日本的寬帶競爭政策-MIC-50P-EN-

0March２００８Yasu

TANIWAKI(y-taniwa@soumu.go.jp)Director,

Telecommunications

Policy

DivisionTelecommunications

BureauMinistry

of

Internal

Affairs

&

Communications

(MIC),

JAPANBroadband

Competition

Policy

in

Japan1Broadband

Competition

Policy

in

Japan?■Current

Status

of

Broadband

Market

inJapanOutline

of

“New

Competition

Policy

Program

2010”Specific

Issues□Network

Neutrality

Issues□Revitalization

of

Mobile

Business2FTTH11,328,952ＦＷＡ12,585CATV3,827,502ＤＳＬ13,133,113As

of

Jan.

2008【Number

of

Telecommunication

Service

Users】（Unit:

10thousand）Fixed

Communications

(telephony)Mobile

Communications

(telephony)Broadband

serviceIPTelephonyTransition

in

the

Number

of

Japan’s

Broadband

Subscribers【Number

of

Broadband

ServiceUsers】As

of

Dec.

2007As

of

Dec.

2007As

of

Dec.

20073Tariff

for

Broadband

ServicesNote

1:

When

using

BB.excite

as

the

ISPNote

2:

When

the

service

can

be

provided

to

8

or

moreresidencesNote

3:

Includes

basic

IP

telephone

charges

aswellSources:

Respective

company

web

sites(2)K-opticom(100

M)(1)NTT

East(100

M)NTT

East(1)(100

M)USEN(100

M)(3)KDDI(50

M)Softbank

BB

(3)(50

M)KDDI(5

M)Itscom(30

M)Itscom(512k)FTTH(single

residences)FTTH(multiple

residences)ADSLCableNTT

East(1)(47

M)(yen/month)60005000400030002000100005,9854,9003,5702,9803,4654,2063,9692,9084,0951,0506,5104,0955,2003,5055,2505,9915,7544,6934,3891,344IP

phone

chargePSTN

phone

chargeIP

phone

chargeinternet

charge4Source

：

ITU

Internet

Reports

2006

”digital.life”（December

2006）Broadband

prices

(100kbit/s)(US

dollar)Japanese

Broadband

Service

in

Global

ComparisonSpeed

of

DSL（Mbit/s）5Next

Generation

Broadband

Strategy

2010

(August

2006)broadbandservicesuper

high

speedbroadband（ＦＴＴＨ）48.6

million（95％）100％42.7

million（84％）90％FY２０１０（Target

set

by

the

government)FY２００６（as

of

the

end

of

March2007）Status

of

broadband

service

availability47.3

million（94％）40.2

million（80％）FY２００５（as

of

the

end

of

March2006）As

a

roadmap

to

fulfill

“Next

Generation

Broadband

Strategy

2010,”

“Digital

DivideElimination

Strategy,”

including

concrete

measures

to

eliminate

“broadband

zero”

area,will

be

released

by

MIC

in

June2008.(Note)

“Broadband

availability

map,”

describing

availability

of

broadband

services

(ADSL,

FTTH

etc.)

in

each

townor

village,

has

been

provided

via

the

internet.6Broadband

Competition

Policy

in

Japan■Current

Status

of

Broadband

Market

inJapan?■Outline

of

“New

Competition

Policy

Program

2010”Specific

Issues□Network

Neutrality

Issues□Revitalization

of

Mobile

Business7Outline

of

Japanese

Telecom

Competition

PolicyIntroduction

ofmarketprinciplesPrivatization

ofNTT--PCReorganization

of

NTT

(1999)Deregulation

of

market

entryrestrictionAbolition

of

foreign

investmentregulation

(except

for

NTT

andNTT

regionalcompanies)Establishment

of

interconnectionrules

(introduction

of

LRIC

model)Strengthening

ofasymmetricregulationsEstablishment

of

USFmechanismSetting

up

ofTelecommunicationsBusiness

DisputeCommitteeAge

ofTelephonyEmergence

ofInternetAbolition

of

Type

I

andType

IIbusinesscategoriesDrastic

deregulation

ofprice

and

tariff

regulationsFrom

monopolyto

competition1985

1997

2001

Further

promotionofcompetitionFrom

“ex-ante”regulation

to

“ex-post”

regulation2004

Introduction

ofcompetition

reviewmechanismTransition

to

FullIP-based

networksReviewofCompetitionRulescorrespondingtotransitiontofullIP-basednetworksTransition

