Ofcom attempts to thread the needle in net neutrality update Ofcom says it is trying to strike a balance between user freedom while allowing operators to protect their networks and still offer "premium" services at a higher price, according to updated guidance on net neutrality rules. The Brit telecoms regulator said there were "significant developments" in the online world since the …
The prime concern for any of the regulators, is to ensure their own survival.
I think it's more a case of not wanting to be caught in the crosshairs of Big Tech, the lobbyists and litigation. But there's plenty of prior art, ie the historic voice settlement systems that 'solved' the interconnect charging problem well over a century ago. Sort of. It was regularly abused, but at least there were frameworks in place to try and do something about the worst abuses. But then VoIP came along..
"Net neutrality should mean that users of the internet are in control of what they can do online, rather than the network operator or ISP. "
Except they aren't, never will be and arguably shouldn't be. The operators should be in control given they're the ones delivering the service. Although motoring analogies rarely work, it's a akin to saying that the users of Ferraris should be in control, not the operators of road networks. So 70mph is the current speed limit. Want to drive at 150mph? Build your own private roads.
In practice, what it means is the 'net remains fundamentally best efforts, and if there's congestion, that's just too bad. There are relatively simple technical solutions, ie QoS/CoS that do get implemented. So a lot of operators will try to prioritise say, 128Kbps of VoIP traffic, or traffic intended to be used for VoIP because that's a safety-of-life issue and arguably a GoodThing(tm). Regulators are generally ok with this, especially if it's a feature every operator gets at the wholesale level because then they have an out if they're blamed for people dieing for want of a working 999/112 call.
At the interconnect level, ie peering and transit, it's still mostly a gentleperson's agreement. Although regulators can often regulate interconnect agreements and disputes, they're usually reluctant to, because that's where the diverged commercial interests come into play. But slowly, it's starting to change, ie ISPs offering 'specialised services' within their own AS's.
The operators should be in control
No they fucking shouldn't. Do you really think the likes of BT, TalkTalk and Beardienet should be in control? WTF?
they're the ones delivering the service.
Depends on the definition of "service". ISPs mostly deliver packets. Their service is therefore providing bandwidth and connectivity. Or should be. When these work, people don't notice or care about that service. Instead, they care about the services from content providers. Who are not ISPs.
CDNs install cache nodes *inside* eyeball networks and generally pay for their traffic to reach those nodes. From there, it's a "last mile" issue to get that content delivered to end users over the ISP's network. That essentially costs the ISP nothing - provided they have invested in a decent network. Which most don't. In the net neutrality debate, ISPs expect to get free upgrades to the infrastructure that's their core responsibility.
No they fucking shouldn't. Do you really think the likes of BT, TalkTalk and Beardienet should be in control? WTF?
Hmm? So you think the businesses that have invested millions, or billions in building complex networks should have no control over how they operate? I wasn't aware that all that critical national infrastructure had been privatised and thrown into the public domain. Any idea where I can find the current router enable passwords?
CDNs install cache nodes *inside* eyeball networks and generally pay for their traffic to reach those nodes.
No, they do not. They may offer to supply those cache nodes FOC, but it's still going to cost the ISP to house, connect, power them etc.
That essentially costs the ISP nothing - provided they have invested in a decent network. Which most don't. In the net neutrality debate, ISPs expect to get free upgrades to the infrastructure that's their core responsibility.
No, upgrading access networks costs billions. Unless there's a contract between the ISP and the content provider, the ISP has no legal obligation to deliver any of their traffic, or any more than a few Kbps. The ISP has no legal or contractual obligation to deliver 100Mbps to any specific content service given your contract is for a generic 'Internet', and specific services would require QoS of CoS to deliver anyway.
But this debate has been going on for decades and the issue remains the same. Net Neutrality wants to keep the Internet fundamentally best efforts, even though there are very good technical reasons for better managing traffic and congestion. Again if costs aren't shared, the only people who'll suffer are the users through worse service, unreliable connectivity and higher ISP charges.
