Transparent resource sharing framework for internet services on handheld devices

Handheld devices have limited processing power and a short battery lifetime. As a result, computationally intensive applications cannot run appropriately or cause the device to run out of battery too early. Additionally, Internet-based service providers targeting these mobile devices lack information to estimate the remaining battery autonomy and have no view on the availability of idle resources in the neighborhood of the handheld device. These battery-related issues create an opportunity for Internet providers to broaden their role and start managing energy aspects of battery-driven mobile devices inside the home. In this paper, we propose an energy-aware resource-sharing framework that enables Internet access providers to delegate (a part of) a client application from a handheld device to idle resources in the LAN, in a transparent way for the end-user. The key component is the resource sharing service, hosted on the LAN gateway, which can be remotely queried and managed by the Internet access provider. The service includes a battery model to predict the remaining battery lifetime. We describe the concept of resource-sharing-as-a-service that allows users of handheld devices to subscribe to the resource sharing service. In a proof-of-concept, we evaluate the delay to offload a client application to an idle computer and study the impact on battery autonomy as a function of the CPU cycles that can be offloaded

Market driven network neutrality and the fallacies of internet traffic quality regulation

In the U.S. paying for priority arrangements between Internet access service providers and Internet application providers to favor some traffic over other traffic is considered unreasonable discrimination. In Europe the focus is on minimum traffic quality requirements. It can be shown that neither market power nor universal service arguments can justify traffic quality regulation. In particular, heterogeneous demand for traffic quality for delay sensitive versus delay insensitive applications requires traffic quality differentiation, priority pricing and evolutionary development of minimal traffic qualities.

Market driven network neutrality and the fallacies of Internet traffic quality regulation

In the U.S. paying for priority arrangements between Internet access service providers and Internet application providers to favor some traffic over other traf-fic is considered unreasonable discrimination. In Europe the focus is on mini-mum traffic quality requirements. It can be shown that neither market power nor universal service arguments can justify traffic quality regulation. In particular, heterogeneous demand for traffic quality for delay sensitive versus delay insen-sitive applications requires traffic quality differentiation, priority pricing and evolutionary development of minimal traffic qualities. --

Why Imposing New Tolls on Third-Party Content and Applications Threatens Innovation and Will Not Improve Broadband Providers’ Investment

While some broadband providers have called Internet content and application providers free riders on their infrastructure, this is incorrect and misguided. End-users pay for their residential broadband providers for access to the Internet, and content providers pay their own ISPs for connectivity as well. However, content providers need not pay residential broadband providers’ ISPs in order to reach their customers. This feature of the Internet has been one key factor that has allowed innovation to prosper and kept barriers to entry low, as the network transport market for content and application providers functions relatively efficiently. In this paper, I consider the impact of a departure from this current system. I examine the possible impact of last-mile broadband providers’ imposing “termination fees” on third-party content providers or application providers to reach end-users. Broadband providers would engage in paid prioritization arrangements – that is, application and content providers could pay the broadband provider to have their traffic prioritized over competitors’ services. I argue that these arrangements would create inefficiency in the market and harm innovation. Because the last mile access broadband market is concentrated and consumers face switching costs, these concerns are particularly significant. Broadband providers insist that imposing these new charges will greatly improve network investment, and thus these charges are beneficial. I argue that this is not the case. Possible higher revenues from discrimination may simply be returned to shareholders and not invested. Additionally, evidence suggests networks invest more under non-discrimination requirements, and paid prioritization schemes would divert money towards managing scarcity instead of expanding capacity. Paid prioritization could even create an incentive for broadband providers to create congestion to increase the price of prioritized service.Network Neutrality, Internet, Market Power, Discrimination, Two-Sided Market, Prioritization, Broadband, Termination Fees

Why Imposing New Tolls on Third-Party Content and Applications Threatens Innovation and Will Not Improve Broadband Providers’ Investment

While some broadband providers have called Internet content and application providers free riders on their infrastructure, this is incorrect and misguided. End-users pay for their residential broadband providers for access to the Internet, and content providers pay their own ISPs for connectivity as well. However, content providers need not pay residential broadband providers’ ISPs in order to reach their customers. This feature of the Internet has been one key factor that has allowed innovation to prosper and kept barriers to entry low, as the network transport market for content and application providers functions relatively efficiently. In this paper, I consider the impact of a departure from this current system. I examine the possible impact of last-mile broadband providers’ imposing “termination fees” on third-party content providers or application providers to reach end-users. Broadband providers would engage in paid prioritization arrangements – that is, application and content providers could pay the broadband provider to have their traffic prioritized over competitors’ services. I argue that these arrangements would create inefficiency in the market and harm innovation. Because the last mile access broadband market is concentrated and consumers face switching costs, these concerns are particularly significant. Broadband providers insist that imposing these new charges will greatly improve network investment, and thus these charges are beneficial. I argue that this is not the case. Possible higher revenues from discrimination may simply be returned to shareholders and not invested. Additionally, evidence suggests networks invest more under non-discrimination requirements, and paid prioritization schemes would divert money towards managing scarcity instead of expanding capacity. Paid prioritization could even create an incentive for broadband providers to create congestion to increase the price of prioritized service.

The State of Network Neutrality Regulation

The Network Neutrality (NN) debate refers to the battle over the design of a regulatory framework for preserving the Internet as a public network and open innovation platform. Fueled by concerns that broadband access service providers might abuse network management to discriminate against third party providers (e.g., content or application providers), policymakers have struggled with designing rules that would protect the Internet from unreasonable network management practices. In this article, we provide an overview of the history of the debate in the U.S. and the EU and highlight the challenges that will confront network engineers designing and operating networks as the debate continues to evolve.BMBF, 16DII111, Verbundprojekt: Weizenbaum-Institut für die vernetzte Gesellschaft - Das Deutsche Internet-Institut; Teilvorhaben: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)EC/H2020/679158/EU/Resolving the Tussle in the Internet: Mapping, Architecture, and Policy Making/ResolutioNe

Market driven network neutrality and the fallacies of Internet traffic quality regulation

In the U.S. paying for priority arrangements between Internet access service providers and Internet application providers to favor some traffic over other traf-fic is considered unreasonable discrimination. In Europe the focus is on mini-mum traffic quality requirements. It can be shown that neither market power nor universal service arguments can justify traffic quality regulation. In particular, heterogeneous demand for traffic quality for delay sensitive versus delay insen-sitive applications requires traffic quality differentiation, priority pricing and evolutionary development of minimal traffic qualities

'Net Neutrality,' Non-Discrimination and Digital Distribution of Content Through the Internet

The vast majority of U.S. residential consumers face a monopoly or duopoly in broadband Internet access. Until now, the Internet has been characterized by a regime of 'net neutrality,' which means there has been no discrimination between the price of transmitting packets based on the identity of either the transmitter or the identity of the receiver, based on the application, or the type of content the packet contains. Providers of DSL or cable modem Internet access in the United States are taking advantage of a recent regulatory change that effectively abolishes 'net neutrality' and nondiscrimination protections. Due to their market power, these service providers are considering a variety of discriminatory pricing schemes. This article discusses and evaluates the effect a number of these schemes would have on the prices and profitability of network access, as well as the effect on complementary application and content providers. This article also discusses an assortment of anti-competitive effects created by price discrimination and evaluates the possibility of 'net neutrality' being imposed by law