will articulate concrete policy recommendations for the the University of Illinois. future of Internet governance. These recommendations will address concerns about the stability, interoperability, Stefan Heumann is director of the European Digital security and resilience of the Internet ecosystem. Agenda program at snv. He is a member of the Freedom Online Coalition Working Group 3 on Privacy and Launched by two independent global think tanks, Transparency Online. Before joining snv, he coordinated the Centre for International Governance Innovation the Public Affairs department of the US Consulate (CIGI) and Chatham House, the Global Commission on General in Hamburg, and taught political science Internet Governance will help educate the wider public as assistant professor at the University of Northern on the most effective ways to promote Internet access, Colorado. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the while simultaneously championing the principles of University of Pennsylvania. freedom of expression and the free flow of ideas over the Internet. Jan-Peter Kleinhans is manager of the European Digital Agenda program at snv. Before joining snv, he worked as The Global Commission on Internet Governance will a journalist at netzpolitik.org, focusing on surveillance focus on four key themes: technology and Internet regulation. He holds a master’s degree in social sciences from Uppsala University in • enhancing governance legitimacy — including Sweden. regulatory approaches and standards; • stimulating economic innovation and growth — including critical Internet resources, infrastructure and competition policy; • ensuring human rights online — including establishing the principle of technological neutrality for human rights, privacy and free expression; and • avoiding systemic risk — including establishing norms regarding state conduct, cybercrime cooperation and non-proliferation, confidence- building measures and disarmament issues. The goal of the Global Commission on Internet Governance is two-fold. First, it will encourage globally inclusive public discussions on the future of Internet governance. Second, through its comprehensive policy- oriented report, and the subsequent promotion of this final report, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will communicate its findings with senior stakeholders at key Internet governance events. www.ourinternet.org VI • CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE INNOVATION • CHATHAM HOUSE LANDMARK EU AND US NET NEUTRALITY DECISIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the network is tied to both infrastructure development and power over what content and services are available During the past decade, net neutrality has become a to consumers. The political and economic implications of central issue in the debate over further development of the this decision are very broad and ripple out from national Internet. At a time when the United States has just adopted impact to international consequences. Net neutrality a landmark regulation on net neutrality and the European policies could either reduce or enhance the potential of Union is in the final stages of defining its own position fragmenting the global Internet marketplace. This is why on net neutrality, this paper looks ahead and analyzes the a seemingly arcane technology policy issue has achieved implications of these decisions with a particular focus on such unlikely prominence in contemporary political their impact on Internet fragmentation. The paper begins debates. with an analysis of what is at stake in the net neutrality debate. The policy choice boils down to two competing This paper speaks to these “big picture” issues. But in technical models with very different commercial order to understand what is at stake, it is important to opportunities: a non-discriminatory infrastructure with begin with the basic technical questions of what the innovation occurring at the edges, and an evolution Internet looks like with and without net neutrality. The toward “smart” networks that are permitted to develop logic of the policy choices flows from the technical facts. new business models on the physical infrastructure, From this perspective, the policy choice of net neutrality monetizing points of network congestion by selling boils down to two competing technical architectures for pay-for-play quality of service to content and services information networks: a non-discriminatory infrastructure providers. US regulators have taken a clear position that with innovation occurring at the edges and all content/ would ban any form of discrimination in the infrastructure service providers competing equally over the same for solely commercial reasons. The future of net neutrality networks; and an evolution toward “smart” networks in the European Union is more uncertain. It largely that are permitted to develop new business models on depends on the interpretation of the final text negotiated the physical infrastructure that assert greater, centralized between the European Council, European Commission control over the content on their networks — monetizing (EC) and European Parliament (EP) by national regulatory points of network congestion by selling pay-for-play 1 authorities. The paper identifies four possible areas for quality of service to content and