fromＰＳＴＮ

to

ＩＰ-based

networksReview

of

competition

rules

through

transparent

procedures8Current

Status

of

Japanese

Telecom

MarketApril

1985April

1989April

1993April

1997April

2001Feb

2008877381,2594,7269,34814,441Number

of

competitive

telecom

carriersNTT

EastNTT

WestNTT

regional

companies

own93%

of

all

the

accesslines.(as

of

the

end

of

March

2007)NTTCommunicationNTTDoCoMoStructure

of

NTT

group

(reorganized

in

July

1999)Regulated

under

NTTLawNTT(Holdingcompany)9Market

Share

of

NTT

East

and

West９２．５％７８．９％Copper&fiber&ＣＡＴＶ

linesFixed

telephone（includingISDN）FTTHFTTH

service９０．６％６９．０％（share

by

revenue）（share

by

number

of

lines）(as

of

the

end

of

March2007)９９．９％Copper

lines３８．０％ＡＤＳＬ100

7

8Development

of

DSL

Service

Market

and

Introduction

of

Interconnection

RulesDSLCable

ModemEstablishment

of

collocation

andunbundling

rules

for

access

networksof

NTT

E/WAutumn

2000OthersApprox.62.0%【End-Mar.

07】NTT

E/WApprox.

38.0%(millions)11Changes

in

Market

Environment

and

Review

of

Competition

PolicyRelated

to

a

review

of

a

framework

of

competition

rules

to

address

the

transition

toIP-basednetworks,

define

a

road

map

for

deliberation

to

be

implemented

by

the

early

2010s.“New

Competition

Promotion

Program

2010”

(Sep

2006,

revised

in

Oct

2007)【Development

of

horizontal

marketintegration】【Development

of

vertical

market

integration】Changes

in

competitive

environmentProgress

of

broadband

deploymentDevelopment

of

horizontal

market

integrationDevelopment

of

vertical

market

integration12Outline

of

“New

Competition

Promotion

Program

2010”Comprehensive

Review

of

Competition

Rules

to

Address

the

Shift

to

IP

Based

Networks(Comprehensively

implemented

by

early

2010s)１．Promotion

of

Facility

BasedCompetition２．Review

of

InterconnectionPolicy３．Review

of

Universal

ServiceSystemReview

of

Calculation

Method

for

Interconnection

Charges

of

NTTE&WConsideration

（“feasibility

study”

in

2007

to

be

followed

by

preciseconsideration

at

the

Information

and

Communications

Council

by

the

end

of2008)Promotion

of

Competition

in

the

Mobile

Communication

Market

(?”MobileBusiness

Vitalization

Plan”

in

September

2007)４．Review

of

Tariff

Policy５．Other

Main

PoliciesStudy

concerning

the

Network

Neutrality

principles

（the

first

SG

report

inSeptember

2007,

followed

by

the

second

report

by

the

end

of

2008)Review

of

Dispute

Settlement

Functions

etc.Promotion

to

Use

Physical

Networks

Owned

by

Local

Governments

etc.Promotion

of

Diversification

of

Access

Networks（WiMAX

etc.）Establishment

of

Interconnection

rules

for

NGNs

(by

the

end

of

FY2007)Review

of

Dominant

RegulationsIntroduction

of

Competition

Safeguard

System

(from

FY

2007)Comprehensive

review

of

Dominant

Regulations

(Implementation

willbe

launched

by

FY

2010.)Review

of

the

Price

Cap

Regulationetc.?Status

of

NTT

will

be

concluded

following

consideration

in

2010.?Comprehensive

legal

framework

including

telecommunications

and

broadcasting

will

be

concluded

by

2010.13Broadband

Competition

Policy

in

Japan■Current

Status

of

Broadband

Market

inJapanOutline

of

“New

Competition

Policy

Program

2010”Specific

Issues?□Network

Neutrality

Issues□Revitalization

of

Mobile

Business14Equitable

cost

distribution

of

networks(A)Neutrality

of

cost

sharing

models

for

upgradingthe

communications

networksEqual

access

to

networks(B)Neutrality

of

telecommunications

layer

withrespect

to

otherlayersIP-based

networks

should

be

accessible

to

users

and

easy

to

use,

allowing

ready

access

tocontent

and

application

layers.IP-based

networks

should

be

accessible

and

available

to

any

terminal

that

meets

the

relevanttechnical

standards,

and

should

support

terminal-to-terminal

(or

“end-to-end”)communication.Users

should

be

provided

with

equality

of

access

to

telecommunications

and

platform

layers

at

areasonable

price.Basic

Framework

for

Ｎetwork

ＮeutralityNetwork

neutrality

(from

the

user

perspective)■Changes

on

network

structure（Transition

from

PSTNs

to

IP

based

networks）Progress

of

market

integration

such

as

FMCProliferation

of

new

communications

such

as

P2PChange

of

Market

StructureNote:

