SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 39
Baixar para ler offline
OPEN INTERNET
TRANSPARENCY
Informal technical review notes
of FCCGN Docket No. 14-28
4th June 2016
MARTIN GEDDES
FOUNDER & PRINCIPAL
MARTIN GEDDES CONSULTING LTD
2About Martin Geddes
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
I am a computer scientist,
telecoms expert, writer and
consultant.
I collaborate with other
leading practitioners in the
communications industry.
Together we create game-
changing new ideas,
technologies and businesses.
3Introduction
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
This is an informal technical assessment of the US Federal Communication
Commission's planned broadband measurement regime. It has not
examined all the relevant documents; there may be (significant!) errors
and omissions.
The purpose is to indicate where there are potential issues with the
approach taken. It’s more right than wrong, so take it as a general
barometer or progress (or lack thereof).
4Context
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
It would be easy to interpret this document as being an attack on the FCC,
but that is not its intention, and is also an unwise interpretation.
Broadband is a new technology that has not yet matured. The underlying
science is still being uncovered. As such, all regulators are struggling with
similar issues. What exactly is the service that ISPs deliver? How should
that be described? In what ways can the service be objectively measured?
The FCChas taken a lead in attempting to answer these questions. That the
answers are less than wholly satisfactory needs to be understood in the
context of a new and developing industry.
5Context
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
This document was written shortly before BEREC, the association of
European regulators, issued its guidelines on implementing the new
European law on broadband transparency.
It is premature and unfair to evaluate the FCC’s effort without
understanding how well others haveanswered the same core questions.
The problems are systemic; any failure or blame is industrywide.
The evaluation criteria in this document are largely drawn from and
inspired by the Ofcom technical report “A Study of Traffic Management
Detection Methods & Tools”, June 2015.
6Key terms
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• ‘Intentional semantics’ is the desired outcome of the measurement
policy
• ‘Denotational semantics’ is how the service is described on its ‘label’ to
users
• ‘Operational semantics’ is what it actually does, how that is measured,
and how that compared to what is on the label
7Contents
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
Part 1: Technicalnotes
• What the FCCsays: intentional, denotational and operational semantics
• Comments on each
• General technical observations
Part 2: Assessment of measurement system
• Properties of a good regulatory measurement system
• Scoring of each
• The bottom line: how well is the FCC doing?
8Part 1: Technical notes
9FCC intentional semantics (‘policy’)
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
1. Aims to support “open Internet principles”, “address open Internet
violations”, ensure “harmful practices will not occur”, limit “harmful
conduct”.
2. Serves to “enable…consumers to make informed choices”.
3. Support “content, application, service, and device providers to
develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings”.
4. Capture service variation related to “operational areas” with
“distinctive set of network performance metrics”.
10Notes on intentional semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• Primary goal is political to support “neutrality” dogma; end user
experience is secondary.
• Does not discuss or capture the choices that the user might wish to
exercise; their (diverse) intentional semantics are ignored! Hence
cannot be a measure of fitness-for-purpose and the regulation is unfit-
for-purpose.
• Wider and long-term goals of commerce and society (e.g. IoT) are not
considered.
• Creates the wrong kind of user entitlement, which is opposed to the
social remit of the FCCfor affordability and sustainability.
11Notes on intentional semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• Content providers are enjoying a best effort service; they have no
entitlement to anything when not paying for delivery. Creates a false
implication of contract for a quality or capacity floor.
• The service variation requirement makes sense, but ignores the vast
variability that exists in the system that may subsume this data.
12FCC denotational semantics (‘label’)
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
1. Why? Seeks “accurate information” on “network management
practices, performance”.
2. What? “…disclose expected and actual download and upload speeds,
latency, and packet loss” such that “expected network performance
disclosed for a geographic area should not exceed actual network
performance in that geographic area”
3. How? Speed as “median speeds and percentiles of speed [as a range]”
4. How? Latency as “median latency or a range of actual latencies”
5. How? Loss as “average packet loss”
6. How? “provide actual and expected performance in comparable
formats”
13Notes on denotational semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• Doesn’t capture that network idleness (quantity) is being used to
manage quality; a “fast” network may need to stay idle to work! (So
consumer choice is distorted by a false impression.)
• Fails to see coupling and trades of loss and delay hence places itself at
odds with the two degrees of freedom (load, loss, delay). Optimise
delay, pessimise loss; and vice versa.
• No consideration of what “speed” is, or defines a “speed test”.
• Doesn’t separate out what is under ISP control (architecture;
scheduling) from other factors (e.g. how rural, hence longer DSL lines
and lower speed).
14Notes on denotational semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• What is ‘success’ in these metrics? Is less always better? What about
other factors like variability or distance? Tail of loss/delay?
• No consideration of relationship between subjective customer
experience, objective user experience, service quality and network
performance. In particular, fails to capture need to make bad
experiences rare, not merely good ones possible.
• There is a plethora of competing measurement approaches.
Ambiguous as to where the measure should be made (e.g. L2, L3, or
L7?).
• False assumption that comparing upload/download speed and
network management practices will deliver a meaningful comparison.
15Notes on denotational semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• Burstiness is far more important that averages are. Fails to capture this
data.
• Is the loss induced by TCP’s own behaviour included in the loss metric
or not? If it is, then you've created an impossible situation; a fight
between the protocols and measurement system.
• The use of measures of “central tendency” is intrinsically wrong when
measuring systems where small variations of operational properties
have large impacts. Creates perverse incentives.
• Median speed focus sets up a big conflict between the stochastics (and
their emergent statistics) and the “lawgeneers”.
16Notes on denotational semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• Ability to make informed choices using this data is never tested and
validated with actual consumers.
• Focus on bulk delivery of large data sets skews measurement to vocal
subset of users and content providers (e.g. video on demand).
• Omits to define end points of measurements, which is a major factor in
country the size of the USA. (Think: Hawaii.)
17FCC operational semantics (‘measured’)
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
1. “disclose actual performance” … “based on internal testing; consumer
speed test data; or other data regarding network performance,
including reliable, relevant data from third-party sources.”
2. “be reasonably related to the performance the consumer would likely
experience”. To this end “The [measured] routes…should…accurately
represent the actual network performance…”
3. Capture performance during “times of peak usage” over a
“representative sampling of routes” in the “geographic area in which
the consumer is purchasing service”
4. Using “measurement clients in broadband modems” or equivalent in
network
18Notes on operational semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• “actual” never defined (which points, how often, to where, for what, to
what fidelity, etc.)
• So many standard methods to choose from! No comparability.
• “reasonably related” -- what’s that supposed to mean?
• Routes are dynamic, packets can take multiple routes. When those
routes are changing from connection to connection between the