services providers. Internet fragmentation, if net neutrality rules in the United In many ways, net neutrality regulations are not new States and European Union significantly diverge. First, it laws. They codify the architectural “first principles” of the could lead to a further divergence between the United States Internet — preserving in formal legal rules the technical and the European Union regarding the competitiveness features that enabled the Internet’s tremendous growth. of their Internet industries. Second, it could increase The Internet was originally designed according to the best barriers of market entry for new innovative start-ups in effort, or “end-to-end,” principle. This means that all data the European Union that seek to challenge Silicon Valley packets on the network are treated without discrimination tech titans. Third, a weak net neutrality rule could lead to and flow according to the best available path from origin divergence of customer experience of the Internet. Fourth, to end point. These features were engineered into the discriminatory interconnection practices could be used to Internet’s basic technical protocols. The idea was to ensure undermine the global Internet marketplace of information that any new content, application or service could be and services. The paper concludes with the thesis that the designed with the same expectations of quality of service in greater the difference between the implementation of the routing traffic over the network (i.e., non-discrimination). two net neutrality rules, the more likely the two markets The notion of discriminatory routing that would privilege will develop in significantly different ways. certain senders of content over others was never seriously contemplated. Thus, during the early
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Net Neutrality: Selected Legal Issues Raised by the FCC’S 2015 Open Internet Order
    Net Neutrality: Selected Legal Issues Raised by the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order Kathleen Ann Ruane Legislative Attorney June 12, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43971 Net Neutrality: Selected Legal Issues Raised by the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order Summary In February 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an order that will impose rules governing the management of Internet traffic as it passes over broadband Internet access services (BIAS), whether those services are fixed or wireless. The rules are commonly known as “net neutrality” rules. The order was released in March 2015 and published in the federal register on April 13, 2015. The order took effect on June 12, 2015. According to the order, the rules ban the blocking of legal content, forbid paid prioritization of affiliated or proprietary content, and prohibit the throttling of legal content by broadband Internet access service providers (BIAS providers). The rules are subject to reasonable network management, as that term is defined by the FCC. This is not the first time the FCC has attempted to impose some version of net neutrality rules. Most recently, the FCC issued the Open Internet Order in 2010, which would have created similar rules for the provision of broadband Internet access services. However, the bulk of those rules, with the sole exception of a disclosure rule, were struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly, the court found that the FCC did have broad enough authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to impose the rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Chapter: Next Generation of Broadband Networks As Core for the Future Internet… 3
    DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.80508 ProvisionalChapter chapter 1 Introductory Chapter: NextNext GenerationGeneration ofof BroadbandBroadband Networks as Core for the Future Internet Societies AbdelfattehAbdelfatteh Haidine Haidine and Abdelhak AqqalAbdelhak Aqqal Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80508 1. Introduction: evolution of the needs for “broadband” The Internet traffic is an ongoing explosive increasing from year to year, so that the annual global IP traffic surpassed the zettabytes threshold in 2016. Furthermore, it is predicted that the overall IP traffic will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24% from 2016 to 2021 [1]. Different factors are alimenting this growth, such as the increasing number of con- nected devices from different types, as illustrated byFigure 1. This continuous growth has a big impact on different level of networking, such as the wide area network, metro (metropolitan) network, access networks and the home (in-house/in-home) networks. Along the evolution of telecom networks, the access networks were always the “weak point” of the infrastructure and therefore referred to as “the bottleneck”. Consequently, one of the first challenges in the era of Internet is the realisation of high-speed “broadband access networks”. Basically, the con- cept and the term “Broadband Communications Networks” refers to any type of networks/ access technologies used by Internet Service Providers (ISP) to provide a broadband Internet access for a multimedia content delivery/distribution according to technical considerations and requirements such as guaranteed Quality of Service (QoS).
