The latest from Telecom-Funda
- Good News on Several Fronts for 4G
- The hidden secret in the Google / Verizon statement on Net Neutrality
- Work in Progress (comments welcome) - Code of Conduct for Policy Management & Net Neutrality
- The Stick Meetings
| Good News on Several Fronts for 4G | Top |
| The hidden secret in the Google / Verizon statement on Net Neutrality | Top |
| I've worked out the "dirty little secret", hidden in plain sight. On the fixed Internet, Google doesn't actually care about prioritisation. In almost all developed markets, "best-effort" Internet access is perfectly adequate for YouTube and other "heavy" Google apps, especially when used with variable definition-quality, either at the user's control or using dynamic rate adaptation. The agreement with Verizon means that VZ won't deliberately block or degrade YouTube or other content. That's one worry off the table for Google. But, interestingly, it also suggests that it can't prioritise either - something I'd been seeing expecting as a possibility for broadband business models . At least, it can't prioritise *Internet* traffic. More on the non-Internet service options later. But I don't think Google really cares *that much* about getting HD YouTube to peoples' PCs, so the fact it won't be able to buy high-priority, QoS-controlled video clips isn't a problem. It wouldn't have bought them anyway - and I suspect Verizon knew that. (Unlike some of the more naive European operators). Instead, it cares about two things: Better targetting of PC-based YouTube advertising (and ads on other Google PC services) Opportunities for non-PC (and non-mobile) Google services, for TVs, energy meters, tablets, consumer electronics and so forth. My belief is that the PC is all about the Internet (capital-I). Google wants PC users to carry on seeing adverts in their browsers around search, in Gmail, and importantly, on YouTube and other properties. The Verizon proposals don't limit this. But what I suspect *may* happen is that Google will do deals with ISPs and Telcos on an affiliate-style basis. If Verizon helps Google sell *more* adverts, at higher prices, to YouTube or other users, then it might get a share of the uplift in advertising revenues. While the proposals stop Verizon asking for money to *prioritise* YouTube traffic, it doesn't stop them asking for money to help *monetise* YouTube traffic. So Verizon customer data + Google adverts on PCs = more money than just just Google adverts alone. Win-Win. And not so good for the other web companies who don't have slick affiliate / advertising-targetting / rev-share engines. The other side is around non-PC access. To be honest, there's not really any need to connect your TV or your electricity meter or your toaster to the "real Internet". You're not going to be browsing, or downloading new apps, or really doing any of the cool, ever-changing things the Internet permits. They will also have some very specific network requirements - eg the meter or a healthcare gadget will *absolutely* need security and prioritisation - and in fact, having them running as a service separate from the Internet is much safer and possibly regulatorily-mandated. Your TV, on the other hand, will come with extra user expectations - no video buffering, for a start. So it seems to me that it is quite right that a future Google Smart Grid, or Google TV-YouTube, or Google HealthMonitor service should be able to operate on a completely separate basis from normal, best-efforts, PC-application Google stuff. With appropriate business models, however configured by all the parties involved. And not just Google, either. I wouldn't want a future Verizon / GE remote-monitored pacemaker service to be viewed "neutrally" on a par with the Internet access partition on the network. The issue here isn't about a two-tiered Internet. It's that networked services and applications are already split between Internet and non-Internet, and they're going to stay that way. The Internet is absolutely fantastic for many applications, and absolutely wrong for others. In the same way, massmarket cellular networks are fantastic for many applications, but I wouldn't want my smart meter or a policeman's radio running over those, either. This issue of prioritising non-Internet uses of broadband lines is covered in considerable detail in the report on Broadband Busines Models published a few months ago. Details here | |
| Work in Progress (comments welcome) - Code of Conduct for Policy Management & Net Neutrality | Top |
| A food analogy: I see no reason why telcos shouldn't be allowed to offer "Internet-flavoured access", or "Processed Internet Substitute" if they wish, perhaps "Now fortified with Extra YouTube!". But they shouldn't be able to sell or market those services as 100% Certified Prime Internet Access. Like everyone in the telecoms industry, I encounter the issue of Net Neutrality and policy management very frequently. I've been watching developments recently, with the Google/Verizon announcement, consultations occurring in the UK and Europe, Chile deciding on a "hard" neutral policy, Canada choosing a middle ground and various other endless examples of posturing and lobbying. It's got me thinking about what might be suitable compromises - a sort of generic "code of conduct" which might be applicable as a set of initial rules and goals, and which shouldn't irritate *too* many people. (Although clearly as we've seen with the Google/Verizon announcement, there's some irreconcilable differences between extreme ends of the spectrum of opinion). I'm particularly thinking about rules for mobile data, which does have some practical constraints that do not exist in the fixed world. But given my recent work on fixed broadband business models and fibre, I'm also interested in more generic principles across the telecom industry. The key areas I'm considering are: Deliberate prioritisation, for example by guaranteeing QoS or providing an SLA for specific services, perhaps in terms of bandwidth, latency, jitter or other variables Deliberate de-prioritisation, for example by blocking, throttling or otherwise interfering with a given data stream or service Internet-based and non-Internet services Internet access vs. other services The problems of shared network resources being used simultaneously for Internet and non-Internet services In general, it depends if there is congestion and contention for resources – if you prioritise something on an almost-empty network it obviously doesn't impact anything else. Conversely, whether a telco should ever be allowed to