same endpoints, how should the measures should be weighted by the
traffic pattern?
• “Peak usage” – how long? Falsely presumes busy equals QoE risk. Plus
causality is backwards; frequent QoErisk implies network is busy.
19Notes on operational semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• Reliable, consistent and affordable peak time performance
measurement is not achievable in this framework.
• To be useful the metric has to express likely experience of me as an end
user, not a mythical average. Data being gathered doesn’t have that
property.
• Sets up a self-deployed mass denial of service attack. The costs of this
measurement approach (on the network infrastructure) are
enormous, and there is no analysis of how the measurement system
would work or scale.
20Notes on operational semantics
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
• DSL is likely to outperform cable for “stability over time”, but that is
not being reported, so there is a basic consumer choice being
suppressed.
• Does not capture the fidelity of geographical reporting. This has
particular bearing when comparing DSL with Cable, since they have
different geographic variability.
21General technical observations
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
1. No concept of stationarity demand requirement or supply property.
2. No apparent awareness of emergence; assumes intentionality to
performance. Calls into question FCC’s technical competence.
3. No concept of multiple explicit or implicit classes of service. Hence
forces a sub-optimal delivery and business model on the providers;
increases input costs and hence overall cost to consumer.
4. No separation of responsibilities, or consideration of how does
resolution occur. Might even create opportunities for undesirable
behaviour by key providers (e.g. VoD providers) to engage in
predatory change of results to punish providers.
22General technical observations
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
5. Creates new performance arbitrage that can be used to ‘game’ the
measurement system.
6. Ignores CDNs and other computational elements.
7. Conflates network access and peering arrangements into one object.
8. No concept of load limit on performance contract.
9. Uses averages (and there is no quality in averages).
10. Ignores CPE variation (hardware and software) as confounding factor.
11. Never defines “performance”.
12. No separation of in-building and network issues.
13. Never defines service boundaries (e.g. wholesale), either horizontal or
vertical.
23General technical observations
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
14. Doesn’t really capture what QoE intention is (exceptional experiences
possible? bad experiences rare?)
15. “few variations in actual BIAS performance across a BIAS provider’s
service area” – not necessarily true; this QoE data is not generally
available.
24Part 2: Assessment of system
25
Properties of a good
regulatory measurementsystem
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
1. Technically relatable to fitness-for-purpose for end user use
2. Easy to understand by consumers
3. Able to isolate problems and allocate cause/blame
4. Auditable evidence chain of (non)compliance
5. Non-intrusive to collect
6. Comparable across all providers and bearer technologies
7. Clear technical definition of service description and operation
8. Cost-effective to run
9. Non-proprietary
10. Sound scientific basis
26
Technically relatable to
fitness-for-purpose for end user use
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 5/10
Why?
Positive:
• Packet loss and delay included; weak proxy for capacity and QoE (up to
c. 10mbps)
Negative:
• Too focused on describing best case, not worst case. Doesn’t capture
the tail or the variation (size of “peak period”, non-stationarity)
• Falls well short of being a strong QoE proxy. Likely that reported results
and actual user experience will not tally; legitimacy issue for FCC
1
27Easy to understand by consumers
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 3/10
Why?
Positive:
• Speed is simple to understand
Negative:
• Can’t relate data to key applications you want to use
• Comparability is limited, especially with respect to quality
2
28
Able to isolate problems
and allocate cause/blame
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 0/10
Why?
• Not even considered; implicitly assumed that somehow this will be
obvious.
3
29
Auditableevidencechain
of (non)compliance
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 0/10
Why?
• Not even considered as a requirement, hence unenforceable.
4
30Non-intrusiveto collect
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 3/10
Why?
Positive:
• Can reuse existing network metrics
Negative:
• Requirement for peak period speed tests is a self-induced denial of
service attack.
5
31
Comparableacross all
providers and bearer technologies
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 3/10
Why?
Positive:
• General framework for comparability
Negative:
• So many woolly definitions, options and variability the reality is going
to be a mess. Approach biased between "physical environment rate
limited but uncontended last mile" (DSL) v "higher peak rate but
variably contended last mile" (DOCSIS) towards latter.
• Does not capture how often do you get your peak speed; out of scope
6
32
Clear technical definition of
service description and operation
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 3/10
Why?
Positive:
• Captures many of the essential issues in managing service definition
and variability.
Negative:
• Fails to grasp the undefined nature of “best effort” broadband; no real
idea of a quality floor or how to go about defining and enforcing one.
7
33Cost-effective to run
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 1/10
Why?
Negative:
• New measurement systems required for many ISPs.
• Speed tests will absorb all network resources. Will force certain ISPs
(e.g. WISPs) out of business, as the measurement approach is fatal to
their ability to delivery consistent service. This will reduce consumer
choice.
• Incentive is for unsustainably idle networks. Favours certain
geographies and incumbents, reducing consumer choice.
8
34Non-proprietary
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 6/10
Why?
Positive:
• Uses well-known concepts.
Negative:
• Loads of speed tests which are dynamically updated; comparability
means adoption of a single proprietary vendor standard.
• Fails to say what to measure, as there are so many feasible
measurements. ISPs will want ones closest to the technology, which
may be opposite of what users want.
9
35Sound scientific basis
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC Score: 3/10
Why?
Positive:
• Considers many relevant technical issues.
Negative:
• No framework for relating UX to service quality or network
performance.
• No framework to consider service semantics.
• Many technical holes; no resource model defined.
10
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
FCC BEREC
Technicallyrelatable to fitness-for-purpose for end user use 5 TBA
Easy to understand by consumers 3 TBA
Able to isolate problems and allocate cause/blame 0 TBA
Auditable evidence chain of (non)compliance 0 TBA
Non-intrusive to collect 3 TBA
Comparable acrossall providers and bearer technologies 3 TBA
Clear technicaldefinition of servicedescription and operation 3 TBA
Cost-effective to run 1 TBA
Non-proprietary 6 TBA
Sound scientific basis 3 TBA
OVERALL SCORE 27/100 ?
37Bottom line
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
1. The FCChas its heart in the right place: a transparent marketplace.
2. Sadly, the FCC’s head is not screwed on: fundamentally fails to grasp
statistically multiplexed nature of broadband and existence of trading
space. Misclassifies broadband as “jittery lossy circuits”: monoservice
view, ‘peak hour’, no idea of degrees of freedom.
3. Data is virtually unusable by the public. Traffic management disclosure
is irrelevant. Performance metrics hard to interpret except by experts
and offer limited data. Opens up risk of misinterpretation and
conflicting subjective views of what is meant to be objective data.
4. Misses need for predictability entirely. As a result the data is biased
towards some bearers (e.g. DOCSIS) and away from others (e.g. DSL).
38Bottom line
4 June 2016
© Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd
5. The scaling costs of speed tests are prohibitive. May put WISPs out of
business.
6. Enforcement has not been considered. No regime is offered for
isolation of issues or proof of cause.
7. Sets up inappropriate market incentives. Damages competition,
adversely affects low-density (especially rural) ISPs. Encourages
overload of network by content providers.
39|39
Thank you
The secret of success is
to know something
nobody else knows.
―Aristotle Onassis
Martin Geddes
mail@martingeddes.com

