FCC: The New Net Neutrality is "Hybrid"

 
After years of failing to established a consumer oriented Net Neutrality, the FCC has a new scheme, recognizing that an Internet connection has two, non-equal, sides - the consumer and the content provider.

Edward Wtatt reports to the New York Times that "The proposal is part of a hybrid solution that has gained favor among theF.C.C. staff over the last two months. Like other possible solutions, it seeks to reestablish the F.C.C.’s authority to enforce net neutrality, the general concept that no Internet traffic should be discriminated against unfairly.

But unlike policies previously considered, which treated the entire Internet ecosystem as a single universe, the hybrid proposal would establish a divide between “wholesale” and “retail” transactions.

• The retail portion, the transaction that sends data through the Internet service provider to the consumer and which allows the consumer to access any legal content on the Internet, would receive a lighter regulatory touch.
   
• .. the hybrid approach would apply Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to the connection between Internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, and content providers. For the purpose of agreeing to transport content from a company like Netflix through its network, an I.S.P. would be treated as a “common carrier,” subject to stricter regulation.In that instance, an I.S.P., as a common carrier, could not give an unfair advantage to one content provider over another. Paid prioritization , where a content provider pays for a fast lane to consumers, would be restricted unless it could be proved to be just and reasonable"

See "F.C.C. Considering Hybrid Regulatory Approach to Net Neutrality" - here.

FCC Expands Traffic Management Policies Questioning to all MNOs

Alina Selyukh and Marina Lopes report to Reuters that "The top U.S. communications regulator on Friday said he is asking all large U.S. wireless carriers to explain how they decide when to slow download speeds for some customers, after questioning Verizon Wireless about such a plan"

This follows the letter sent earlier to Verizon (See "The FCC "Deeply Troubled" by Verizon's LTE Optimization" - here) following the MNO's decision to expand its "optimization" policy to LTE and limit unlimited users in congested locations (see "Verizon Expands "Optimization" to LTE Subs to Fight Cell Congestion" - here).

Verizon's response to FCC worries was (here, by TheRegister) that it is the right thing to do and everybody does that (try to claim that in a trial):  "The Commission Has Recognized the Reasonableness of this Form of Network Management .. Such Practices Are Widely Used Throughout the Industry and Have Been Widely Accepted [we are] Managing our 4G LTE to Ensure the Best Wireless Experience [and] With network optimization, our customers continue to be free to go where they want on the Internet and to use the applications, services and devices of their choice"

So ... if everybody does it, need to ask them as well.

Back to Reuters report - "AT&T Inc representatives did not immediately comment. A Sprint Corp spokeswoman said her company "goes to great lengths to be transparent about its network management practices," and will respond to Wheeler's letter as appropriate. "Our network practices are consistent with the Commission’s rules on the open Internet, are innovative and are good for consumers and competition," a T-Mobile US spokeswoman said." 

 

See "After Verizon, U.S. FCC quizzing other carriers on data management" - here.

The FCC "Deeply Troubled" by Verizon's LTE Optimization

Few days after Verizon published its plan to optimize traffic at congested cells [see "Verizon Expands "Optimization" to LTE Subs to Fight Cell Congestion" - here], the FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, sent them a number of questions, expressing he is  "deeply troubled" by the move, and questioning if this should the right policy for "reasonable netwrok management*" or it is actually done to  "enhance revenue streams".

See also "Net Neutrality Approval Reopens US Market for DPI and Policy Management" - here

*Reasonable network management.  A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user’s choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.

The letter uploaded by jbrodkin2000

FCC: New Net Neutrality? Just be "Commercially Reasonable"

  

After several days of conflicting new of the future of Net Neutrality in the US, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler [pictured] decided to "Set the Record Straight", in a post to the FCC official blog. the bottom line - "It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year".

And the rules are:

1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;
    
2. That no legal content may be blocked; and
    
3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

Good news to the DPI and Policy management vendors! (i guess that "reasonable traffic management" will remain as well).

On the same time, the "Chairman Wheeler is encouraging the public to share their views now. He intends to have rules of the road in place before the end of the year to protect consumers and entrepreneurs. He will be listening, and your comments will help inform the final rules" (see "FCC Establishes New Inbox for Open Internet Comments" - here and "Comments to the New FCC Net Neutrality" - here)

See "Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules" - here.

[Netherlands] T-Mobile Free Wi-Fi on Trains may Block YouTube

Here is how the "reasonable traffic management" exception to Net Neutrality looks like in real life.