"Hmm? So you think the businesses [...] should have no control over how they operate?"
That's not the sentence. You know this. Let's see the sentence this came from. You quoted it yourself:
"Net neutrality should mean that users of the internet are in control of what they can do online, rather than the network operator or ISP. "
So what they, and I, think is that the user, not the ISP, should be in control of "what they [the user] can do online". The businesses can be in control of "how they [the ISP] operate", in order to provide the service they said they would which gives the user the power to do what they want to do online.
This is not unusual. The electricity supplier doesn't get to decide that I'm charging my work laptop, not my personal laptop, and I make money off the work laptop, so I need to pay more for that. The water supplier doesn't get to determine that I'm using the water for cooking rather than cleaning and apply a different rate to that. They made a contract where they supply a utility and I pay for the amount I use. The ISP writes a similar contract and sets its own prices for how much I pay to use a certain amount, even if they find it easier to charge one price by which I subsidize other connections because I don't use that much of it (I don't stream video much at all, so I have a feeling I'm using less on average than my neighbors). They then decide how to operate their equipment to deliver the watts, liters, or packets that their contract says they will.
I wasn't aware that "a few largely-unobtrusive rules" and "no rules at all" constituted "extremes".
I'm reminded of a line by David Quammen, something like "Some people hate all dogs, while others think some dogs are OK, some of the time. I take a position between these two extremes".
Ofcom also said there may be some circumstances where reasonable traffic management is insufficient to halt undesirable levels of congestion. In these circumstances, ISPs have additional flexibility to go beyond reasonable traffic management in order to prevent congestion.
ISPs are "expected," however, to address congestion in the least intrusive manner and proportionate with the severity of the congestion, Ofcom said, and not be maintained for any longer than is necessary.
Vermin Media like the first paragraph and totally ignore and forget the second exists, when they deliberately oversubscribe and congest their network and yet Ofcom does nothing, it's all air in a bag when it come to Ofcom and enforcing rules.
The last time I had a virgin media connection at home I got out of the contract early on the grounds that there were planned outages at least once a month, on top of unplanned ones. I had a business package where they sent me an official notification of every confirmed outage, so they couldn't really pretend it was my end...
The real reason I wanted out of the contract was because the "350Mbit" download I only ever saw from the clearly whitelisted speed test servers. Actual internet downloads suspiciously always downloaded at exactly 100Mbit, and my VPN to my remote servers was lucky to get 10Mbit...
Tme for a new set of rules for ISPs (and all utilities).
The correct is to increase network bandwidth, so your users can have the service they expect and are paying for, regardless of network demand. If, as an ISP, you cannot provide that bandwidth, that's not the users' fault, and users should not be made to suffer for your corporate decision to prioritise shareholders and exec bonuses over network investment.
All utilities should be run as non-profit, if not outright publically owned (aside from the intial costs of taking public control, public ownership of pseduo and defacto monopolies hasn't worked well in the past).
No, non-profit with a transparent, onshore corporate structure, is adequate. Plough all excess income, beyond genuine cost of doing busiess, into network maintenance and capacity increases. And by "genuine costs" I do not mean leasing corporate branding from an offshore holding company that vacuums up all the profit. No shady shell company structures. You're providing utilities in this country, you are based in this country and not beholden to external overlords.
The first thing Ofcom should insist on on is transparency - for the user - on what the Network Providers are doing - especially on what traffic is blocked/restricted/ports mucked around with etc.
I'd like to think the same should apply to the mobile networks - but maybe these are exempt from Net Neutrality?
The first thing Ofcom should insist on on is transparency - for the user - on what the Network Providers are doing - especially on what traffic is blocked/restricted/ports mucked around with etc.
People are still arguing over what "up to" means, and why that's a thing. Now, you expect the average hairy palmed content consumer to understand CoS/QoS? Especially when many people in the industry still can't really explain what that is, or how it works.. Ish.
