IP-based NGNs and Interconnection: The Debate in Europe

Historically, interconnection in the world of the Internet has been approached significantly differently from interconnection in the fixed Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and the mobile Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN). As fixed and mobile networks evolve to Next Generation Networks (NGNs) based on the Internet Protocol (IP), it becomes increasingly necessary to merge these perspectives in order to achieve a unified and integrated approach to network interconnection. There is a rich history of economic analysis of IP-based and of conventional switched networks that began to converge early in this decade. In 2008, this issue is coming to a boil, as regulators seek to provide regulatory certainty for the build-out of NGNs, even in the face of substantial uncertainties, and even though practical experience with NGNs is still in a very preliminary state. What can we learn from the historical evolution of the theory of interconnection for Internet, NGN, PSTN and PLMN? What issues are "in play" today? What is the appropriate destination in the long term? What nearer term measures are appropriate?interconnection, NGN, Internet Protocol (IP), bill and keep, Calling Party's Network Pays (CPNP), peering, transit.

A Case for Peering of Content Delivery Networks

The proliferation of Content Delivery Networks (CDN) reveals that existing content networks are owned and operated by individual companies. As a consequence, closed delivery networks are evolved which do not cooperate with other CDNs and in practice, islands of CDNs are formed. Moreover, the logical separation between contents and services in this context results in two content networking domains. But present trends in content networks and content networking capabilities give rise to the interest in interconnecting content networks. Finding ways for distinct content networks to coordinate and cooperate with other content networks is necessary for better overall service. In addition to that, meeting the QoS requirements of users according to the negotiated Service Level Agreements between the user and the content network is a burning issue in this perspective. In this article, we present an open, scalable and Service-Oriented Architecture based system to assist the creation of open Content and Service Delivery Networks (CSDN) that scale and support sharing of resources with other CSDNs.Comment: Short Article (Submitted in DS Online as Work in Progress

Is There a "Right" Charging Principle with the NGN Advent?

Historically, telecommunications services developed adding one network to another (voice and data networks), but Next Generation Networks (NGN) are developing as native multiservice networks. Main characteristics include: broadband capacity, IP protocol, ability to transmit voice, data and video, quality control, separation among different network layers. The fact to deliver with one only network different services such as voice and data, now treated in a very different way with respect to charging principles (interconnection for voice, peering for Internet exchanges), poses the problem of the charging model to adopt in the future. In the paper we will analyse pros and cons of the different charging principles, both at wholesale and retail level, from an economic perspective. The first conclusion is that there is no "magic solution", as any criteria has pros and cons, but that it appears more appropriate to leave operators to choose their retail models, once the wholesale criteria are settled. Then the paper concentrates on the different scenarios which can arise choosing different charging principles at wholesale level. Particular attention is given to the issues of quality safeguard and of recovering nvestments in innovative networks and services. On many aspects "intermediate" scenarios seem better to answer economic problems than the "pure" scenarios, (calling party network pays for all wholesale services, including Internet/data, or bill & keep for everything, including voice).NGN, charging principles.

Network Neutrality or Internet Innovation?

Over the past two decades, the Internet has undergone an extensive re-ordering of its topology that has resulted in increased variation in the price and quality of its services. Innovations such as private peering, multihoming, secondary peering, server farms, and content delivery networks have caused the Internet’s traditionally hierarchical architecture to be replaced by one that is more heterogeneous. Relatedly, network providers have begun to employ an increasingly varied array of business arrangements and pricing. This variation has been interpreted by some as network providers attempting to promote their self interest at the expense of the public. In fact, these changes reflect network providers’ attempts to reduce cost, manage congestion, and maintain quality of service. Current policy proposals to constrain this variation risk harming these beneficial developments.