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Fundamentals of network performance engineering
Fundamentals of network performance engineeringFundamentals of network performance engineering
Fundamentals of network performance engineeringMartin Geddes
 
Network performance optimisation using high-fidelity measures
Network performance optimisation using high-fidelity measuresNetwork performance optimisation using high-fidelity measures
Network performance optimisation using high-fidelity measuresMartin Geddes
 
The Properties and Mathematics of Data Transport Quality
The Properties and Mathematics of Data Transport QualityThe Properties and Mathematics of Data Transport Quality
The Properties and Mathematics of Data Transport QualityMartin Geddes
 
What is a 'polyservice' network?
What is a 'polyservice' network?What is a 'polyservice' network?
What is a 'polyservice' network?Martin Geddes
 
Sample proposal summary for quality arbitrage business unit
Sample proposal summary for quality arbitrage business unitSample proposal summary for quality arbitrage business unit
Sample proposal summary for quality arbitrage business unitMartin Geddes
 
Connect, Interact, Transact
Connect, Interact, TransactConnect, Interact, Transact
Connect, Interact, TransactMartin Geddes
 
Network cost & risk transformation
Network cost & risk transformationNetwork cost & risk transformation
Network cost & risk transformationMartin Geddes
 
Performance and Supply Chain Management for the Software Telco
Performance and  Supply Chain Management for the Software TelcoPerformance and  Supply Chain Management for the Software Telco
Performance and Supply Chain Management for the Software TelcoMartin Geddes
 
Navigating the Uncertain World Facing Service Providers - Juniper's Perspective
Navigating the Uncertain World Facing Service Providers - Juniper's PerspectiveNavigating the Uncertain World Facing Service Providers - Juniper's Perspective
Navigating the Uncertain World Facing Service Providers - Juniper's PerspectiveJuniper Networks
 
Advanced techno-economic modelling of distribution network investment require...
Advanced techno-economic modelling of distribution network investment require...Advanced techno-economic modelling of distribution network investment require...
Advanced techno-economic modelling of distribution network investment require...Power System Operation
 
A SESERV methodology for tussle analysis in Future Internet technologies - In...
A SESERV methodology for tussle analysis in Future Internet technologies - In...A SESERV methodology for tussle analysis in Future Internet technologies - In...
A SESERV methodology for tussle analysis in Future Internet technologies - In...ictseserv
 
Discovering Influential User by Coupling Multiplex Heterogeneous OSN’S
Discovering Influential User by Coupling Multiplex Heterogeneous OSN’SDiscovering Influential User by Coupling Multiplex Heterogeneous OSN’S
Discovering Influential User by Coupling Multiplex Heterogeneous OSN’SIRJET Journal
 
The UNIX Evolution: An Innovative History reaches a 20-Year Milestone
The UNIX Evolution: An Innovative History reaches a 20-Year MilestoneThe UNIX Evolution: An Innovative History reaches a 20-Year Milestone
The UNIX Evolution: An Innovative History reaches a 20-Year MilestoneDana Gardner
 
The State of the Cabling Certification Industry
The State of the Cabling Certification IndustryThe State of the Cabling Certification Industry
The State of the Cabling Certification IndustryFluke Networks
 
Ieee projects 2012 for cse
Ieee projects 2012 for cseIeee projects 2012 for cse
Ieee projects 2012 for cseSBGC
 
Algorithm Solved IEEE Projects 2012 2013 Java @ Seabirdssolutions
Algorithm Solved IEEE Projects 2012 2013 Java @ SeabirdssolutionsAlgorithm Solved IEEE Projects 2012 2013 Java @ Seabirdssolutions
Algorithm Solved IEEE Projects 2012 2013 Java @ SeabirdssolutionsSBGC
 
Churn Prediction in Practice
Churn Prediction in PracticeChurn Prediction in Practice
Churn Prediction in PracticeBigData Republic
 
Next Generation Automation Final
Next Generation Automation FinalNext Generation Automation Final
Next Generation Automation Finalimpodgirl
 
Geographic Analytics - How HP Visualises its Supply Chain
Geographic Analytics - How HP Visualises its Supply ChainGeographic Analytics - How HP Visualises its Supply Chain
Geographic Analytics - How HP Visualises its Supply ChainNUS-ISS
 

Mais procurados (20)

Fundamentals of network performance engineering
Fundamentals of network performance engineeringFundamentals of network performance engineering
Fundamentals of network performance engineering
 
Network performance optimisation using high-fidelity measures
Network performance optimisation using high-fidelity measuresNetwork performance optimisation using high-fidelity measures
Network performance optimisation using high-fidelity measures
 
Superfit broadband
Superfit broadbandSuperfit broadband
Superfit broadband
 
The Properties and Mathematics of Data Transport Quality
The Properties and Mathematics of Data Transport QualityThe Properties and Mathematics of Data Transport Quality
The Properties and Mathematics of Data Transport Quality
 
What is a 'polyservice' network?
What is a 'polyservice' network?What is a 'polyservice' network?
What is a 'polyservice' network?
 
Sample proposal summary for quality arbitrage business unit
Sample proposal summary for quality arbitrage business unitSample proposal summary for quality arbitrage business unit
Sample proposal summary for quality arbitrage business unit
 
Connect, Interact, Transact
Connect, Interact, TransactConnect, Interact, Transact
Connect, Interact, Transact
 
Network cost & risk transformation
Network cost & risk transformationNetwork cost & risk transformation
Network cost & risk transformation
 
Performance and Supply Chain Management for the Software Telco
Performance and  Supply Chain Management for the Software TelcoPerformance and  Supply Chain Management for the Software Telco
Performance and Supply Chain Management for the Software Telco
 
Navigating the Uncertain World Facing Service Providers - Juniper's Perspective
Navigating the Uncertain World Facing Service Providers - Juniper's PerspectiveNavigating the Uncertain World Facing Service Providers - Juniper's Perspective
Navigating the Uncertain World Facing Service Providers - Juniper's Perspective
 
Advanced techno-economic modelling of distribution network investment require...
Advanced techno-economic modelling of distribution network investment require...Advanced techno-economic modelling of distribution network investment require...
Advanced techno-economic modelling of distribution network investment require...
 
A SESERV methodology for tussle analysis in Future Internet technologies - In...
A SESERV methodology for tussle analysis in Future Internet technologies - In...A SESERV methodology for tussle analysis in Future Internet technologies - In...
A SESERV methodology for tussle analysis in Future Internet technologies - In...
 
Discovering Influential User by Coupling Multiplex Heterogeneous OSN’S
Discovering Influential User by Coupling Multiplex Heterogeneous OSN’SDiscovering Influential User by Coupling Multiplex Heterogeneous OSN’S
Discovering Influential User by Coupling Multiplex Heterogeneous OSN’S
 
The UNIX Evolution: An Innovative History reaches a 20-Year Milestone
The UNIX Evolution: An Innovative History reaches a 20-Year MilestoneThe UNIX Evolution: An Innovative History reaches a 20-Year Milestone
The UNIX Evolution: An Innovative History reaches a 20-Year Milestone
 
The State of the Cabling Certification Industry
The State of the Cabling Certification IndustryThe State of the Cabling Certification Industry
The State of the Cabling Certification Industry
 
Ieee projects 2012 for cse
Ieee projects 2012 for cseIeee projects 2012 for cse
Ieee projects 2012 for cse
 
Algorithm Solved IEEE Projects 2012 2013 Java @ Seabirdssolutions
Algorithm Solved IEEE Projects 2012 2013 Java @ SeabirdssolutionsAlgorithm Solved IEEE Projects 2012 2013 Java @ Seabirdssolutions
Algorithm Solved IEEE Projects 2012 2013 Java @ Seabirdssolutions
 
Churn Prediction in Practice
Churn Prediction in PracticeChurn Prediction in Practice
Churn Prediction in Practice
 