I think (or, at least, hope) that the battle about breaking network neutrality to allow network providers to double dip by charging me for using the network they have marketed to me at its full level and also charging a content provider for sending me traffic is last year's battle and is almost over.
VPNs are here to stay for so many reasons. Driven by the work-from-home requirements of businesses, pretty much all business traffic is VPN'd. And personal VPNs have become increasingly popular to work round network blocks, arcane geo-restrictions and confidentiality. So telecoms utility companies will go back to just transferring bits without having a stake in the different values of those bits.
Sorry, guys, greed may be good but your market capitalisations are toast - back to utility valuation. Utilities are still good business - we all need them, and governments turn a blind eye to monopoly activities (like not entering an area a competitor serves with the expectation the favour will be returned).
Netflix doesn't pay because I do. Netflix pays for the connection from its servers to the internet. I pay for a connection from my home to the internet. What my ISP is selling to me is the ability to ask for and get packets from the internet and they'll deliver them to me at the speed and for the price we agreed on. It is their responsibility to determine how much it costs to deliver those things to me and charge me accordingly, which does not include trying to bill anyone I've ever requested packets from.
Everyone involved here is already paying for access to that network. By trying to charge the other end of the connection, the ISP is trying to get paid twice for providing the same service. If the person sending packets has to pay for both ends of the connection, then why shouldn't Netflix's ISP start charging my ISP for the delivery of the packets from my computer telling it what shows I want to watch? That costs money as well. I think we can agree that this is ridiculous, and it is ridiculous when the packets flow the other way, even if there tend to be a lot of them.
It is their responsibility to determine how much it costs to deliver those things to me and charge me accordingly,
Indeed. It costs a lot to deliver Netflix and other content to you. If those content providers won't pay anything for the delivery costs, then you will. Or your service will degrade. You can still load a web page, eventually, you just might not be able to watch a live stream, make a video call, play an online game, make a phone call. As long as your ISP delivers you access to a generic 'Internet', it won't be in breach of your SLA, and if you want to terminate, you'll probably be reminded you're in contract and will have to pay an exit fee.
By trying to charge the other end of the connection, the ISP is trying to get paid twice for providing the same service.
No, that's what transit providers do. They charge Netflix to provide Internet access, they also charge their ISP customers to deliver that Netflix traffic. If ISPs want to peer directly with Netflix, then there are charges (well, costs) for the ISP to do that. If it means they're paying less for transit, that make sense. Or it may cost a lot of money to connect to peering locations, and keep upgrading the capacity there. And again if Netflix won't contribute to those delivery costs, the only people who will be the ISP's customers, whether they use streaming services or not.
I think we can agree that this is ridiculous, and it is ridiculous when the packets flow the other way, even if there tend to be a lot of them.
Nope. That's kind of how the Internet used to work. Settlement free peering generally required balanced traffic flows, or some mutual benefit. Streaming is very asymmetric, so a small amount of traffic from the ISP's customers, and a huge amount of traffic back. Even though the content providers are generating that traffic, they contribute nothing to the costs of upgrading the access networks.
"As long as your ISP delivers you access to a generic 'Internet', it won't be in breach of your SLA, and if you want to terminate, you'll probably be reminded you're in contract and will have to pay an exit fee."
One reason I avoid contracts. While I probably wouldn't try it because any legal or semilegal dispute is a lot of work and I have other things to do, they did quote me a speed. If they consistently degrade that speed, they have failed to provide the service they said they would. While a legal dispute would probably find the clause they wrote in the contract stating that they might not offer that service, this isn't an ironclad defense. While I've never faced this in court, I did once get a friend out of their ISP contract for consistent failure to deliver the service they promised, and the customer service representative accepted my set of data about how bad it was and allowed them to cancel the contract without paying any of the suggested fees. That's no guarantee that they'll always do that, but I think consistent degradation across a large area is the kind of thing that causes lawyers to start thinking about large groups of plaintiffs, and publicity like that leads to government scrutiny of monopolistic practices. ISPs aren't all-powerful.
