Total Pageviews

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

TeleFrieden: “Restoring” Internet Freedom for Whom?

TeleFrieden: “Restoring” Internet Freedom for Whom?: "To answer my colleague’s question, I believe one has to consider ISPs as platform intermediaries who have an impact both downstream on end users and upstream on other carriers, content distributors and content creators. My research agenda has pivoted to the law, economics and social impact of platforms; see


Using the employment, innovation and investment criteria, the FCC also should have considered the current and prospective freedom quotient for upstream players.  Does nearly unfettered price and quality of service discrimination options for ISPs impact upstream ventures’ ability to employ, innovate and invest more?


Assume for the sake of discussion that ISPs can block, throttle, drop and prioritize packets.  A plausible, worst case scenario has an innovative market entrant with a new content-based business plan less able to achieve the Commission’s freedom goals.  Regardless whether you call it artificial congestion, the potential exists for an ISP to prevent traffic of the content market entrant from seamless transit.  The ISP could create congestion with an eye toward demanding a surcharge payment, even though the market entrant’s traffic had no possibility of itself creating congestion.  The ISP also might throttle traffic of the innovative newcomer if its market entry might adversely impact the content market share and profitability of the ISP, its affiliates and its upstream content providers that previously agreed to pay a surcharge.


Of course network neutrality opponents would object to this scenario based on the summary conclusion that an ISP would never degrade network performance, or reduce the value proposition of its service.  The airlines do this and so would an ISP if it thought it could extract more revenues given the lack of competition and the inability of consumers on both sides of its platform to shift carriers.   

ISPs do not operate as charities." 'via Blog this'

Pioneers for Net Neutrality

Pioneers for Net Neutrality: "It is important to understand that the FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.

 Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order dismantles 15 years of targeted oversight from both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs, who understood the threats that Internet access providers could pose to open markets on the Internet.

 The experts’ comment was not the only one the FCC ignored. Over 23 million comments have been submitted by a public that is clearly passionate about protecting the Internet. The FCC could not possibly have considered these adequately.

 Indeed, breaking with established practice, the FCC has not held a single open public meeting to hear from citizens and experts about the proposed Order.

Furthermore, the FCC’s online comment system has been plagued by major problems that the FCC has not had time to investigate. " 'via Blog this'

Friday, December 08, 2017

The Demise of Net Neutrality Will Harm Innovation in America - MIT Technology Review

The Demise of Net Neutrality Will Harm Innovation in America - MIT Technology Review: "Even the very biggest startups could suffer. In an IPO filing published earlier this year, Snap warned that weakening or ending net neutrality would hurt its business if ISPs limited access to it or favored its rivals (see “Why Snap Is Worried About Net Neutrality”). Young companies that pay up for higher speeds would have to pass those costs on to consumers, making it harder to compete with bigger players.

 Big ISPs say they’re committed to keeping a level playing field, but history and economic realism suggest they won’t. AT&T, for instance, blocked Skype and other Internet calling services on iPhones on its network until 2009. In many markets in America, there are still only one or two high-speed broadband providers. " 'via Blog this'

The FCC Still Doesn’t Know How the Internet Works | Electronic Frontier Foundation

The FCC Still Doesn’t Know How the Internet Works | Electronic Frontier Foundation: "Since the FCC cites them, it clearly read the multiple comments stating that over 50% of Web traffic is now encrypted. Yet, it sticks to the assertion that “truly pervasive encryption on the Internet is still a long way off, and that many sites still do not encrypt,” and use that to dismiss “assertions in record that suggest that ISP-provided caching is not a vital part of broadband Internet access service offerings, as it may be stymied by the use of HTTPS encryption.”

 Although the FCC tries to claim that offering web caching is an integral part of the functionality that ISPs provide, this is not the case. In fact, Sonic, a San Francisco-based ISP, does not run web caching equipment for its customers (although they do host a number of boxes from non-affiliated CDN platforms, including the Google Global Cache, Netflix OpenConnect, and Akamai—but they don't operate those boxes).

 And if the FCC doesn’t understand the Internet in general, it understands mobile telephony and broadband Internet access even less." 'via Blog this'

Stranger Things: Why Netflix Isn’t Behind New Submarine Cable Builds

Stranger Things: Why Netflix Isn’t Behind New Submarine Cable Builds: "But how do we translate that number (190,000 gigabytes of data) to traffic? To make that calculation, let’s make a few simplifying assumptions. First, let’s pretend that Netflix fully refreshes its entire cache each month. Second, let’s say that Netflix does this refresh evenly over the course of 30 days in the month. That translates to 6,333 GB per day…which turns out to be a piddly 577 Mbps. If Netflix were to push this content to its caches only during a daily 12-hour off-peak period, the required capacity would be double: 1.2 Gbps." 'via Blog this'

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Volume-based mobile data monetisation is unsustainable | Pal Zarandy

Volume-based mobile data monetisation is unsustainable | Pal Zarandy | Pulse | LinkedIn: "Case in point: as I mentioned in my post a year ago, Finnish networks – after over ten years of supplying the market with truly unlimited mobile data plans both for smartphones and for data-only devices) – now carry more mobile data volume per capita than fixed-line internet networks in Germany. 

Near zero marginal cost

investment intensity is basically independent of traffic volume growth

While operators invest every year huge amounts of money (~10% of service revenues) into their mobile infrastructure, our research showed that the investment intensity has been basically independent of traffic volume growth. Volumes grew by an order of magnitude, annual Capex stayed flat." 'via Blog this'

SCL: Predictions 2018 - 5

SCL: Predictions 2018 - 5: "Chris Marsden looks back on past predictions and looks forward through 2018 and beyond, with a special focus on net neutrality" 'via Blog this'