    [Show full text]
  • State Responses to Net Neutrality
    State Responses to Net Neutrality Kathryn J. Kline National Regulatory Research Institute [19–03] Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank Commissioner emeritus Travis Kavulla Elin Katz, Connecticut Consumer Counsel and President of NASUCA Jon Banks, formerly of US Telecomm Timothy Karr of Free Press Cynthia G. Wilson-Frias, Deputy Chief of Legal Services for the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission Adam Bender, Communications Daily Dr. Victor Glass, Rutgers University Kenneth Mallory, Esq., Legislative Affairs Counsel at NARUC Marianne Townsend and Jason Well, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Dr. Carl Pechman, National Regulatory Research Institute and my indefatigable colleague, Dr. Sherry Lichtenberg, for her guidance and feedback throughout the writing process. State Responses to Net Neutrality | 1 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ..........................................................3 II. Purpose of this Document .....................................................5 III. Context ....................................................................6 A. Legislative and Regulatory Context ...........................................6 B. NARUC on Net Neutrality, a State Regulatory Perspective .........................9 IV. The State Response .........................................................11 A. Executive Orders on Net Neutrality ..........................................11 B. Legislative Resolutions ....................................................12 C. Legislative Bills ..........................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • E-Democracy Handbook
    Strasbourg, 27 August 2020 CDDG(2020)6 PROV1 Item 3.1 of the agenda EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE (CDDG) E-DEMOCRACY HANDBOOK Secretariat Memorandum prepared by the Directorate General of Democracy Democratic Governance Division 1 Subject to proofreading 2 1. Introduction The terms of reference of the CDDG for the biennium 2018-2019 include specific task iv: “In the field of e-democracy, - in accordance with Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)5 on standards for e-voting, hold a review meeting on its implementation in 2019; - develop guidelines on e-democracy as a toolkit; - oversee the implementation of the priority “building democracy online” of the Internet Governance – Council of Europe Strategy 2016-2019.” The CDDG set up a working group on e-democracy, which met three times: - at its meetings on 27 November 2018 and 14-15 March 2019 respectively, the working group discussed the outline, content and structure of the guidelines on e-democracy in the form of a toolkit on the basis of Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on electronic democracy; - at its meeting on 24 May 2019, the CDDG Bureau examined the suggested approach and agreed that, whilst guidelines should be a high-level instrument addressed to Council of Europe member States, the toolkit should be a practical instrument which provides ‘practitioners’ with guidance and includes examples and practical steps to be taken; - at its third meeting on 12-13 September 2019, the working group finalised the draft Guidelines on e-democracy in the form of a toolkit, asking for further practical examples in relation to e-democracy initiatives or projects to be included in the Guidelines and a glossary to be added.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Net Neutrality? Jon Gabriel
    WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY? JON GABRIEL Net Neutrality means that the government will—one day—control the internet. “Wait a second!” I can you hear you saying. “That sounds bad.” But almost everyone you know says that Net Neutrality is good. Doesn’t “neutral” mean that no one is picking winners and losers, that everyone is equal? Maybe according to the dictionary, but not according to the people behind the Net Neutrality movement. For them, “neutral” means the government regulates the internet like a public utility—and that means bureaucrats making key decisions about how the internet is run. And that’s exactly what happened in 2015. The Federal Communications Commission—or FCC—under the Obama Administration, came up with Net Neutrality rules and regulations and imposed them on consumers. No open hearings—they just did it. Here’s what they said: Internet Service Providers, or ISPs—AT&T, Verizon, and other companies that lay the cable that goes to your house—are basically monopolies like your typical utility company. To prevent abuse of this position, Net Neutrality rules prohibited them from charging websites different prices no matter how much or how little bandwidth they use. But this is exactly the opposite of what utilities are allowed to do. Electricity providers, for instance, are allowed to create pricing tiers—the more you use, the higher the price goes. If you use significantly more power than your neighbor, you pay more for the privilege. “Net Neutrality” forces ISPs to charge all users the same price no matter how much data they send through the internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Internet Governance
    For easy reference: a list of frequently The history of this book is long, in Internet time. The used abbreviations and acronyms original text and the overall approach, including AN INTRODUCTION TO TO AN INTRODUCTION the five-basket methodology, were developed APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation in 1997 for a training course on information ccTLD country code Top-Level Domain AN INTRODUCTION TO and communications technology (ICT) policy CIDR Classless Inter-Domain Routing for government officials from Commonwealth DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act countries. In 2004, Diplo published a print version DNS Domain Name System of its Internet governance materials, in a booklet DRM Digital Rights Management INTERNET entitled Internet Governance – Issues, Actors and GAC Governmental Advisory Committee Divides. This booklet formed part of the Information gTLD generic Top-Level Domain INTERNET Society Library, a Diplo initiative driven by Stefano HTML HyperText Markup Language Baldi, Eduardo Gelbstein, and Jovan Kurbalija. IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority GOVERNANCE Special thanks are due to Eduardo Gelbstein, who ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned made substantive contributions to the sections Names and Numbers GOVERNANCE dealing with cybersecurity, spam, and privacy, and ICC International Chamber of Commerce AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNET GOVERNANCE Jovan Kurbalija to Vladimir Radunovic, Ginger Paque, and Stephanie aICT Information and Communications Jovan Kurbalija Borg-Psaila who updated the course materials. Technology Comments and suggestions from other colleagues IDN Internationalized Domain Name are acknowledged in the text. Stefano Baldi, Eduardo IETF Internet Engineering Task Force An Introduction to Internet Governance provides a comprehensive overview Gelbstein, and Vladimir Radunovic all contributed IGF Internet Governance Forum of the main issues and actors in this field.