ISPs figure out their own peering arrangements. A lot of them have negotiated free peering relationships, and in Netflix's case, I know they have systems to reduce the need to peer at all by putting content on the local ISP network. However, if my ISP finds that they have to pay to peer, then that's a cost of doing business which they pass on to me, not a cost of doing business that they pass on to lots of people to turn it into profit. I'm the one buying the service, and they figure out how to charge for it. If it means that they decide to charge by consumption, so be it. It is not my fault that the price they set doesn't give them the profit margin they'd like. And by the way, if they start increasing the price, there had better be competition because abuse of monopoly power isn't good either. Sometimes, companies have to get used to the reality that some activities don't have high margins.
One reason I avoid contracts. While I probably wouldn't try it because any legal or semilegal dispute is a lot of work and I have other things to do, they did quote me a speed. If they consistently degrade that speed, they have failed to provide the service they said they would.
You can't really avoid contracts, if you want any service. If you actually read a contract, it almost certainly doesn't guarantee you a speed. There is a reason this stuff is called 'bandwith' after all. Services don't get faster, they get wider. They will also specify where that bandwidth is to/from. So say a 100/10Mbs service won't be able to download from a website served by a different ISP a couple of AS's away that only has a 10Mbps connection. Or has some form of CDN that applies per-session rate limiting to manage resources. There may be some language defining outages and packet loss.
Without QoS/CoS, it's just not technically possible to guarantee, or deliver any defined bps rate outside of that ISP's own network.
ISPs figure out their own peering arrangements.
I know this. I've been figuring those out since the early '90s..
and in Netflix's case, I know they have systems to reduce the need to peer at all by putting content on the local ISP network.
That's nice, but the problem, and costs aren't just at the peering locations. Those caches still need space/heat/power and are a cost to the ISP. The bigger problem is the cost of getting the content from those caches to the ISP's customers, ie the incremental cost of delivering that content, which the content provider isn't contributing towards, even though they're generating the traffic.
And by the way, if they start increasing the price, there had better be competition because abuse of monopoly power isn't good either.
Again, you're missing the point. Increasing traffic volumes means increasing network capacity. This costs a lot of money, especially in access networks. If content provides won't contribute towards those costs, then the only option is to increase prices, or degrade quality. There has already been a lot of consolidation in the retail ISP space, and that will continue and accelerate, if ISPs can't afford continual upgrades. Consumers may not be able to afford the inevitable price increases, and Ofcom's already taken steps along those lines to promote 'basic' services that are suitable for accessing basic online services, but often won't be much fun for families that want to watch streaming services.
And of course this will be inflationary, and inflation adds to the costs. Ofcom and the CMA will carry on looking if there's evidence of any monopoly or cartel behaviour, but if costs increases, prices have to increase. That's just business.
If their offer of "unlimited data" works out to be too much for them, then they need to increase the price to the consumer, or maybe change contracts to have data limits, and different data tiers.
Then the market will decide.
Charging Netflix etc. to send me data, that I've already paid to receive is not on. I'm paying to pull that data. ISP's need to sort out THEIR model, not blame others for using the service they said we could use.
Charging Netflix etc. to send me data, that I've already paid to receive is not on. I'm paying to pull that data.
Netflix is charging you for a subscription, and just hiked it's prices. Netflix isn't paying for that service to actually get to you. That's the simple economic disconnect. They flog you a service, and leave it up to the ISPs to deliver it to you, and don't pay delivery.
You talk like you work at an ISP. If you do, you are aware that everywhere you put servers pays for a network connection that pushes packets onto that ISP's network. Netflix undoubtedly have bills for connecting their servers. They pay their ISP to take their traffic, and they're probably paying by the amount of traffic they send since every big contract involves that. They are paying to send, and I'm paying to receive. The ISPs work out between them how they'll exchange money for connecting up the parts in the middle, using the money that Netflix and I paid to cover the costs. If they need to upgrade the equipment and don't have enough money to do it, they can increase their prices. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is have one ISP start charging someone who isn't their customer. I don't have a Netflix subscription, so if I started getting bills from Netflix for having more servers, I shouldn't have to pay them. It works as well the other way.