While the Netherlands has a Net Neutrality law (see "Netherlands: Net Neutrality/DPI Restrictions Law Approved" - here), its railway service is allowed to block certain traffic on its free Wi-Fi service (operated by T-Mobile). I assume that if you still wish to watch YouTube you'll need to use paid mobile service.

24 Oranges reports that "The Dutch Authority for Consumers & Markets has approved Dutch railways’ move to block YouTube and Spotify which use a lot of bandwidth in order to provide better quality Wi-Fi in some of their trains. Even though the Wi-Fi is free, the net neutrality law force ISPs and telecom operators to ensure access to all types of content, services or applications available on the network".

ACM explains (here, in Dutch) that "traffic that congest the netwrok is an exception to the Net Neutrality law"

See "Dutch railways leans on net neutrality law to block sites" - here.

Israel Expands Net Neutrality to Fixed Networks

The Israeli Ministry of Communications published a draft amendment to the Communication Law, expanding Net Neutrality regulation to fixed services.

Israel adopted NN regulation to wireless services in December 2010 (see "Net Neutrality [Israel] - Parliament Approved Wireless Neutrality" - here).

The draft proposal ("Telecommunication operators will be obliged to guarantee the principle of network neutrality and telecom equipment neutrality - here in English; full proposal here in Hebrew) demands that communication service providers of all kinds will not limit or block any service or application provided over the internet (including VoIP, file sharing and video), limit or block features of communication equipment (including by setting special fees), limit or block the use of communication equipment in any licensed network.

Exceptions are limitation or blocking of service or application done in ensure proper and fair network management, or when the Minister of Communication allowed it "in special cases".

In addition, the draft says that all importers, distributors or sellers of communication equipment will also conform to Network Neutrality and will allow consumers to use all features the equipment they sell or maintain.

AT&T Stockholders wont Allow Net Neutrality to Stop Mobile Data Revenues Growth

If you own a MNO, you probably do not like Net Neutrality .. even if it means you will pay more, as a customer. This is what 94% of AT&T stockholders are saying.

ATT announced that "At its annual meeting of stockholders .. The following proposals from stockholders were also voted on: ..A proposal asking that AT&T commit to operating its wireless network without the ability to privilege, degrade or prioritize any traffic was defeated by a vote of 94.1 percent against to 5.9 percent in favor".  See "AT&T Announces Preliminary Results of 2012 Annual Meeting" - here.

Before the meeting, AT&T's board recommended stockholders "you vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons:"

"This proposal would harm AT&T’s ability to manage its network and maintain the network quality and security that our customers expect .. The proponents appear to have no understanding of the negative impact on the Company’s operations of requiring purely “neutral” routing of Internet traffic. .. This proposal would impose rules on the operation of AT&T’s wireless broadband network that are stricter than those adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This would put us at a significant disadvantage because we would be required to operate our network under constraints that would not apply to our competitors. Furthermore, the proposal would not allow AT&T to use reasonable network management practices in operating its wireless broadband network .. AT&T is committed to maintaining an open Internet and providing competitive choices for consumers. We want our broadband networks to enable new applications and new services, while ensuring our customers have the tools they need to protect their privacy and security" (more - here)

The chart below shows ATT's wireless data revenues, from its 2012 Q1 report (here).  

BitTorrent: "UK ISPs aggressively throttle BitTorrent traffic after 6 p.m. at night"

  

Mark Jackson reports to ISPReview that "BitTorrent .. has hinted that they could eventually release performance data for over 9,000 broadband ISPs around the world .. At present their unnamed project is still in the very early stages of development but could one day serve as a global ISP performance report".

See "BitTorrent Considers Release of World Broadband ISP P2P Performance Report" - here

VP of Products, Simon Morris, said: "We have download traffic, upload traffic, BitTorrent traffic, and we have HTTP traffic. So we can answer questions like: I live in this city in the world--it could be anywhere, literally anywhere--which ISP should I use? Which is the fastest? Which ISP is messing with BitTorrent traffic? Because we have this data, we can see the difference in speeds by time of day [for example] UK ISPs aggressively throttle BitTorrent traffic after 6 p.m. at night, with speeds suddenly going "off a cliff" ".

If all ISPs are doing it - than the numbers will not help much, and the selective throttling maybe even explained by a "reasonable network management" practice for Net Neutrality conformance.

Flash Networks Takes Optimization to the Cell Level

  
Managing data congestion at the cell level is a long-due goal for mobile carriers and traffic management vendors. A granular solution, that is able to manage traffic on a cell and/or backhaul link basis will allow carriers to delay investments in backhaul bandwidth and radio capacity while improving QoE - and may enable QoS based services and increase ARPU.