Next Generation Automation Final
Next Generation Automation FinalNext Generation Automation Final
Next Generation Automation Final
 
Geographic Analytics - How HP Visualises its Supply Chain
Geographic Analytics - How HP Visualises its Supply ChainGeographic Analytics - How HP Visualises its Supply Chain
Geographic Analytics - How HP Visualises its Supply Chain
 

Semelhante a FCC Open Internet Transparency - a review by Martin Geddes

"Disruption 101" Keynote Philly Phorum 2013
"Disruption 101" Keynote Philly Phorum 2013"Disruption 101" Keynote Philly Phorum 2013
"Disruption 101" Keynote Philly Phorum 2013Peter Coffee
 
ITU Policy Clinic Masterclass
ITU Policy Clinic MasterclassITU Policy Clinic Masterclass
ITU Policy Clinic MasterclassMartin Geddes
 
Lessons for interoperability remedies from UK Open Banking
Lessons for interoperability remedies from UK Open BankingLessons for interoperability remedies from UK Open Banking
Lessons for interoperability remedies from UK Open Bankingblogzilla
 
The Value of Network Neutrality to European Consumers
The Value of Network Neutrality to European ConsumersThe Value of Network Neutrality to European Consumers
The Value of Network Neutrality to European ConsumersRené C.G. Arnold
 
Session 2 ure_changingrules_final
Session 2 ure_changingrules_finalSession 2 ure_changingrules_final
Session 2 ure_changingrules_finalTRPC Pte Ltd
 
CAN MACHINE-TO-MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS BE USED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ...
CAN MACHINE-TO-MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS BE USED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ...CAN MACHINE-TO-MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS BE USED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ...
CAN MACHINE-TO-MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS BE USED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ...Shaun West
 
Top 8 Trends in Performance Engineering
Top 8 Trends in Performance EngineeringTop 8 Trends in Performance Engineering
Top 8 Trends in Performance EngineeringConvetit
 
Energy Central Webinar on June 14, 2016
Energy Central Webinar on June 14, 2016Energy Central Webinar on June 14, 2016
Energy Central Webinar on June 14, 2016OMNETRIC
 
State of application performance management in the Indian BFSI sector
State of application performance management in the Indian BFSI sector State of application performance management in the Indian BFSI sector
State of application performance management in the Indian BFSI sector ValueNotes
 
Optimising strategies for SCM
Optimising strategies for SCMOptimising strategies for SCM
Optimising strategies for SCMZubin Poonawalla
 
[CompTIA] 4th Annual Trends in Cloud Computing - Full Report
[CompTIA] 4th Annual Trends in Cloud Computing - Full Report[CompTIA] 4th Annual Trends in Cloud Computing - Full Report
[CompTIA] 4th Annual Trends in Cloud Computing - Full ReportAssespro Nacional
 
EVALUTION OF CHURN PREDICTING PROCESS USING CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERN
EVALUTION OF CHURN PREDICTING PROCESS USING CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERNEVALUTION OF CHURN PREDICTING PROCESS USING CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERN
EVALUTION OF CHURN PREDICTING PROCESS USING CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERNIRJET Journal
 
PLM 2018 - Is Openness really free? A critical analysis of switching costs fo...
PLM 2018 - Is Openness really free? A critical analysis of switching costs fo...PLM 2018 - Is Openness really free? A critical analysis of switching costs fo...
PLM 2018 - Is Openness really free? A critical analysis of switching costs fo...Karan Menon
 
Demograft for telecoms - benefits from location-based analytics
Demograft for telecoms - benefits from location-based analyticsDemograft for telecoms - benefits from location-based analytics
Demograft for telecoms - benefits from location-based analyticsReach-U
 
Connected Shipping: Riding the Wave of E-Commerce
Connected Shipping: Riding the Wave of E-CommerceConnected Shipping: Riding the Wave of E-Commerce
Connected Shipping: Riding the Wave of E-CommerceCognizant
 
2015 global contact centre benchmarking summary report
2015 global contact centre benchmarking summary report2015 global contact centre benchmarking summary report
2015 global contact centre benchmarking summary reportJeffrey Kern
 
Field Interactive MR Pvt Ltd ESOMAR 28 Questions & Answers
Field Interactive MR Pvt Ltd ESOMAR 28 Questions & AnswersField Interactive MR Pvt Ltd ESOMAR 28 Questions & Answers
Field Interactive MR Pvt Ltd ESOMAR 28 Questions & AnswersField Interactive MR
 

Semelhante a FCC Open Internet Transparency - a review by Martin Geddes (20)

"Disruption 101" Keynote Philly Phorum 2013
"Disruption 101" Keynote Philly Phorum 2013"Disruption 101" Keynote Philly Phorum 2013
"Disruption 101" Keynote Philly Phorum 2013
 
ITU Policy Clinic Masterclass
ITU Policy Clinic MasterclassITU Policy Clinic Masterclass
ITU Policy Clinic Masterclass
 
Lessons for interoperability remedies from UK Open Banking
Lessons for interoperability remedies from UK Open BankingLessons for interoperability remedies from UK Open Banking
Lessons for interoperability remedies from UK Open Banking
 
The Value of Network Neutrality to European Consumers
The Value of Network Neutrality to European ConsumersThe Value of Network Neutrality to European Consumers
The Value of Network Neutrality to European Consumers
 
Session 2 ure_changingrules_final
Session 2 ure_changingrules_finalSession 2 ure_changingrules_final
Session 2 ure_changingrules_final
 
CAN MACHINE-TO-MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS BE USED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ...
CAN MACHINE-TO-MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS BE USED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ...CAN MACHINE-TO-MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS BE USED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ...
CAN MACHINE-TO-MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS BE USED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ...
 
Top 8 Trends in Performance Engineering
Top 8 Trends in Performance EngineeringTop 8 Trends in Performance Engineering
Top 8 Trends in Performance Engineering
 
Energy Central Webinar on June 14, 2016
Energy Central Webinar on June 14, 2016Energy Central Webinar on June 14, 2016
Energy Central Webinar on June 14, 2016
 
State of application performance management in the Indian BFSI sector
State of application performance management in the Indian BFSI sector State of application performance management in the Indian BFSI sector
State of application performance management in the Indian BFSI sector
 
Ovum Decision Matrix
Ovum Decision MatrixOvum Decision Matrix
Ovum Decision Matrix
 
Optimising strategies for SCM
Optimising strategies for SCMOptimising strategies for SCM
Optimising strategies for SCM
 
[CompTIA] 4th Annual Trends in Cloud Computing - Full Report
[CompTIA] 4th Annual Trends in Cloud Computing - Full Report[CompTIA] 4th Annual Trends in Cloud Computing - Full Report
[CompTIA] 4th Annual Trends in Cloud Computing - Full Report
 
EVALUTION OF CHURN PREDICTING PROCESS USING CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERN
EVALUTION OF CHURN PREDICTING PROCESS USING CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERNEVALUTION OF CHURN PREDICTING PROCESS USING CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERN
EVALUTION OF CHURN PREDICTING PROCESS USING CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERN
 
PLM 2018 - Is Openness really free? A critical analysis of switching costs fo...
PLM 2018 - Is Openness really free? A critical analysis of switching costs fo...PLM 2018 - Is Openness really free? A critical analysis of switching costs fo...
PLM 2018 - Is Openness really free? A critical analysis of switching costs fo...
 