You talk like you work at an ISP. If you do, you are aware that everywhere you put servers pays for a network connection that pushes packets onto that ISP's network.
Not any more, but been there, done that, got a wide selection of t-shirts and now just do the occasional bit of consulting. But yes, when I design networks, it's generally based on traffic flows and costs. It's not just the connectivity cost, but also cost of housing servers. An ISP will need a few of those for things like DNS, mail, data retention, logging and maybe some hosting or pseudo-cloud stuff. All of that costs money, ie leasing a building to build a PoP, or renting rackspace in an existing data centre somewhere. Then for connnectivity, finding or running fibre, installing DWDM boxen, BFRs for routing to peers/transit connections and switches.
All of that is a lot of capex and opex, and can also be quite challenging, if you need space for more kit, or to install upgrades. Sorry, your Internet will be down for maybe 4hrs+ while we replace the BFR because traffic volumes have increased. Again.
They pay their ISP to take their traffic, and they're probably paying by the amount of traffic they send since every big contract involves that. They are paying to send, and I'm paying to receive. The ISPs work out between them how they'll exchange money for connecting up the parts in the middle, using the money that Netflix and I paid to cover the costs.
Again, you're missing the disconnect. I'll keep using Netflix as an example, but the issue's the same with any of the big content providers. So-
You--ISPA--TransitISP--ISPB--Netflix
You pay your ISP. Netflix pays it's ISP. Unless it's paid peering, ISPB doesn't pay ISPA any of the costs of delivering Netflix traffic. You pay ISPA for generic Internet access, you also pay Netflix for your subscription. None of that subscription charge goes towards paying to deliver the movie or TV show you want to watch. It's a bit like ordering a box of lead online, and the company you're ordering from expecting free shipping.
But that scenario's less common given Netflix usually gets it's connectivity from one of the transit ISPs. Netflix pays the Transit ISP. Unless your ISP has a peering connection to Netflix, it'll have to also pay the/a Transit ISP to reach Netflix. So the Transit ISP double-dips and gets paid by both the sender, and the reciever. Again this is a cost that can directly be attributed to Netflix traffic, which ISPA gets no money for, just bills. If you look at the players on each side of the 'net neutrality 'debate', you'll see the transit ISPs siding with the content providers, because they like getting paid twice.
Sure, ISPA could try to reduce those costs by peering directly with Netflix, but again that costs money. So spin up a bunch of 10Gbps, or 100Gbps interfaces.. And ISPA will really want 2 diverse connections because if Netflix goes down, customers will blame their ISP. That's an additional support cost.
What they shouldn't be allowed to do is have one ISP start charging someone who isn't their customer.
If there's a peering relationship between the ISP and Netflix, then they are a customer. Sort of. There will be a contract relating to that connection. Otherwise it's that customer relationship that's currently broken. You expect to be able to watch Netflix. That costs. But Netflix doesn't pay anything to deliver you the service you've requested from Netflix. For peering, the technicalties are pretty simple. Suppose I have 2x10Gbps connections to Netflix. They're both full. Solution is to make that 4x10Gbps, or maybe 2x100Gbps. That isn't cheap. I can ask Netflix to pay for this, because after all, it's their traffic currently getting dropped into the bit bucket due to congestion. Netflix may refuse to pay.
Subscriber may decide to switch to another provider because they can't watch Netflix. ISP loses revenue. Or subscriber may cancel their Netflix subscription, but it's usually the ISP that gets blamed. But this, of course assumes the subscriber can actually switch ISP, and due to consolidation, that might not be possible. So too bad, so sad, you're stuck with a glitchy viewing experience. Oh, and maybe you also can't make phone calls, or WFH because your Internet sucks.
