Presentation on theme: "Internet as convergence live delayed interpersonal mass telephone mail television newspaper ip telephoneemail listservweb-cast."— Presentation transcript:
Internet as convergence live delayed interpersonal mass telephone mail television newspaper ip telephoneemail listservweb-cast
live delayed interpersonal mass telephone mail television newspaper old distinctions become irrelevant ip telephoneemail listservweb-cast web CU-seeme software updates
live delayed interpersonal mass Characteristics of the new space? digital packet switched multiple communication patterns interchangeable industry players fuzzy legal boundaries conflicting policies
Internet and Freedom: Jeffersonian myths Internet can't be regulated –Tech decentralized architecture no single control point cooperative governance "routes around censorship" –Government has no "moral right" over new space (cyberspace) and no credible means of enforcement (Barlow)
"End-to-End" What is it? Why does it matter? How is it changing? What are the policy implications?
E2E defined Trade-off Intelligent network or stupid network? "In a world of dumb terminals and telephones, networks had to be smart. But in a world of smart terminals, networks have to be dumb." George Gilder, The Coming of the Fibersphere, 12/7/92. Should functions be implemented in network or at the ends?
E2E defined "up and out" Simpler network core, easier upgrades More generic network supports innovation Applications don't need to rely on good network performance Served the internet well. Sturdy and generic network model Key to user-driven innovation (users control the ends)
Moving away from E2E 1. Untrustworthy world Can you trust the end points? If not, build security in the network (firewalls). e.g. spam 2. Demanding applications Limits of best-effort - need throughput guarantees Any synchronous ap / streaming media Attach specific throughput to individual data streams (pricing implications)
Moving away from E2E 3. ISP service differentiation Enhanced delivery leads to competitive advantage May do it with different tech approaches, leading to balkanization of the net 4. Rise of 3rd-party involvement Enforcement (wire-taps) Corporate/Organizations (block access to certain sites or certain types of traffic – e.g. napster) 5. Less sophisticated users Sophisticated network makes it easier for unsophisticated users (end-points)
Two technical responses Modify the end-nodes Examples: - browsers track taxable activities - obscene content filtering Modify the core Examples: - firewalls - traffic filters - Net address translation (NAT) - Content caches (replication) Issues Imposing control into the communication path Revealing or hiding message content (encryption) Labeling information
The case of IP telephony voice transport Source: Bob Pepper, FCC Old Telecom World unregulated regulated
The case of IP telephony voice transport voice transport basic enhanced applications TCP/IP Source: Bob Pepper, FCC Old Telecom World Internet
The case of IP telephony voice transport voice transport basic enhanced applications TCP/IP Voice Source: Bob Pepper, FCC Old Telecom World Internet telephony
Two technical approaches: In the core (MegaCo - ITU) At the ends (H.323) IP telephony regulatory issues Universal Service charges Should termination charges be applied to IP phone calls? (and reciprocal compensation) Should IP telephony be subject to common carriage provision? Number portability, directory Robustness and quality standards (who is responsible in IP environment?) Comm Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) Public Safety (911 calls)
Challenge Forcing the internet to fit existing regulatory models will fail impossible technically would inhibit innovation Incumbents' tendency to use old regulation to protect legacy position But, that doesn't mean that the underlying regulatory goals are to be abandoned protect communications privacy, confidentiality reliability, operational integrity public safety (911, CALEA) goal of universal service / universal access Who should be responsible: (end) service provider, or network provider?
Larger context Not technical issues only, but different social objectives about what the network should be able to do How to treat new players? ISPs: add services and restraints within their core networks (the part they control) examples: @home caching, AUPsAUPs Congestion mitigation: Akamai Law in cyberspace: Deal with it legally, not technologically
Fundamental distinction: private and public Public communication requirement. To reach the public, one must: Advertise Use well-known protocols and standards Reveal one's content Accept authorities scrutiny Most fundamental distinction in matrix. livedelayed interpersonal mass telephone mail television newspaper ip telephone email listserv web-cast
Policy Trade-offs (Yochai Benkler)Yochai Benkler Freedom vs. Control POLITICAL –First party v. third party –Voluntary v. involuntary –Universality v. balkanization –Noncommercial v. commercial –Popular democracy v. elitist democracy ECONOMIC –Innovation v. manageability –Innovation/growth v. allocation –Network externalities/social value v. private returns to investment
Conclusions Innovation and flexibility –different kind of innovation. In a network, you're always at the end of something. How to determine which "ends" matter? –- Which "end"(s) do you control? –- Which network resources are shared? Ultimately, these are fundamentally political questions