BITAG: 6 measures to stop throttling of VoIP - for super-users?

BITAG: After 7 months in purdah, BITAG is back with a bang: some concrete recommendations to ISPs, VoIp developers and industry. "BITAG’s Technical Working Group recommends the following to minimize the occurrences and impact of VoIP impairment, failure, and restrictions:

1.  Network operators should avoid impairing or restricting VoIP applications unless no reasonable alternatives are available to resolve technical issues. 
• Certain network management actions may have the effect of limiting or restricting VoIP traffic as a method of ensuring network integrity. Examples include port blocks or traffic limitations implemented when a customer uses a vulnerable VoIP service that can be exploited by attackers for the purpose of flooding the network with unwanted traffic. In adopting any approach that has the effect of limiting the use of VoIP, network operators should seek to minimize the impact of the approach on legitimate VoIP use. 
2. VoIP-related ALGs in operator-supplied home routers should minimize their impact on traffic other than the operator’s VoIP service where possible. 
• VoIP-related ALGs can interfere with some VoIP services while attempting to facilitate NAT traversal for other VoIP services. Because of these problems, BITAG recommends that VoIP-related ALGs in operator-supplied home routers should either allow the VoIP-related ALGs to be disabled for customers who do not subscribe to the operator’s VoIP service or minimize or avoid impact to independent VoIP services and all other traffic not associated with the operator’s own VoIP service. Where possible, VoIP-related ALGs in operator-supplied home routers should be disabled by default. ALGs for real-time applications (including VoIP) can be problematic for services other than VoIP, but recommendations concerning ALGs more broadly are outside the scope of this report. 
3. Manufacturers of home routers should disable VoIP-related ALGs by default.
• Some consumers purchase their home routers from retailers rather than from network operators. To limit the impact of VoIP-related ALGs on VoIP services, home routers sold to consumers should have VoIP-related ALGs disabled by default. 
4. Port blocking rules in consumer equipment should be user-configurable. 
• The port blocking (or firewall) rules of consumers’ home routers should be user-configurable, whether the routers are provided by the ISP or purchased separately by the consumer. By making these rules user-configurable, technically sophisticated users may be able to eliminate port blocks that prevent them from using VoIP services. It is recommended that the documentation provided with the consumer equipment inform the consumer that port blocking or firewall rules have been implemented, the default ports blocked, and how consumers can modify those rules. 
5. If network operators intentionally use network policies or practices that impair or restrict VoIP, they should provide disclosures about those policies and practices and provide communications channels for feedback. 
• BITAG recommends that network operators disclose their policies and practices that may or could result in VoIP impairment, failure, or restrictions. The information should be readily available to both customers and non-customers alike. For example, such policies could be provided on the operator’s public-facing web site or on a page dedicated to summarizing or describing the ISP’s network management practices. If specific VoIP applications are impaired or restricted, those applications should be listed by name, along with a brief description of the reason for the impairment or restriction. BITAG also recommends that ISPs provide a communications channel or other clear method for application providers and consumers to discuss the impact of VoIP impairment, failure, and restrictions, and possible mitigations. 
6. Application developers should design VoIP applications to be port-agile where possible. 
• BITAG recommends that VoIP application developers design VoIP applications and services to be port-agile where possible. Applications designed to tolerate random source ports or to allow port selection to be user-configurable are better able to avoid VoIP impairments that result from port blocking or contention between multiple services for the same port. Whether particular applications can be re-designed to be port agile may depend on whether re-designed versions of the application can be made compatible with existing versions or other existing applications." 'via Blog this'

BEREC publishes its views on the E.Parliament 1st Reading legislative resolution

BEREC publishes its views on the European Parliament first reading legislative resolution on the European Commission’s proposal for a Connected Continent Regulation: "If a rules-based approach is nonetheless to be pursued, then further work would be required to ensure that the definitions and rules were legally precise, future-proof and enforceable in practice. While some of the language in the text adopted by European Parliament draws upon BEREC previous publications on the subject, improving the original Commission’s proposals, it does not yet meet these standards. A balanced approach to promoting net neutrality on the Internet in parallel to the provision of specialised services is a difficult challenge. BEREC considers that specialised services should be clearly separated (physically or virtually) from internet access services at the network layer, to ensure that sufficient safeguards prevent degradation of the internet access services.  Therefore BEREC welcomes the European Parliament’s acknowledgement of this principle.  However, some inconsistencies in the proposed rules and definitions still raise legal and policy concerns." 'via Blog this'