Techincal solutions have existed for a long time, ie QoS/CoS. ISPs can use those internally to prioritise traffic, ie real-time stuff like voice or video conferencing. So in the event of congestion, stuff like Netflix traffic can be degraded to permit you to call the fire service because your house may be on fire. Or maybe your ISP also offers a video service like say, BT Spurt. There, you have a may have a contract with BT to deliver both generic bits, and the boring bits with overpaid twats chasing a ball around a field, live in glorious HD. BT may choose to prioritise it's own video services over Netflix, because after all, you're paying for delivering that content, and Netflx isn't.
But then Netflix might complain that BT is 'degrading their service'. But they're not, they're simply delivering the service they're contracted to deliver. If Netflix isn't paying anything for delivery, it's packets get marked as 'best efforts' and take their chances circling the bit bucket. It gets a little murkier if the ISP is taking more active steps to reduce congestion by dropping Neflix traffic specifically, but that can depend on the regulatory environment. But if Netflix isn't paying for delivery, why deliver it?
Again it's a very old problem, with a very old solution, namely the voice model with settlement systems based on origination and termination. Those are generally cost-based, so relatively 'fair', although it's a system that's also been gamed for the over a century with shenanigans like refiling. Regulators should be used to those tricks, and the same model can be applied to the Internet.
That is until the ISPs decide to slow down VPNs. It could work, too, because one used for work is probably running at a lower speed than one used to stream video that they would otherwise have messed with, so they might be able to find a level at which the personal uses are more actively harmed. Even if they don't, though, they can always sell the normal internet package and the extra one if you want to actually be able to work from home. They already have the ability to give us different prices by capping speeds, and they should just use that which is easy for a buyer to understand rather than trying to add in a bunch of variables about which specific things will work and which ones will not.
That is until the ISPs decide to slow down VPNs. It could work, too, because one used for work is probably running at a lower speed than one used to stream video that they would otherwise have messed with, so they might be able to find a level at which the personal uses are more actively harmed.
It's probably the other way around. Business users may get a higher priority because they'd expect a better SLA, and then be expected to pay more for a better service. It gets more complicated with VPNs, especially if the ISP isn't providing the VPN and endpoints are outside that network. The VPN app might try to manage congestion on the endpoint, but the ISP isn't going to be able to help because it'll only see the VPN tunnel. Some ISPs offer MPLS VPNs and Internet over common infrastructure, ie shared capacity, but then the Internet VRF can be configured as 'best efforts' so the business MPLS customers get prioritised, and their SLAs are met.
There's been a few examples (ie peering disputes) where there has been active harm, but generally it's a PITA to do that, as it has to be configured. I've rate limited spam or malicious websites at ISPs before, but often it's easier to just dump all that garbage into the bit bucket. I've also priotised voice, video and sometimes other traffic within my own networks. But if that stays within my AS, my network, my rules and it's not Internet traffic.
>> That is until the ISPs decide to slow down VPNs
Work VPN's are not so simple any more, especially if you are using the "cloud" (office 36x for example) as many (like ours) break out the cloud traffic to go there directly rather than clog up the VPN channels by first going to the company then back out its internet connection....
Work VPN's are not so simple any more, especially if you are using the "cloud" (office 36x for example) as many (like ours) break out the cloud traffic to go there directly rather than clog up the VPN channels by first going to the company then back out its internet connection....
Depends on the work and if they're paying for an Internet connection. Its a problem when people are WFH, especially in regulated industries or just sensitive ones. So there might be a requirement to monitor employee's Internet access, and if the VPN client allows split tunnelling, they may not be able to do that. Then there's the security risks, ie a WFH company laptop sitting on your home LAN which may then get used to jump into your private computers.. or vice-versa. Same thing can be a general PITA with businesses that swallowed the 'cloud' pill, ie using the Internet to access the cloud, then tromboning traffic back from the cloud to the Internet. At least that sort of has the advantage of being able to install virtual firewalls inside the cloud instance, if the vendor permits that.
It's like many things on the 'net. The deeper you look into it, the bigger the bag of nails it becomes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