It should also qualify as "reasonable traffic management" as far as Net Neutrality is concerned.

Flash Networks announced today "the introduction of Cell-Based Data Optimization, a more precise way to apply optimization techniques on mobile data networks to alleviate radio and backhaul congestion. Cell-Based Data Optimization capabilities enable mobile operators to apply the most relevant optimization technique for each cell, limiting the need for frequent radio expansions, while improving the user experience" 

See "Flash Networks Launches Cell-Based Data Optimization" - here. See recent coverage on Flash business - here.

The release does not explain how Flash Networks' core-located Harmony Mobile Internet Services Gateway is being notified on the dynamic status of each cell and the subscribers currently connected to it, which is not a trivial challenge, or if additional devices would be needed at the cell side.

"Cell-Based Data Optimization uses dynamic policies to ensure the most relevant optimization technique is applied to each cell based on precise traffic patterns such as busy hours or increased activity due to sporting events or concerts. By varying the level of optimization, the network is used more efficiently while ensuring the best possible user experience for all subscribers, for example providing smoother viewing of YouTube video on mobile phones with fewer interruptions and less buffering" 

“Adaptive optimization enables operators to offer mobile broadband service with the best possible user experience, while dramatically reducing the load on the radio and backhaul,” said Merav Bahat, (picture) Vice President of Marketing and Business Development

See also: 

• Openet: Get Ready for Mother's Day (or: Predictive Congestion Management) - here
• DPI Announcements: Procera Improves Congestion Reporting - here
• DPI/QoS Announcements: Cell Congestion Management Solutions from Openet and Sycamore - here
• DPI Announcements - Allot Launches CellWise - here  

 

  

 

Net Neutrality Approval Reopens US Market for DPI and Policy Management

 

The FCC approved yesterday the Net Neutrality guidelines, based on the recent proposal by Chairman Genachowski.

The approved guidelines are in fact a compromised (proposed originally by Google and Verizon - here) compared to the initial FCC proposal (the guidelines are covered - here).

"The rules require all broadband providers to publicly disclose network management practices, restrict broadband providers from blocking Internet content and applications, and bar fixed broadband providers from engaging in unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic.  The rules ensure much-needed transparency and continued Internet openness, while making clear that broadband providers can effectively manage their networks and respond to market demands" 

See the FCC formal announcement - "FCC Acts to Preserve Internet Freedom and Openness" - here.

For DPI and policy management vendors, the approval is very significant, especially for their activity in the US (which will probably affect the EU and other major market considering Net Neutrality):

1. After years of uncertainty, a decision has been made. Carriers and ISPs that were waiting for the FCC to decide, delaying DPI investments may now re-launch traffic management projects.
    
2. The new guidelines do not bar the wireless carriers, the most lucrative market for DPI and policy management vertical market today, from "engaging in unreasonable discrimination".
     
3. Wireline carriers, allowed to “effectively manage their networks and respond to market demands” (known also as "reasonable network management"' -see definition below), will need to use smart network management tools in order to improve QoE to subscribers, reduce congestion, secure the network and offer security services, parental controls and similar needs.

In short - I see this decision, which may be seen as a threat to the DPI industry, as a great opportunity for the DPI market to grow!

Reasonable network management.  A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user’s choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.

France - Something is Missing in ARCEP's Reasonable Traffic Management

  

When watching the news from France, it seems that the public is only interested in the government’s pension plan changes. However, according to ARCEP the communications regulator, some people are also interested in ARCEP's plans for network neutrality.

During a one hour of chat (hosted by Nadia Trainar (pictured) and Guillaume Mellier of ARCEP), 487 people asked 102 questions (of which 60 made directly during the chat). The script (in French) is available here.

One of the questions was about "une gestion admissible du trafic" (or "reasonable traffic management", in the US definition).

The answer is:

"For us, first thing is to consider the purpose of a traffic management practice. Some services cannot exist without some of quality of service or security guarantees ... This is the case, for example of VOD. In other cases it may be priorities imposed by regulation - for example, emergency calls. These are examples of what is called "managed services". For internet access, however, the normal operating mode is without traffic management".

This response does not consider (or actually ignores) the congestion issue, or other aspects of "fair" allocation of network resources. Compare to - USA, Israel.