In

this

case,

"the

user"

refers

not

just

to

end

users

but

also

includescontent

providers

and

other

related

companies

that

conduct

business

usingIPnetworks.Ensuring

utilization

of

networks“with

proper

cost

allocation”（A）

&

“without

any

discrimination”（B）SG

on

Network

Neutrality

(Nov.

2006

–

Sep.

2007)15Equitable

cost

distribution

of

networks(A)Neutrality

of

cost

sharing

models

for

upgradingthe

communications

networksEqual

access

to

networks(B)Neutrality

of

telecommunications

layer

withrespect

to

otherlayersIP-based

networks

should

be

accessible

to

users

and

easy

to

use,

allowing

ready

access

tocontent

and

application

layers.IP-based

networks

should

be

accessible

and

available

to

any

terminal

that

meets

the

relevanttechnical

standards,

and

should

support

terminal-to-terminal

(or

“end-to-end”)communication.Users

should

be

provided

with

equality

of

access

to

telecommunications

and

platform

layers

at

areasonable

price.Basic

Framework

for

Ｎetwork

ＮeutralityNetwork

neutrality

(from

the

user

perspective)■Changes

on

network

structure（Transition

from

PSTNs

to

IP

based

networks）Progress

of

market

integration

such

as

FMCProliferation

of

new

communications

such

as

P2PChange

of

Market

StructureNote:

In

this

case,

"the

user"

refers

not

just

to

end

users

but

also

includescontent

providers

and

other

related

companies

that

conduct

business

usingIPnetworks.Ensuring

utilization

of

networks“with

proper

cost

allocation”（A）

&

“without

any

discrimination”（B）SG

on

Network

Neutrality

(Nov.

2006

–

Sep.

2007)16IP

Traffic

on

the

Networks

(Total

Volume)[Gbps]The

total

amount

of

IP

traffic

in

Japan

was

estimated

at

812.9Gbps

in

Nov

2007,increased

by

about

2.5

times

in

3

years.Efforts

for

Grasping

Current

Status

of

Internet

Traffic

in

Japan

,

MICEstimated

downloadtraffic

of

broadbandusers

in

JapanMonthly

average

ofdaily

traffic

ofBroadband

customers(ADSL/CATV/FTTH)

ofmajor

ISPs

in

Japan(ref.1)

Monthly

averageof

daily

peak

trafficexchanged

at

majorIXsinJapan(ref.2)

Monthly

averageof

daily

trafficexchanged

at

majorIXsinJapan17“The

traffic

flowing

into

domestic

ISPs

from

foreign

ISPs（Inbound

traffic,B3）”hasbeen

remarkably

increasing

by

twice

in

1.5

year.It

has

exceeded“the

traffic

exchanged

at

any place

outside

domestic

major

IXs

(mainly

private

peering,B2)”at

Nov

2007.【left

diagram】In

the

traffic

exchanged

among

domestic

ISPs,

the

percentage

of

“the

traffic

exchangedat

domestic

major

IXs

(B1)”