European Parliament should create a Committee on Digital Affairs

European Parliament should create a Committee on Digital Affairs: "There are currently three different committees responsible for agriculture, fisheries and food, while digital issues are a secondary responsibility of the committee responsible for industry and research.  Other digital themes are addressed in the committees for international trade or for the internal market. Schaake: “The division of powers between committees reflects the past, just like the EU budget with its billions in agricultural subsidies does. Our ambition to make Europe a competitive and innovative continent should be reflected in the European Parliament’s priorities. We have to commit ourselves to become global leaders in ICT and tech.”" 'via Blog this'

Ammori: problems with FCC's proposed exclusive fast lanes

Marvin with deep dive analysis of why non-FRAND Specialized Services are a terrible idea:
"Startups would never have the money to buy the exclusives and thus would be at a disadvantage. If we had this model years ago, we’d probably all be using Alta Vista not Google, MySpace not Facebook, and Digg not Reddit. And talk about a fast lane—the FCC is proposing to adopt these rules by the end of the year.

The chairman’s proposal would authorize exclusives through the operative language in Paragraph 126 of last week’s proposal: “we propose to adopt a rebuttable presumption that a broadband provider’s exclusive (or effectively exclusive) arrangement prioritizing service to an affiliate would be commercially unreasonable.”
Translation: The FCC is saying that exclusive deals between a “broadband provider” (this means Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T) and an “affiliate” (a company it owns or co-owns) should be presumed to be illegal, and the provider would have to prove otherwise. So an exclusive deal between Comcast and a site it owns, such as NBC.com, would be presumed illegal.

But—and this is key—other exclusive deals would be presumed legal. Comcast could make premium exclusives with any of the millions of sites it doesn’t own, extracting cash from Hotels.com to disadvantage Airbnb, from iCloud over Google Drive or Microsoft SkyDrive, from Amazon AWS over Google AppEngine Facebook’s Parse or Microsoft’s Azure, and from the Atlantic or Vox over Slate. (Sacrilege!)"

U.K. Government Willing To Block EU Net Neutrality Deal (or hoping)

U.K. Government Willing To Block EU Net Neutrality Deal: "Ed Vaizey said the UK would work to amend the legislation so that it does not introduce restrictions on the British government’s ability to police the internet.
“Let me clear that we will not agree to any proposals that restrict the ability of parents to protect their children from inappropriate content on line,” he said.
“We are confident that this was not the intention of the European Parliament and we are working with EU member states, the European Commission and the European Parliament to deliver a final package that promotes an open, safe and secure internet.”" 'via Blog this'

AT&T claims to embrace net neutrality but could still offer “fast lanes”

AT&T claims to embrace net neutrality but could still offer “fast lanes” | Ars Technica: Call it AT&T in DirecTV offering the Comcast-merger version:

"Comcast's NBC agreement with the US government has a carveout for specialized services, which may support Cohen's argument. The agreement says, "If Comcast offers any Specialized Service that makes content from one or more third parties available to... its subscribers, Comcast shall allow any other comparable Person to be included in a similar Specialized Service on a nondiscriminatory basis." The agreement broadly defines Specialized Services as "any service provided over the same last-mile facilities used to deliver Internet Access Service other than Internet Access Services," regulated telecommunications services, or Comcast's VoIP service."

FRAND it is, then...'via Blog this'

Case T-79/12 Cisco Systems and Messagenet v European Commission (Microsoft/Skype) - Chillin'Competition

A comment on Case T-79/12 Cisco Systems and Messagenet v European Commission (Microsoft/Skype) | Chillin'Competition: "the Court rightly or wrongly shifts away from [MSFT] precedents, from arguments inspired in behavioral economics, and providing –at a very convenient moment- an unbeatable defensive argument for Google (go now tell Google that competition in search is not one click away or that people can’t download apps other than those allegedly bundled to Android!) Indeed, there are no technical or economic obstacles to using another search engine nor to downloading apps in mobile phones. Paradoxically, complainants in the search investigation against Google (including the intervener in this case) nevertheless complain that… network effects and inertia also need to be considered! Ah, isn’t competition law fascinating…" 'via Blog this'