Israel - Net Neutrality Draft - Short, Simple and Allows "Network Management"

A draft for a wireless Network Neutrality law was presented today in Israel (see a previous post on the special way it is done - "Net Neutrality in Israel: Targeting Voice over Mobile"- here).

The new proposal is available here (Hebrew, page 15).

Compared to the long discussions on this subject, worldwide, the draft is very short, and is explained (by the ministry of finance, the initiator if this draft) in just two paragraphs:  

"A wireless operator will not block or limit the possibility of a subscriber to use any service or application offered on the Internet - for example VoIP, file sharing or video applications - unless it is part of the carrier's "Normal Operation", resulting from: 

• The terms of the carriers' license
   
• Activities defined as such by the Minister of Communications. It is suggested that network management, done in order to allocate the network resources in an efficient and fair way will be considered as "Normal Operation"
   
• A subscriber or group of subscribers asked for it
   
• Special cases, allowed by the Minister of Communications, including requests from the security forces"

That's all!

Google Recommends the FCC to Collect Network Management Practices Information

 

Google has submitted to the FCC a document, "regarding the collection, use, and dissemination of data by the Media Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline Competition Bureau in connection with the Federal Communications Commission’s (the “Commission” or “FCC”) ongoing Data Innovation Initiative."

See "REPLY COMMENTS OF GOOGLE INC" - here. See also a post to the Google Public Policy Blog - "Maximizing openness of broadband data" - here.

One of the recommendations (or "ideas" as the blog calls it) follows the Verizon/Google "Net Neutrality compromise" (see "Google/Verizon Net Neutrality Compromise - Is it really "FCC Enforceable"?" -here). The new idea maybe a way for the FCC to enforce (or at least monitor) Net Neutrality rules suggested by Google and Verizon. Note that Form 477 must be filled also by "Facilities-based providers of mobile telephony service" (here), which were exempt from the compromise.

Google recommends that ".. Form 477 should collect information concerning network management practices that will (1) directly impact the performance of particular applications, content, or protocols or (2) reduce the speed or quality of the connection below the provider’s advertised measures for the service offering. Relevant network management practices include traffic prioritization, traffic blocking or throttling, processes to address traffic congestion such as usage download or upload restrictions, content/message examination processes (e.g., deep packet inspection), and traffic routing processes that are based on sender/receiver, or type of traffic. Because such practices likely will affect broadband availability, adoption, and competition, the Commission should have access to clear, accurate, and useful information about them. Applications developers, content providers, and other Internet users should have access to this data, as such practices impact their ability to design and invest in their offerings."

".. For example, consider a practice that prioritizes traffic from a particular application. A broadband provider should disclose what application is being prioritized and how that will impact performance (e.g., this application will have a guaranteed low latency, even at times of congestion). A provider would not, however, have to disclose the exact networking equipment, router configurations, or algorithms that achieve this impact."

Tekelec CMO: "If the consumers want to continue to have access to VoIP or video services, then they have to allow some degree of ‘discrimination’ "

    

Susie Kim Riley, founder and CTO of Camiant and since the acquisition by Tekelec serves as its CMO, was interviewed by Susana Schwartz from Connected  Planet about next generation Services, policy management and the debate with the FCC on Net Neutrality.

  

See the article [with the provocative title] "Telcos, Google & academia — the plot thickens!" - here.

Some [again, provocative - but very true!] quotes:

• "some “ivory tower” academics are applying theory rather than real-world economic and free-market knowledge to push regulators to heavily regulate the industry because they are convinced that operators would definitively block any type of “competing” traffic or applications, even if it meant losing subscribers and losing revenues."
   
• "If the consumers want to continue to have access to VoIP or video services, then they have to allow some degree of ‘discrimination’ so that packets tied to dynamic services get to a destination before non-crucial packets like those associated with e-mail"
   
• ".. She and others are proposing is a “two-sided business model," perhaps most aggressively championed by STL Partners’ Telco 2.0 initiative [here]  – in which service providers would be given the ability to work with third parties in non-discriminatory two-sided business approaches [chart below]. Discrimination has to be viewed in a more balanced way so that operators are allowed to do what is “reasonable” in managing network resources and allow room to make some revenue off of the broadband services the service providers are enabling"
   

• “You can subsidize the experience for users by allowing app developers and OTT players to work with access providers in such a way that they can allocate bandwidth for more personalized and innovative services without forcing operators to eat the costs of enabling it to happen,”

All from the point of view of the vendors in this space, of course .. !