    [Show full text]
  • Net Neutrality Stays Some Governments, Such As Those Of
    Net Neutrality Stays Some governments, such as those of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, restrict what people in their countries can access on the Internet, especially political and religious content. This is accomplished through software that filters domains and content so that they may not be easily accessed or obtained without elaborate circumvention. Internet Neutrality is essential to the underlying concepts and approaches to the network as a whole. This does not mean, for example, that only websites that pay more to various companies which act as ISPs should gain favor over others who are less suited to do so. This is outright favoritism at it's worst, and puts the United States in league with countries such as mentioned above - Cuba, Iran, North Korea, the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia. Are we to believe that with a mere stroke of a pen, the very ideals of the open access Internet are to be brushed aside and locked behind tiered and costly schemes? Are we to sleep well at night knowing that the deconstruction of what was once designed to be open and free is under constant fire by profiteering gluttons in mega-corporations? Honestly, as a business man myself, I completely understand the concerns of major ISPs with persons using more bandwidth than the ISPs originally expected. But this is just a fact of life - end of story. When I signed up for my Internet Service, I was shown in the agreement that I am allowed to use 1.5 Mb/sec and have access to the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Findings of the IEEE 802.3 Industry Connections Ethernet
    The Findings of the IEEE 802.3 Industr y Connections Ethernet Bandwidth Assessment Ad Hoc IEEE 802 Plenary San Diego, CA, USA July 16, 2012 Presenters • John DDAmbrosia,’Ambrosia, Dell, IEEE 802.3 BWA Chair • Peter Anslow, Ciena, IEEE 802.3 BWA Editor • Mark Nowell, Cisco • Scott Kipp, Brocade • Peter Stassar, Huawei IEEE 802.3 Industry Connections Ethernet Bandwidth Assessment Ad Hoc July 2012 IEEE 802 Plenary, San Diego, CA, USA Page 2 Agenda • Introduction (John DDAmbrosia)’Ambrosia) • Findings – Overview (Mark Nowell) – The Data Center (Scott Kipp) – Transport Networks (Peter Stassar) • Summary (Peter Anslow) IEEE 802.3 Industry Connections Ethernet Bandwidth Assessment Ad Hoc July 2012 IEEE 802 Plenary, San Diego, CA, USA Page 3 Disclaimers • This presentation is a supplement to the IEEE Industry Connections Ethernet Bandwidth Assessment D1.2, which is pending final approval (this week) by the IEEE 802.3 Working Group • All contributed information is solely the perspective of the respective contibttributors. • The views expressed in the Assessment solely represent the views of the IEEE 802.3 Working Group, and do not necessarily represent a position of the IEEE, the IEEE Standards Association, or IEEE 802. IEEE 802.3 Industry Connections Ethernet Bandwidth Assessment Ad Hoc July 2012 IEEE 802 Plenary, San Diego, CA, USA Page 4 INTRODUCTION JOHN D’AMBROSIA, DELL IEEE 802.3 Industry Connections Ethernet Bandwidth Assessment Ad Hoc July 2012 IEEE 802 Plenary, San Diego, CA, USA Page 5 The 2006 HSSG Call‐For‐Interest The Ethernet Ecosystem
    [Show full text]