30120130406016
3012013040601630120130406016
30120130406016
 
Identifying the new frontier of big data as an enabler for T&T industries: Re...
Identifying the new frontier of big data as an enabler for T&T industries: Re...Identifying the new frontier of big data as an enabler for T&T industries: Re...
Identifying the new frontier of big data as an enabler for T&T industries: Re...
 
Demograft for telecoms - benefits from location-based analytics
Demograft for telecoms - benefits from location-based analyticsDemograft for telecoms - benefits from location-based analytics
Demograft for telecoms - benefits from location-based analytics
 
Connected Shipping: Riding the Wave of E-Commerce
Connected Shipping: Riding the Wave of E-CommerceConnected Shipping: Riding the Wave of E-Commerce
Connected Shipping: Riding the Wave of E-Commerce
 
2015 global contact centre benchmarking summary report
2015 global contact centre benchmarking summary report2015 global contact centre benchmarking summary report
2015 global contact centre benchmarking summary report
 
Field Interactive MR Pvt Ltd ESOMAR 28 Questions & Answers
Field Interactive MR Pvt Ltd ESOMAR 28 Questions & AnswersField Interactive MR Pvt Ltd ESOMAR 28 Questions & Answers
Field Interactive MR Pvt Ltd ESOMAR 28 Questions & Answers
 

Mais de Martin Geddes

CARE initiative technical prospectus
CARE initiative technical prospectusCARE initiative technical prospectus
CARE initiative technical prospectusMartin Geddes
 
Martin Geddes Livestream - March 2018
Martin Geddes Livestream - March 2018Martin Geddes Livestream - March 2018
Martin Geddes Livestream - March 2018Martin Geddes
 
Digital supply chain quality management
Digital supply chain quality managementDigital supply chain quality management
Digital supply chain quality managementMartin Geddes
 
Stationarity is the new speed
Stationarity is the new speedStationarity is the new speed
Stationarity is the new speedMartin Geddes
 
Example high-fidelity network measures using ∆Q metrics
Example high-fidelity network measures using ∆Q metricsExample high-fidelity network measures using ∆Q metrics
Example high-fidelity network measures using ∆Q metricsMartin Geddes
 
Superfast or superfit? The case for UK broadband policy reform
Superfast or superfit? The case for UK broadband policy reformSuperfast or superfit? The case for UK broadband policy reform
Superfast or superfit? The case for UK broadband policy reformMartin Geddes
 
Broadband service quality - rationing or markets?
Broadband service quality - rationing or markets?Broadband service quality - rationing or markets?
Broadband service quality - rationing or markets?Martin Geddes
 
Introduction to network quality arbitrage
Introduction to network quality arbitrageIntroduction to network quality arbitrage
Introduction to network quality arbitrageMartin Geddes
 
The End of Information Technology: Introducing Hypersense & Human Technology
The End of Information Technology: Introducing Hypersense & Human TechnologyThe End of Information Technology: Introducing Hypersense & Human Technology
The End of Information Technology: Introducing Hypersense & Human TechnologyMartin Geddes
 
Evaluating the internet end-user experience in the Russian Federation
Evaluating the internet end-user experience in the Russian FederationEvaluating the internet end-user experience in the Russian Federation
Evaluating the internet end-user experience in the Russian FederationMartin Geddes
 
Beasts to superheroes to gods
Beasts to superheroes to godsBeasts to superheroes to gods
Beasts to superheroes to godsMartin Geddes
 
Beyond 'neutrality' - how to reconnect regulation to reality?
Beyond 'neutrality' - how to reconnect regulation to reality?Beyond 'neutrality' - how to reconnect regulation to reality?
Beyond 'neutrality' - how to reconnect regulation to reality?Martin Geddes
 
The perception gap: the barrier to disruptive innovation in telecoms
The perception gap: the barrier to disruptive innovation in telecomsThe perception gap: the barrier to disruptive innovation in telecoms
The perception gap: the barrier to disruptive innovation in telecomsMartin Geddes
 
Lastingham - Parish mast report
Lastingham - Parish mast reportLastingham - Parish mast report
Lastingham - Parish mast reportMartin Geddes
 
The technology zeitgeist
The technology zeitgeistThe technology zeitgeist
The technology zeitgeistMartin Geddes
 
The business world in 2025
The business world in 2025The business world in 2025
The business world in 2025Martin Geddes
 
A Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & Tools
A Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & ToolsA Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & Tools
A Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & ToolsMartin Geddes
 
Hypertext to Hypervoice - The next stage in collaboration on the Web
Hypertext to Hypervoice - The next stage in collaboration on the WebHypertext to Hypervoice - The next stage in collaboration on the Web
Hypertext to Hypervoice - The next stage in collaboration on the WebMartin Geddes
 
Network performance - skilled craft to hard science
Network performance - skilled craft to hard scienceNetwork performance - skilled craft to hard science
Network performance - skilled craft to hard scienceMartin Geddes
 

Mais de Martin Geddes (20)

CARE initiative technical prospectus
CARE initiative technical prospectusCARE initiative technical prospectus
CARE initiative technical prospectus
 
Martin Geddes Livestream - March 2018
Martin Geddes Livestream - March 2018Martin Geddes Livestream - March 2018
Martin Geddes Livestream - March 2018
 
Digital supply chain quality management
Digital supply chain quality managementDigital supply chain quality management
Digital supply chain quality management
 
Stationarity is the new speed
Stationarity is the new speedStationarity is the new speed
Stationarity is the new speed
 
Example high-fidelity network measures using ∆Q metrics
Example high-fidelity network measures using ∆Q metricsExample high-fidelity network measures using ∆Q metrics
Example high-fidelity network measures using ∆Q metrics
 
Superfast or superfit? The case for UK broadband policy reform
Superfast or superfit? The case for UK broadband policy reformSuperfast or superfit? The case for UK broadband policy reform
Superfast or superfit? The case for UK broadband policy reform
 
Broadband service quality - rationing or markets?
Broadband service quality - rationing or markets?Broadband service quality - rationing or markets?
Broadband service quality - rationing or markets?
 
Introduction to network quality arbitrage
Introduction to network quality arbitrageIntroduction to network quality arbitrage
Introduction to network quality arbitrage
 
The End of Information Technology: Introducing Hypersense & Human Technology
The End of Information Technology: Introducing Hypersense & Human TechnologyThe End of Information Technology: Introducing Hypersense & Human Technology
The End of Information Technology: Introducing Hypersense & Human Technology
 
The Guardian Avatar
The Guardian AvatarThe Guardian Avatar
The Guardian Avatar
 
Evaluating the internet end-user experience in the Russian Federation
Evaluating the internet end-user experience in the Russian FederationEvaluating the internet end-user experience in the Russian Federation
Evaluating the internet end-user experience in the Russian Federation
 
Beasts to superheroes to gods
Beasts to superheroes to godsBeasts to superheroes to gods
Beasts to superheroes to gods
 
Beyond 'neutrality' - how to reconnect regulation to reality?
Beyond 'neutrality' - how to reconnect regulation to reality?Beyond 'neutrality' - how to reconnect regulation to reality?
Beyond 'neutrality' - how to reconnect regulation to reality?
 
The perception gap: the barrier to disruptive innovation in telecoms
The perception gap: the barrier to disruptive innovation in telecomsThe perception gap: the barrier to disruptive innovation in telecoms
The perception gap: the barrier to disruptive innovation in telecoms
 
Lastingham - Parish mast report
Lastingham - Parish mast reportLastingham - Parish mast report
Lastingham - Parish mast report
 
The technology zeitgeist
The technology zeitgeistThe technology zeitgeist
The technology zeitgeist
 
The business world in 2025
The business world in 2025The business world in 2025
The business world in 2025
 
A Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & Tools
A Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & ToolsA Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & Tools
A Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & Tools
 
Hypertext to Hypervoice - The next stage in collaboration on the Web
Hypertext to Hypervoice - The next stage in collaboration on the WebHypertext to Hypervoice - The next stage in collaboration on the Web
Hypertext to Hypervoice - The next stage in collaboration on the Web
 
Network performance - skilled craft to hard science
Network performance - skilled craft to hard scienceNetwork performance - skilled craft to hard science
Network performance - skilled craft to hard science
 

Último

Zero-day Vulnerabilities
Zero-day VulnerabilitiesZero-day Vulnerabilities
Zero-day Vulnerabilitiesalihassaah1994
 
LESSON 5 GROUP 10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.pdf
LESSON 5 GROUP 10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.pdfLESSON 5 GROUP 10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.pdf
LESSON 5 GROUP 10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.pdfmchristianalwyn
 
TYPES AND DEFINITION OF ONLINE CRIMES AND HAZARDS
TYPES AND DEFINITION OF ONLINE CRIMES AND HAZARDSTYPES AND DEFINITION OF ONLINE CRIMES AND HAZARDS
TYPES AND DEFINITION OF ONLINE CRIMES AND HAZARDSedrianrheine
 
WordPress by the numbers - Jan Loeffler, CTO WebPros, CloudFest 2024
WordPress by the numbers - Jan Loeffler, CTO WebPros, CloudFest 2024WordPress by the numbers - Jan Loeffler, CTO WebPros, CloudFest 2024
WordPress by the numbers - Jan Loeffler, CTO WebPros, CloudFest 2024Jan Löffler
 
LESSON 10/ GROUP 10/ ST. THOMAS AQUINASS
LESSON 10/ GROUP 10/ ST. THOMAS AQUINASSLESSON 10/ GROUP 10/ ST. THOMAS AQUINASS
LESSON 10/ GROUP 10/ ST. THOMAS AQUINASSlesteraporado16
 
Presentation2.pptx - JoyPress Wordpress
Presentation2.pptx -  JoyPress WordpressPresentation2.pptx -  JoyPress Wordpress
Presentation2.pptx - JoyPress Wordpressssuser166378
 
Benefits of doing Internet peering and running an Internet Exchange (IX) pres...
Benefits of doing Internet peering and running an Internet Exchange (IX) pres...Benefits of doing Internet peering and running an Internet Exchange (IX) pres...
Benefits of doing Internet peering and running an Internet Exchange (IX) pres...APNIC
 
Check out the Free Landing Page Hosting in 2024
Check out the Free Landing Page Hosting in 2024Check out the Free Landing Page Hosting in 2024
Check out the Free Landing Page Hosting in 2024Shubham Pant
 
Computer 10 Lesson 8: Building a Website
Computer 10 Lesson 8: Building a WebsiteComputer 10 Lesson 8: Building a Website
Computer 10 Lesson 8: Building a WebsiteMavein
 
Bio Medical Waste Management Guideliness 2023 ppt.pptx
Bio Medical Waste Management Guideliness 2023 ppt.pptxBio Medical Waste Management Guideliness 2023 ppt.pptx
Bio Medical Waste Management Guideliness 2023 ppt.pptxnaveenithkrishnan
 
Vision Forward: Tracing Image Search SEO From Its Roots To AI-Enhanced Horizons
Vision Forward: Tracing Image Search SEO From Its Roots To AI-Enhanced HorizonsVision Forward: Tracing Image Search SEO From Its Roots To AI-Enhanced Horizons
Vision Forward: Tracing Image Search SEO From Its Roots To AI-Enhanced HorizonsRoxana Stingu
 
Introduction to ICANN and Fellowship program by Shreedeep Rayamajhi.pdf
Introduction to ICANN and Fellowship program  by Shreedeep Rayamajhi.pdfIntroduction to ICANN and Fellowship program  by Shreedeep Rayamajhi.pdf
Introduction to ICANN and Fellowship program by Shreedeep Rayamajhi.pdfShreedeep Rayamajhi
 

Último (12)

Zero-day Vulnerabilities
Zero-day VulnerabilitiesZero-day Vulnerabilities
Zero-day Vulnerabilities
 
LESSON 5 GROUP 10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.pdf
LESSON 5 GROUP 10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.pdfLESSON 5 GROUP 10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.pdf
LESSON 5 GROUP 10 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.pdf
 
TYPES AND DEFINITION OF ONLINE CRIMES AND HAZARDS
TYPES AND DEFINITION OF ONLINE CRIMES AND HAZARDSTYPES AND DEFINITION OF ONLINE CRIMES AND HAZARDS
TYPES AND DEFINITION OF ONLINE CRIMES AND HAZARDS
 
WordPress by the numbers - Jan Loeffler, CTO WebPros, CloudFest 2024
WordPress by the numbers - Jan Loeffler, CTO WebPros, CloudFest 2024WordPress by the numbers - Jan Loeffler, CTO WebPros, CloudFest 2024
WordPress by the numbers - Jan Loeffler, CTO WebPros, CloudFest 2024
 
LESSON 10/ GROUP 10/ ST. THOMAS AQUINASS
LESSON 10/ GROUP 10/ ST. THOMAS AQUINASSLESSON 10/ GROUP 10/ ST. THOMAS AQUINASS
LESSON 10/ GROUP 10/ ST. THOMAS AQUINASS
 
Presentation2.pptx - JoyPress Wordpress
Presentation2.pptx -  JoyPress WordpressPresentation2.pptx -  JoyPress Wordpress
Presentation2.pptx - JoyPress Wordpress
 
Benefits of doing Internet peering and running an Internet Exchange (IX) pres...
Benefits of doing Internet peering and running an Internet Exchange (IX) pres...Benefits of doing Internet peering and running an Internet Exchange (IX) pres...
Benefits of doing Internet peering and running an Internet Exchange (IX) pres...
 