Related posts:

• Skype: We Will Charge 3G Calls to Ensure QoS Stays High (Net Neutrality?) - here
• Skype to EU Carriers: "The Network is not Yours" - here
• Dish Networks Fights for Net Neutrality - here
• Plans for a New Forum: Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group - here
• Google's Vint Cerf on Net Neutrality - Good for the Rich Content Providers? - here 

DPI/QoS Announcements: Cell Congestion Management Solutions from Openet and Sycamore

 

Optimizing and managing mobile data at the cell/radio or backhaul level gains lots of vendor attention. Reasons are simple:

• Radio capacity is limited, and operators wish to accommodate as many as possible "happy" subscribers on each cell (see "AT&T: Times Square needs a Wifi Boost to cope with 3G Traffic" - here)
   
• Upgrading backhaul capacity is expensive, due to the huge number of links that need upgrade
   
• It seems that managing traffic for congested section of the network will be allowed by Net Neutrality’s "reasonable network management" (here)

Considering all the above, with the exponential increase  in the demand for mobile bandwidth (here) require that the subscriber's location (cell and backhaul link) will be added to the policy conditions DPI/QoS solutions offer, in addition to the subscriber's profile and application QoS goals.
  
Openet and Sycamore announced new solutions in this category recently:

• On June 30, Openet announced support for RAN congestion in its policy manager. (see "Openet Provides RAN Congestion Solution to Solve Wireless Network Bottlenecks" -here)
  
  "Being able to diagnose where and when a problem is going to occur is only useful if action can be taken dynamically. Openet’s RAN Congestion only targets points where congestion is predicted to happen for policy controls, rather than entire network. This capability enables operators to implement targeted Quality of Service controls that block, redirect or modify traffic to match service requests with available network resources..Openet’s solution enables operators to take real-time decisions based on subscriber profiles and type of usage requests. When a network or cell-site is congested, it is able to combine subscriber entitlements e.g. high priority subscriber, with service awareness e.g. identifying an activity as a low priority routine over-the-air update, to balance to prioritize network requests with the resources available."
    

• Sycamore announced on July 13 IQstream™, a solution that "dynamically adapts to mobile data traffic patterns, including peak usage periods and flash events". (see "Sycamore Introduces Unique Mobile Broadband Optimization Solution" - here).
  
  Key benefits of the IQstream solution include (see video below):
   
• Superior delivery of rich media content, particularly high-quality video in the RAN
• Improved quality of experience for subscribers during peak usage periods
• Optimal utilization of existing network infrastructure
• Enhanced ability to serve large numbers of subscribers simultaneously accessing popular broadband content
• Simplified mobile broadband network planning and backhaul dimensioning

I admit I can’t find what type of product IQstream is - a network element, software for end-devices or a management solution. Announced availability is Q4 - I guess that by then we see a product and not just a technology marketing pitch.

Back in March we saw an announcement from Allot (see "DPI Announcements - Allot Launches CellWise" - here) - which combines policy management and QoS control.

Related post - "NSN: "Radio capacity can be boosted further by applying QoS differentiation" - here.

Sandvine CTO on Reasonable Network Management

   

Sandvine CTO, Don Bowman, outlined during the NCTA Cable Show the keys for "reasonable traffic management", that may coincide with Net Neutrality.

We saw similar view from Procera CEO - see "Procera CEO: "we are back to where we were before the Comcast ruling" - here.

According to Bowman (press release - here), there are 5 keys: 

• Operate when and where it is needed.
   
• ... “reasonable” must be considered in the context of the problem being solved and be considered in terms of the end user’s Internet experience
   
• Address a technical need, for example, a targeted goal of congestion management or quality of experience
   
• Be transparent and disclosed in a simple and predictable manner
   
• Any such policies should be auditable and provide a mechanism to demonstrate how the objectives of the policy are being met

See my related post "Net Neutrality Speculations and 3UK" - here - proposing the similar principles.

Procera CEO: "we are back to where we were before the Comcast ruling"

   

Converge! Network Digest published an article by James Brear, CEO of Procera Networks, in which he analyzes the current status of DPI. It follows the recent FCC  intention to reclassify broadband as the third way  for Net Neutrality.

Mr. Brear conclusions are that traffic management practices could continue, if deployed with the consideration of the following aspects:

• ISPs know that they MUST be transparent in what they do on their networks
   
• There is general agreement that applications should not be discriminated against during normal operations
   
• Reasonable network management is OK.
   
• The door is open to ISPs that want to be creative and find ways to have service plans that innovate new services and deliver LOWER cost options for subscribers that use the network less and higher cost for the users that consume more resources.