has

turned

upward

again.[Gbps][Gbps]＜Inbound

traffic

to

domestic

ISPs＞＜Outbound

traffic

from

domestic

ISPs＞Efforts

for

Grasping

Current

Status

of

Internet

Traffic

in

Japan

,

MICTraffic

Exchanged

among

ＩＳＰs（as

of

Nov

2007）〔B１〕

the

traffic

exchanged

at

domestic

major

IXs〔B２〕

the

traffic

exchanged

at

any

place

outside

domestic

major

IXs〔B３〕

the

traffic

flowing

into

domestic

ISPs

from

foreignISPs18TopBottomP2P

traffic

has

a

significant

impact

on

networks

rather

than

streaming

and

web

surfing.Average

P2P

occupation

rate

increased

by

30%

at

peak

traffic

level

and

by

10%

at

offpeak

level

in

6

months

period.Randomly

selected

day

in

April2006Randomly

selected

day

in

November2005Occupation

rate

of

bandwidthOccupation

rate

of

bandwidthIP

Traffic

(Downstream)Others

(web,

mail

etc.)19TopBottomP2P

occupation

rate

is

higher

in

upstream

than

in

downstream.P2P

traffic

occupied

no

less

than

approx.50%

throughout

24h

in

Apr.2006.Occupation

rate

of

bandwidthOccupation

rate

of

bandwidthRandomly

selected

day

in

April2006Randomly

selected

day

in

November2005IP

Traffic

(Upstream)Others

(web,

mail

etc.)2075%P2P

traffic(less

than

10%

of

allusers)Bandwidth

Usage

and

P2P

Users25%Other

traffic(more

than

90%

of

allusers)63%Heavy

users(10%

of

P2Pusers)37%average

users(90%

of

P2Pusers)P2P

user

:17GbyteP2P

heavy

users:

104GbyteTop

10%

among

P2P

users

occupy

over

60%

of

thetraffic10%

of

all

users

occupy

60

through

90%

of

thetrafficTraffic

volumeUser

(ascending

sort

)Top

10%

of

P2P

users(*)

occupy

more

than

60%

of

thetrafficTraffic

volumex

30x

190Bandwidth

used

by

heavy

users

completely

differs

fromthat

used

by

average

users.average

user

:

550MbyteDistribution

of

uses

in

all

trafficP2P

users

(10%)

controls

60

through

90%

of

thetraffic.P2P

User

(ascending

sort

)(*)

“the

P2P

users”

are

considered

as

the

users

whose

P2P

traffic

exceeds

over

1Mbytewithin

24

hrs.(Note)

The

data

was

provided

by

Plala

Networks)

(partly

extracted)Measured

:

2003/6/30

–

2003/7/111:59(*)

the

Plala

Networks

has

controlled

its

P2P

bandwidthsinceNovember

2003,

therefore

the

latest

published

data

in

uncontrolledsituation

is

for

2003.21Dispersion

of

Intelligence

in

Networksnetworks（meshedEnd

user

as

a“private”

content

providerRemarkable

improvement

ofcomputing

capability

ofterminalequipment

such

as

ＰＣsNewly

emerging

services

coordinatedbetween

terminal

equipment

and

intelligence

inservers

(SaaS,

online

data

storageetc.)Ubiquitous

economy,

CGC(ConsumerGenerated

Media),

diversity

of

contentdelivery

mode

including

P2P22Background

of

Dramatic

Traffic

IncreaseBroadly

usage

of

P2P-based

file

exchange,

driven

by

increasing

availability

for broader

upload

bandwidth

in

response

toproliferation

of

FTTH

serviceIn

addition

to

increase

of

rich

content

including

video,

many

newbusiness

models

with

CGC

(Consumer

Generated

Content)

have

emerged.?Content

may

flow

into

the

network

from

a

variety

of

network

edgesSome

new

factors

possibly

to

making

Internet

traffic

increase.Emergence

of

new

communications

represented

by

M2M

in

line

with progress

of

ubiquitous

economyIncrease

of

network

utilization

includingSaaS

within

firmsProliferation

of

grid

computing23Actions

to

Be

Taken

to

Cope

with

Network

Congestion

Using

Ｐ２Ｐ■Currently

unclear

if

technological

innovation

can

absorbincremental

cost

duetoincreasing

traffic.For

coping

with

dramatic

traffic

increase

(network

congestion),ensuring

dynamic Interaction

is

required

between

networks

and

terminals,allowing

networksto flexibly

absorb

traffic

fluctuating.（?network

scalability）。Advantage

of

P2P

in

allow

for

improving

content

delivery

efficiency

shouldbe utilized.