Check out the Free Landing Page Hosting in 2024
Check out the Free Landing Page Hosting in 2024Check out the Free Landing Page Hosting in 2024
Check out the Free Landing Page Hosting in 2024
 
Computer 10 Lesson 8: Building a Website
Computer 10 Lesson 8: Building a WebsiteComputer 10 Lesson 8: Building a Website
Computer 10 Lesson 8: Building a Website
 
Bio Medical Waste Management Guideliness 2023 ppt.pptx
Bio Medical Waste Management Guideliness 2023 ppt.pptxBio Medical Waste Management Guideliness 2023 ppt.pptx
Bio Medical Waste Management Guideliness 2023 ppt.pptx
 
Vision Forward: Tracing Image Search SEO From Its Roots To AI-Enhanced Horizons
Vision Forward: Tracing Image Search SEO From Its Roots To AI-Enhanced HorizonsVision Forward: Tracing Image Search SEO From Its Roots To AI-Enhanced Horizons
Vision Forward: Tracing Image Search SEO From Its Roots To AI-Enhanced Horizons
 
Introduction to ICANN and Fellowship program by Shreedeep Rayamajhi.pdf
Introduction to ICANN and Fellowship program  by Shreedeep Rayamajhi.pdfIntroduction to ICANN and Fellowship program  by Shreedeep Rayamajhi.pdf
Introduction to ICANN and Fellowship program by Shreedeep Rayamajhi.pdf
 