The bottom line - "So what is the impact of Net Neutrality for DPI? Neutral to positive .. Carriers should focus on creating better customer experiences and evolving their networks to keep up with the innovations of technology".

Full article - "Does Network Neutrality Impact DPI?" - here

 

See my related posts:

• "Net Neutrality Speculations and 3UK" - here - proposing the same principles.
• "Lightreading Policy, DPI & the Mobile Packet Core Event (CTIA)" - here

Lightreading Policy, DPI & the Mobile Packet Core Event (CTIA)

 

Lightreading held a panel event during the CTIA show last titled "Policy Control, DPI & the Mobile Packet Core", with experts from leading vendors (here) and an agenda (here) covering all current issues.



Unfortunately, I could not attend the event, but Carol Wilson of LightReading posted the "the five key takeaways" according to their resident experts, Heavy Reading analysts Graham Finnie and Patrick Donegan:

Here is a shorter version of the 5 points. Full story - here.

"1) Technology vendors need to better explain the potential new services and innovations they are developing, for wireless networks in particular, and service providers need to stop hiding their use of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and policy-based technology

2) The biggest unanswered question? How do you define "reasonable?"


3) The debate also continues on whether it makes more sense to concentrate DPI and policy control at the core of a network in a centralized fashion, or distribute it at the edge of the network.


4) Handling video traffic using policy and DPI remains a priority.


5) Service providers and their technology vendors need to give consumers more control over policy and how it is applied to them or used to control their services. "

In view of the anticipated death of Net Neutrality (see - "FCC's National Broadband Plan: Net Neutrality, R.I.P., by Doug Hanchard" - here) I fully agree with the above points which leave each operator to deal with what he thinks is a "reasonable traffic management" (See "Net Neutrality Speculations and 3UK" - here ) with clear benefits to itself and the vast majority of his customers. I hope they will all do it with transparency and disclosure to their customers and the pubic (so I do think that some part of Net Neutrality are good !)

DPI Announcements - Allot Launches CellWise

In perfect timing for the FCC Broadband plan introduction today, Allot Communications (NASAQ: ALLT) announces the launch of CellWise a  "network service that is designed to enable mobile broadband operators to manage traffic down to the individual cell and alleviate backhaul congestion in real time by providing intelligence about their network at the cell level."  (here)

See background  on my yesterday's post "Net Neutrality Speculations and 3UK" (here).

Managing traffic at the cell level, at congestion time, seems to be an acceptable (or "reasonable" in the FCC language) traffic management practice. Similar approach could be used by cable operators, replacing the term "Cell" by "CMTS", assuming the congestion is at the access or backhaul.

Net Neutrality Speculations and 3UK

 
While we wait for the FCC presentation of its new broadband plan (calendar here), including the Net Neutrality policy, we can speculate that the previously announced guidelines will be there.

I believe that all 3 main parties (customers, operators and OTT content providers) and the hidden party (vendors of traffic management/DPI solutions) can live in piece with most of the guidelines, leaving only two in controversy (non-discrimination and, to a lesser extent, handling of illegal traffic).

The following principles can make all of us happy:

• Accurate disclosure of service terms to customers (and the public so one can compare different plans). Service terms may include the fair-use policies, subject to the other principles.
   
• Allowing operators to manage traffic, during congestion, affecting only traffic and subscribers that are subject to congestion.
   
• Allowing intelligent traffic management, so applications can get proper QoS according to their nature

Of course, the latter is the most sensitive item, as it tackles many problems - the difficulty of identifying applications (hence the need for DPI), discrimination and handling illegal traffic.

One way to ensure fairness to OTT services is to go back to the old “well-known ports” TCP standard (here). If an application uses its pre-registered port (operators will still need DPI to detect disguise) it will be classified to a certain, pre-defined and disclosed class-of-service (such as “real time”, “Interactive” or “off-line”) and will be treated the same way as all other applications defined with the same class. Applications disguised to others could be blocked or get the lowest priority.

The following article (from The Register, here) describes the approach taken by 3UK for broadband mobile traffic control:

".. But already 3UK has moved beyond that model to offer customers on the more expensive tariffs priority access when a cell gets congested. Originally that was going to include limiting YouTube streams to one per (non-premium) customer, but even that got rescinded as the bad publicity built and now it's just BitTorrent users who'll get hit when a cell is congested."

We can see here – disclosure (consistent with the UK policy described in my previous posts), managing traffic at congestion time and place (at the cell level!). Nevertheless, we can see discrimination of a certain applications (they tried YouTube – now they go for BitTorrent).