Flexible

choice

of

content

delivery

technologies

such

asC/S model

and

CDN

as

well

as

P2P

should

beensured.Field

Trials

by “P2P

Network

Experiment

Council”(FY07-08)24P2P

Network

Experiment

CouncilSportsCultureEducationMovies/CartoonFilmsGames“P2P

Network

Experiment

Council”

was

established

in

August

2007.Result

of

experiments

will

be

summarized

by

end-March

2009.Purposes?“P2P

Network

Experiment

Council”was

established

with

the

aim

of

promoting

new

content

delivery

businesses

using

broadbandnetwork,and

diffusing

the

use

of

broadband

services

to

regional

areas.To

achieve

the

above

targets,

the

council

participants

exchange

their

information

and

views

on

new

network

services

applyingP2Papplication

technologies,

support

P2P-experiments

and

P2P-services,

and

examine

the

results

of

experiments.Participants(in

alphabetical

order)–

Bitmedia

Inc.,

BitTorrent

K.K.,

BROTHER

INDUSTRIES

LTD.,

DREAMBOAT

Co.Ltd.,

INFOCITY

Inc.,

Internet

Initiative

Japan

Inc.,Grid

Solutions

inc.,

Japan

Broadcasting

Corporation,

J-Stream

Inc.,

Kadokawa

Digix

INC.,

Mandala,

NEC

Corporation,NHK

ENTERPRISES

Inc.,

NTT

Communications

Corporation,

SOFTBANK

BB

Corp.,

TOKYO

SHOSEKI

CO.LTD.,TOYAMA

INTERNET

SHIMINJUKU,

TV

Bank

Corp.,

VeriSign

Japan

K.K.-MIC

(as

anobserver)P2P

NetworkExperiment

CouncilSG

on

P2P

Delivery

ModelP2P

Security

Guideline

Drafting

GroupLocalGovernmentAContent

delivery

service

providersContent

holdersSG

on

Joint

Delivery

ArchitectureTelecommunication

carriers,CDN

service

providers,

P2P

service

providersISPs,

IXs,

Content

holdersStudy

GroupOnEffectiveDeliveryNetworkLocalGovernmentBLocalGovernmentCLocalGovernmentDOutline

of

“Guideline

for

Packet

Shaping

(Draft)”(March

2008)Relation

to

“Secrecy

of

Communications”（Article6,

Telecommunications

Business

Law）Relation

to

“Fairness

in

use”（Article

6,

Telecommunications

Business

Law）How

to

provide

users

with

information

about

packet

shaping_Further

issues

to

be

considered３．Points

at

issue４．ScheduleMarch

17

Public

comment

（～April

14）~

April

2008

Establishment

of

the

Guideline２．Principle

of

theGuideline【CoverageoftheGuideline】①

Traffic

restriction

of

specific

applications

(e.g.

P2P

traffic)②

Traffic

restriction

or

canceling

the

contract

of

heavy

users

whosetraffic

exceeds

a

certain

thresholdPacket

shaping

should

be

justified

only

from

an

objective

criteria.【Basic

concept】In

principle,

ISPs

should

increase

their

network

capacitywhennetwork

traffic

has

increased.Packet

shaping

is

allowed

only

in

an

exceptional

situation.Some

ISPs

practise

“Packet

Shaping”Establishing

the

Guideline

asa

basic

principle

regardingISPs’

practise

of

packetshapingDramatic

Traffic

IncreaseA

few

heavy

users

are

occupyingmost

of

thebandwidthDevelopment

of

broadband１．Background

of

theGuidelineBased

on

the

discussion

in

the

“WGon

Network

Neutrality”,

ISPs

held

aconference

in

Sep.

2007.（MIC

is

participating

as

an

observer.）253.

Coverage

of

the

GuidelineThe

guideline

covers

the

following

two

cases.Traffic

restriction

on

specific

applications

(e.g.

P2P

traffic)Traffic

restriction

or

canceling

the

contract

of

heavy

users

whose

traffic

exceeds

acertain

threshold.Basic

principle

means

that

ISP

should

increase

the

network

capacity

when

traffic

has increased.

Packet

Shaping

is

allowed

only

in

an

exceptional

situation.Specifically,

Packet

Shaping

must

be

justified

only

from

an

objective

criteria,

such as

when

the

QoS

of

general

users

is

degraded

by

the

traffic

of

P2P

applications which

occupy

bandwidth

excessively

and

continuously.Coping

with

increase

of

video

content

(YouTube,etc.)Information

sharing

systems

among

relevant

players

such

as

ISPs,

CPs,

etc..Cost

sharing

model

(cost

allocation

among

ISPs,

additional

charges

for

heavy

usersetc.)Dramatic

traffic

Increase

/

a

few

heavy

users

are

occupying

most

of

the

bandwidth.To

tackle

these

problems,

some

ISPs

currently

practise

“packet

shaping.”Clarifies

specific

cases

when

packet

shaping

is

allowed

as

ISPs

lawful

pursuitof business.In

terms

of

consumer

protection,

ISPs

are

required

to

provide

sufficient information

to

users

regarding

their

packet

shaping

policy

(terms

and

conditions

of contract,

description

of

tariffs,

etc.)ISPs

are

also

required

to

provide

relevant

information

to

CPs

and

other

ISPs.Clarifies

specific

rules

to

be

followed

regarding

“fairness

in

use”.Guideline

for

Packet

Shaping

(Draft)To

avoid

arbitrary

use

of

packet

shaping,

the

guideline

is

established

as

a

basic principle

regarding

the

practise

of

packet

shaping

by

ISPs.2.

