skip to main content
research-article

A Framework for Classification of Traffic Management Practices as Reasonable or Unreasonable

Published:01 October 2010Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Traffic management practices of ISPs are an issue of public concern. We propose a framework for classification of traffic management practices as reasonable or unreasonable. We present a survey of traffic management techniques and examples of how these techniques are used by ISPs. We suggest that whether a traffic management practice is reasonable rests on the answers to four questions regarding the techniques and practices used. We propose a framework that classifies techniques as unreasonable if they are unreasonably anticompetitive, cause undue harm to consumers, or unreasonably impair free speech. We propose alternatives to unreasonable or borderline congestion management practices.

References

  1. Comcast Corporation. 2008. Comments of Comcast Corporation before the Federal Communications Commission in the matter of broadband industry practices (WC docket no. 07-52). http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/.ecfs/document/view?id=6519840991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cox Communications. 2004. Voice over Internet protocol: Ready for prime time. White paper. http://cox.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. FCC. 2005a. DA 05-543, Madison River communications consent decree. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. FCC. 2005b. FCC 05-151, Internet policy statement. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. FCC. 2007. FCC 07-31, Broadband Market Practices Notice of Inquiry. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-31A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. FCC. 2008. FCC 08-183, Comcast Order. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. FCC. 2009. FCC 09-93, Open Internet NPRM. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Floyd, S. and Jacobson, V. 1993. Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 1, 4, 397--413. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Free Press, Public Knowledge et al. 2007. A petition before the Federal Communications Commission for declaratory ruling that degrading an Internet application violates the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement and does not meet an exception for “reasonable network management.” http://www.fcc.gov/broadband_network_management/fp_et_al_nn_declaratory_ruling.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Frieden, R. 2006. Network neutrality or bias?---Handicang the odds for a tiered and branded Internet. In Proceedings of the 34th Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy (TPRC). TPRC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. IEEE. 2010. IEEE Standards. http://standards.ieee.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Internet Engineering Task Force. 2010. IETF request for comments. http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang, H. and Jordan, S. 1995. The role of price in the connection establishment process. Euro. Trans. Telecomm. 6, 4, 421--429.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jordan, S. 2009. Implications of Internet architecture upon net neutrality. ACM Trans. Intern. Techn. 9, 2, 5:1--5:28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Lehr, W. A., Gillett, S. E., Sirbu, M. A., and Peha, J. M. 2007. Scenarios for the network neutrality arms race. Int. J. Comm. 1, 607--643.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, E., Andreasen, F., and Russell, G. 2001. The PacketCable architecture. Comm. Mag. 39, 6, 90--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Packeteer Incorporated. 2007. Best practices: Monitoring and controlling peer-to-peer (p2p) applications. http://www.zdnet.co.uk/white-papers/view/network-management/ best-practices-monitoring-and-controlling-peer-to-peer-p2p-applications-260084034/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Packeteer Incorporated. 2008. Packeteer education customers. http://www.bluecoat.com/solutions/industry/education/highereducation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Peha, J. M. 2007. The benefits and risks of mandating network neutrality, and the quest for a balanced policy. Int. J. Comm. 1, 644--668.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sandvine Incorporated. 2004. Session management: BitTorrent protocol, managing the impact on subscriber experience. http://web.archive.org/web/20080608162137/ http://www.sandvine.com/general/getfile.asp?FILEID=21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Sandvine Incorporated. 2007. Sandvine DPI-based policy solutions. http://www.presh.com.mx/res/Sandvine_Solutions_Overview.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Stiliadis, D. and Varma, A. 1998. Latency-rate servers: A general model for analysis of traffic scheduling algorithms. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 6, 5, 611--624. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Vuze Inc. 2007. A petition before the Federal Communications Commission to establish rules governing network management practices by broadband network operators. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6519811711.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Wei, D. X., Jin, C., Low, S. H., and Hegde, S. 2006. FAST TCP: Motivation, architecture, algorithms, performance. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 14, 6, 1246--1259. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Weitzner, D. 2008. Net neutrality... seriously this time. IEEE Intern. Comput. 12, 3, 86--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Framework for Classification of Traffic Management Practices as Reasonable or Unreasonable

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
        ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 10, Issue 3
        October 2010
        109 pages
        ISSN:1533-5399
        EISSN:1557-6051
        DOI:10.1145/1852096
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2010 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Accepted: 1 December 2010
        • Published: 1 October 2010
        • Revised: 1 February 2010
        • Received: 1 June 2009
        Published in toit Volume 10, Issue 3

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!