FCC Open Internet Transparency - a review by Martin Geddes

  • 1. OPEN INTERNET TRANSPARENCY Informal technical review notes of FCCGN Docket No. 14-28 4th June 2016 MARTIN GEDDES FOUNDER & PRINCIPAL MARTIN GEDDES CONSULTING LTD
  • 2. 2About Martin Geddes 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd I am a computer scientist, telecoms expert, writer and consultant. I collaborate with other leading practitioners in the communications industry. Together we create game- changing new ideas, technologies and businesses.
  • 3. 3Introduction 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd This is an informal technical assessment of the US Federal Communication Commission's planned broadband measurement regime. It has not examined all the relevant documents; there may be (significant!) errors and omissions. The purpose is to indicate where there are potential issues with the approach taken. It’s more right than wrong, so take it as a general barometer or progress (or lack thereof).
  • 4. 4Context 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd It would be easy to interpret this document as being an attack on the FCC, but that is not its intention, and is also an unwise interpretation. Broadband is a new technology that has not yet matured. The underlying science is still being uncovered. As such, all regulators are struggling with similar issues. What exactly is the service that ISPs deliver? How should that be described? In what ways can the service be objectively measured? The FCChas taken a lead in attempting to answer these questions. That the answers are less than wholly satisfactory needs to be understood in the context of a new and developing industry.
  • 5. 5Context 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd This document was written shortly before BEREC, the association of European regulators, issued its guidelines on implementing the new European law on broadband transparency. It is premature and unfair to evaluate the FCC’s effort without understanding how well others haveanswered the same core questions. The problems are systemic; any failure or blame is industrywide. The evaluation criteria in this document are largely drawn from and inspired by the Ofcom technical report “A Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & Tools”, June 2015.
  • 6. 6Key terms 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • ‘Intentional semantics’ is the desired outcome of the measurement policy • ‘Denotational semantics’ is how the service is described on its ‘label’ to users • ‘Operational semantics’ is what it actually does, how that is measured, and how that compared to what is on the label
  • 7. 7Contents 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd Part 1: Technicalnotes • What the FCCsays: intentional, denotational and operational semantics • Comments on each • General technical observations Part 2: Assessment of measurement system • Properties of a good regulatory measurement system • Scoring of each • The bottom line: how well is the FCC doing?
  • 9. 9FCC intentional semantics (‘policy’) 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 1. Aims to support “open Internet principles”, “address open Internet violations”, ensure “harmful practices will not occur”, limit “harmful conduct”. 2. Serves to “enable…consumers to make informed choices”. 3. Support “content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings”. 4. Capture service variation related to “operational areas” with “distinctive set of network performance metrics”.
  • 10. 10Notes on intentional semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • Primary goal is political to support “neutrality” dogma; end user experience is secondary. • Does not discuss or capture the choices that the user might wish to exercise; their (diverse) intentional semantics are ignored! Hence cannot be a measure of fitness-for-purpose and the regulation is unfit- for-purpose. • Wider and long-term goals of commerce and society (e.g. IoT) are not considered. • Creates the wrong kind of user entitlement, which is opposed to the social remit of the FCCfor affordability and sustainability.
  • 11. 11Notes on intentional semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • Content providers are enjoying a best effort service; they have no entitlement to anything when not paying for delivery. Creates a false implication of contract for a quality or capacity floor. • The service variation requirement makes sense, but ignores the vast variability that exists in the system that may subsume this data.
  • 12. 12FCC denotational semantics (‘label’) 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 1. Why? Seeks “accurate information” on “network management practices, performance”. 2. What? “…disclose expected and actual download and upload speeds, latency, and packet loss” such that “expected network performance disclosed for a geographic area should not exceed actual network performance in that geographic area” 3. How? Speed as “median speeds and percentiles of speed [as a range]” 4. How? Latency as “median latency or a range of actual latencies” 5. How? Loss as “average packet loss” 6. How? “provide actual and expected performance in comparable formats”
  • 13. 13Notes on denotational semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • Doesn’t capture that network idleness (quantity) is being used to manage quality; a “fast” network may need to stay idle to work! (So consumer choice is distorted by a false impression.) • Fails to see coupling and trades of loss and delay hence places itself at odds with the two degrees of freedom (load, loss, delay). Optimise delay, pessimise loss; and vice versa. • No consideration of what “speed” is, or defines a “speed test”. • Doesn’t separate out what is under ISP control (architecture; scheduling) from other factors (e.g. how rural, hence longer DSL lines and lower speed).
  • 14. 14Notes on denotational semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • What is ‘success’ in these metrics? Is less always better? What about other factors like variability or distance? Tail of loss/delay? • No consideration of relationship between subjective customer experience, objective user experience, service quality and network performance. In particular, fails to capture need to make bad experiences rare, not merely good ones possible. • There is a plethora of competing measurement approaches. Ambiguous as to where the measure should be made (e.g. L2, L3, or L7?). • False assumption that comparing upload/download speed and network management practices will deliver a meaningful comparison.
  • 15. 15Notes on denotational semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • Burstiness is far more important that averages are. Fails to capture this data. • Is the loss induced by TCP’s own behaviour included in the loss metric or not? If it is, then you've created an impossible situation; a fight between the protocols and measurement system. • The use of measures of “central tendency” is intrinsically wrong when measuring systems where small variations of operational properties have large impacts. Creates perverse incentives. • Median speed focus sets up a big conflict between the stochastics (and their emergent statistics) and the “lawgeneers”.
  • 16. 16Notes on denotational semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • Ability to make informed choices using this data is never tested and validated with actual consumers. • Focus on bulk delivery of large data sets skews measurement to vocal subset of users and content providers (e.g. video on demand). • Omits to define end points of measurements, which is a major factor in country the size of the USA. (Think: Hawaii.)
  • 17. 17FCC operational semantics (‘measured’) 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 1. “disclose actual performance” … “based on internal testing; consumer speed test data; or other data regarding network performance, including reliable, relevant data from third-party sources.” 2. “be reasonably related to the performance the consumer would likely experience”. To this end “The [measured] routes…should…accurately represent the actual network performance…” 3. Capture performance during “times of peak usage” over a “representative sampling of routes” in the “geographic area in which the consumer is purchasing service” 4. Using “measurement clients in broadband modems” or equivalent in network
  • 18. 18Notes on operational semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • “actual” never defined (which points, how often, to where, for what, to what fidelity, etc.) • So many standard methods to choose from! No comparability. • “reasonably related” -- what’s that supposed to mean? • Routes are dynamic, packets can take multiple routes. When those routes are changing from connection to connection between the same endpoints, how should the measures should be weighted by the traffic pattern? • “Peak usage” – how long? Falsely presumes busy equals QoE risk. Plus causality is backwards; frequent QoErisk implies network is busy.
  • 19. 19Notes on operational semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • Reliable, consistent and affordable peak time performance measurement is not achievable in this framework. • To be useful the metric has to express likely experience of me as an end user, not a mythical average. Data being gathered doesn’t have that property. • Sets up a self-deployed mass denial of service attack. The costs of this measurement approach (on the network infrastructure) are enormous, and there is no analysis of how the measurement system would work or scale.
  • 20. 20Notes on operational semantics 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd • DSL is likely to outperform cable for “stability over time”, but that is not being reported, so there is a basic consumer choice being suppressed. • Does not capture the fidelity of geographical reporting. This has particular bearing when comparing DSL with Cable, since they have different geographic variability.
  • 21. 21General technical observations 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 1. No concept of stationarity demand requirement or supply property. 2. No apparent awareness of emergence; assumes intentionality to performance. Calls into question FCC’s technical competence. 3. No concept of multiple explicit or implicit classes of service. Hence forces a sub-optimal delivery and business model on the providers; increases input costs and hence overall cost to consumer. 4. No separation of responsibilities, or consideration of how does resolution occur. Might even create opportunities for undesirable behaviour by key providers (e.g. VoD providers) to engage in predatory change of results to punish providers.
  • 22. 22General technical observations 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 5. Creates new performance arbitrage that can be used to ‘game’ the measurement system. 6. Ignores CDNs and other computational elements. 7. Conflates network access and peering arrangements into one object. 8. No concept of load limit on performance contract. 9. Uses averages (and there is no quality in averages). 10. Ignores CPE variation (hardware and software) as confounding factor. 11. Never defines “performance”. 12. No separation of in-building and network issues. 13. Never defines service boundaries (e.g. wholesale), either horizontal or vertical.
  • 23. 23General technical observations 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 14. Doesn’t really capture what QoE intention is (exceptional experiences possible? bad experiences rare?) 15. “few variations in actual BIAS performance across a BIAS provider’s service area” – not necessarily true; this QoE data is not generally available.
  • 24. 24Part 2: Assessment of system
  • 25. 25 Properties of a good regulatory measurementsystem 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 1. Technically relatable to fitness-for-purpose for end user use 2. Easy to understand by consumers 3. Able to isolate problems and allocate cause/blame 4. Auditable evidence chain of (non)compliance 5. Non-intrusive to collect 6. Comparable across all providers and bearer technologies 7. Clear technical definition of service description and operation 8. Cost-effective to run 9. Non-proprietary 10. Sound scientific basis
  • 26. 26 Technically relatable to fitness-for-purpose for end user use 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 5/10 Why? Positive: • Packet loss and delay included; weak proxy for capacity and QoE (up to c. 10mbps) Negative: • Too focused on describing best case, not worst case. Doesn’t capture the tail or the variation (size of “peak period”, non-stationarity) • Falls well short of being a strong QoE proxy. Likely that reported results and actual user experience will not tally; legitimacy issue for FCC 1
  • 27. 27Easy to understand by consumers 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 3/10 Why? Positive: • Speed is simple to understand Negative: • Can’t relate data to key applications you want to use • Comparability is limited, especially with respect to quality 2
  • 28. 28 Able to isolate problems and allocate cause/blame 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 0/10 Why? • Not even considered; implicitly assumed that somehow this will be obvious. 3
  • 29. 29 Auditableevidencechain of (non)compliance 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 0/10 Why? • Not even considered as a requirement, hence unenforceable. 4
  • 30. 30Non-intrusiveto collect 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 3/10 Why? Positive: • Can reuse existing network metrics Negative: • Requirement for peak period speed tests is a self-induced denial of service attack. 5
  • 31. 31 Comparableacross all providers and bearer technologies 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 3/10 Why? Positive: • General framework for comparability Negative: • So many woolly definitions, options and variability the reality is going to be a mess. Approach biased between "physical environment rate limited but uncontended last mile" (DSL) v "higher peak rate but variably contended last mile" (DOCSIS) towards latter. • Does not capture how often do you get your peak speed; out of scope 6
  • 32. 32 Clear technical definition of service description and operation 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 3/10 Why? Positive: • Captures many of the essential issues in managing service definition and variability. Negative: • Fails to grasp the undefined nature of “best effort” broadband; no real idea of a quality floor or how to go about defining and enforcing one. 7
  • 33. 33Cost-effective to run 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 1/10 Why? Negative: • New measurement systems required for many ISPs. • Speed tests will absorb all network resources. Will force certain ISPs (e.g. WISPs) out of business, as the measurement approach is fatal to their ability to delivery consistent service. This will reduce consumer choice. • Incentive is for unsustainably idle networks. Favours certain geographies and incumbents, reducing consumer choice. 8
  • 34. 34Non-proprietary 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 6/10 Why? Positive: • Uses well-known concepts. Negative: • Loads of speed tests which are dynamically updated; comparability means adoption of a single proprietary vendor standard. • Fails to say what to measure, as there are so many feasible measurements. ISPs will want ones closest to the technology, which may be opposite of what users want. 9
  • 35. 35Sound scientific basis 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC Score: 3/10 Why? Positive: • Considers many relevant technical issues. Negative: • No framework for relating UX to service quality or network performance. • No framework to consider service semantics. • Many technical holes; no resource model defined. 10
  • 36. 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd FCC BEREC Technicallyrelatable to fitness-for-purpose for end user use 5 TBA Easy to understand by consumers 3 TBA Able to isolate problems and allocate cause/blame 0 TBA Auditable evidence chain of (non)compliance 0 TBA Non-intrusive to collect 3 TBA Comparable acrossall providers and bearer technologies 3 TBA Clear technicaldefinition of servicedescription and operation 3 TBA Cost-effective to run 1 TBA Non-proprietary 6 TBA Sound scientific basis 3 TBA OVERALL SCORE 27/100 ?
  • 37. 37Bottom line 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 1. The FCChas its heart in the right place: a transparent marketplace. 2. Sadly, the FCC’s head is not screwed on: fundamentally fails to grasp statistically multiplexed nature of broadband and existence of trading space. Misclassifies broadband as “jittery lossy circuits”: monoservice view, ‘peak hour’, no idea of degrees of freedom. 3. Data is virtually unusable by the public. Traffic management disclosure is irrelevant. Performance metrics hard to interpret except by experts and offer limited data. Opens up risk of misinterpretation and conflicting subjective views of what is meant to be objective data. 4. Misses need for predictability entirely. As a result the data is biased towards some bearers (e.g. DOCSIS) and away from others (e.g. DSL).
  • 38. 38Bottom line 4 June 2016 © Martin Geddes Consulting Ltd 5. The scaling costs of speed tests are prohibitive. May put WISPs out of business. 6. Enforcement has not been considered. No regime is offered for isolation of issues or proof of cause. 7. Sets up inappropriate market incentives. Damages competition, adversely affects low-density (especially rural) ISPs. Encourages overload of network by content providers.
  • 39. 39|39 Thank you The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows. ―Aristotle Onassis Martin Geddes mail@martingeddes.com