Purpose

and

positioning4.

Basicprinciples5.

Secrecy

of

communications6.

Fairness

in

use7.

Disclosure

of

information8.

Issues

for

further

consideration1.

Background

on

the

deliberations３26【W(wǎng)hen

ISPs

restrict

use

by

heavy

users】＜Conditions＞Justification

&

necessity

for

action?QoS

of

general

users

is

degraded

by

traffic

due

to

specific

heavy

users

occupying

the

bandwidthexcessively

and

continuously.?Packet

shaping

is

for

maintaining

network

stability

and

securing

QoS

for

otherusers.Validity

of

means?The

practise

of

packet

shaping

is

applied

only

to

specific

users

whose

traffic

amount

is

extremelyexcessive.?

It

is

permissible

to

check

the

traffic

of

respectiveusers,

for

restricting

the

bandwidth

of

heavy

useor

giving

them

a

warning

them

to

decrease

theiruse.Major

points

of

Guideline（１/2）Requirements

for

action

to

be

allowed

legally(1)Justification

of

action (2)

Necessity

of

action,

balanced

with

justification (3)

Validity

of

meansISPs

analyze

the

header

or

payload

information

of

the

packet

when

they

practise

packet

shaping*.

Such

information

constitutes “secrecy

of

communications”（Article

4,

Telecommunications

Business

Law）.The

guideline

clarifies

requirements

and

specific

cases

when

packet

shaping

is

legally

allowed.*Cases

when

the

equipment

analyzes

the

data

automaticallyareincluded.【W(wǎng)hen

ISPs

“restrict”

traffic

of

P2P

applications

such

as

“winny”】＜Conditions＞Justification

&

necessity

for

action?The

QoS

of

general

users

is

degraded

by

P2P

traffic

which

occupiesbandwidth

excessively

and

continuously.?Packet

shaping

is

for

maintaining

network

stability

and

securing

QoS

forother

users.Validity

of

means?The

practise

of

packet

shaping

is

applied

only

to

specific

apps

whose

trafficvolume

is

extremely

excessive.【W(wǎng)hen

ISPs

“shut

out”traffic

of

P2P

applications

such

as

“winny”】Such

actions

do

not

satisfy

validity

of

means

because

ISPs

can maintain

their

operations

by

other

means

such

as

restricting

the

traffic of

P2P

apps,

which

is

recognized

as

a

lighter

restriction

than

shutting out

the

traffic.Packet

shaping

may

be

justified

as

a

lawful

action.Difficult

to

be

justified

as

a

lawful

action①

Cases

when

ISPs

restrict

traffic

of

specific

applications②

Cases

when

ISPs

restrict

use

of

bandwidth

for

specific

users*

In

the

case

where

end

users

agree

individually,

ISPs

can

shutout

the

traffic

of

P2P

applications.（１）Relation

to

“secrecy

of

communications”Packet

shaping

may

be

justified

as

a

lawfulaction.3427（

２）Relationship

to

“fairness

in

use”The

Guideline

clarifies

the

rules

to

be

followed

when

implementing

packet

shaping

in

the

context

of

the

relationship

to

“fairness in

use”

(Article

6,

Telecommunications

Business

Law).【Cases

when

ISPs

restrict

P2P

traffic

of

specific

heavy

users】＜Conditions＞ISPs

must

distinguish

heavy

users’

traffic

from

general

users’

trafficbased

on

objective

data.Based

on

tariffs,

the

traffic

restriction

on

heavy

users

should

be

limited

toan

equivalent

traffic

volume

of

general

users.【Cases

when

ISPs

restrict

traffic

or

charge

additionally

for

specificheavy

user

groups】Discriminatory

practises

are

applied

to

users

under

the

same

conditions.【Cases

when

ISPs

restrict

traffic

of

specific

CP