constrain an application on an empty network is much more contentious. My opinions (at this moment, and subject to debate and change) are: Operators purely offering "in-house" managed services can do what they like in terms of managing their networks for non-Internet services - for example, on the core network it is fine to prioritise corporate VPNs, and on access lines they can tune their own IPTV or broadband TV services. Where resources are used for both Internet access and non Internet services (eg home broadband lines, cell-site backhaul) and in particular where they are shared between multiple users, things get more complicated. In theory, it is OK with best-efforts "full Internet access" being at the bottom of the pile after other services have been dealt with. But there needs to be clarity in marketing, management and oversight. To use an analogy - if you buy a standby ticket for a flight, you know you might not get on. But if the plane takes off with empty seats and you're still refused boarding, you've got grounds for complaint & redress. Best-effort means that the service provider *really* has to make their "best effort" to accommodate you - *and* is still subject to the original contractual terms and subsequent reporting. Internet access should be sold on the basis of average real-world speeds, not theoretical peak rates. Ideally, these averages (or perhaps minimum speeds) should be estimated for specific customers or locations (eg "given your house location, you should expect to get an average 2.7Mbit/s in normal use"). Providers should collect and publish actual average achieved rates, to allow comparison with their claims and promises. The stated averages in force at the start of a user's contract should not be allowed to fall during the course of the contract - this means that any subsequent sales of "managed" services on the same shared resources should be *incremental* to existing promised and contractual Internet capacity (calculated via statistical means) The term "Internet access" needs some form of "Appellation contrôlée" - it can only be sold and branded as Internet access if it is not subject to undue policy management control, specifically around blocking/prioritisation based on application, flow, or destination. Anything else needs to be marketed and sold differently, eg "Internet-like service" or "Processed & reconstituted Internet, NOW WITH EXTRA YOUTUBE!". Consumer protection agencies need to be at the top of their game to ensure that end-users understand the difference - lessons from the food & drink industries should help. *However*, it is fine for the provider to sell different classes of Internet access service, for example by speed, with caps or usage limits or other similar plan characteristic. An acceptable proxy for achieving application-level policy might be to have device-specific data plans, in the knowledge that (for example) BlackBerry users will typically behave differently to those dongles or tablets. If capacity is available on the "Internet access" part of the network, it should be illegal to discriminate between different applications provided within that partition. Any managed services (eg prioritised YouTube) should be provided by capacity in addition to that already dedicated to contracted Internet access. (Statistical estimations are fine for network dimensioning, as average speeds will be reported subsequently). Renting broadband Internet access (fixed or mobile) should be similar to renting a property. The landlord should allow you "quiet enjoyment" without undue interference or limits, but is permitted to enter in emergencies, specify upfront rules (no pets) and hold you to account for destructive behaviour (withholding a deposit) Governments and regulators may decide to mandate that all broadband providers give the option of "proper" Internet access, as well as any other managed services. This applies particularly in locations where it has been determined that Internet access is beneficial for economic or social reasons. It should be permissible to price pure Internet services at a higher level to managed Internet-like services. "Negative" traffic management [throttling] on a per-application/per-service, on Internet access, is acceptable if (and only if) there are genuine resource constraints or costs, not just because an operator doesn't like a given site/service "Positive" traffic management is fine for non-Internet services (eg operator-hosted IPTV) provided over the same copper or radio as Internet access, as long as this is transparently described in detail to the customer "Positive" traffic management [prioritisation] on a per-app basis, on Internet access is acceptable, as long as there are not unreasonable negative impacts on other apps/traffic. There must be absolute, detailed and realtime information about policy available to the end user and all application providers" Negative / positive traffic management based on user, location, tariff, device type is generally OK, as long as it is not application/site specific [although these are often good proxies for applications] Traffic management to manage integrity of network (eg DDoS attacks) or for legal requirements (regulatory prohibition of VoIP or services delivered to children) is fine There needs to be an open "congestion API" provided so that telcos can be audited for fairness of traffic management policies It should be illegal to block, prioritise or otherwise interfere with 3rd-party tools and services for measuring network quality, unless they themselves generate unreasonable traffic levels. Operators must confirm that peering / transit partners apply equivalent rules OK, I think that's a decent starting point. I'll hope to refine / iterate / clarify these over time. I suspect they will annoy both operators and hardcore Internet advocates. If I annoy both groups equally, I reckon I will have succeeded.... | |
| The Stick Meetings | Top |
| Another cross company meeting observation today: It's good to see how choice works when the network doesn't. When In a recent meeting the Wi-Fi connectivity for the participants acted up, about half the participants just got our their 3G USB sticks and used the various 3G macro networks to get back online. Probably inexpensive for the local residents, a bit more expensive for the foreign participants. Shame on the Wi-Fi network not working as it should, but then, if the meeting is not underground there is a now a good alternative when you have a local 3G SIM or can afford the roaming charges. | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment