[Chapter-delegates] Fw: BBC News: China/ITU/IETF

[James Butler]

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting article on the BBC:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8417680.stm
>>
> My own views on this article is that there appears to be a gross
> misunderstanding by many people of how the Internet works, and I am
> trying to find out in this instance, who's more guilty of this
> misunderstanding, whether it is "China", the gentleman from the
> European Commission, the ITU, or the BBC.
I'm not seeing any gross misunderstandings in the article. While I do
not agree with the principle, nor the practicality, of implementing a
tariff plan based on BGP router data, the story does not seem to be
completely out of the bounds of possibility.
> Yes, in some cases, the Internet works with peering agreements
> allowing for flow of traffic from backbone provider to backbone
> provider. But this is not the case for every Internet Service Provider
> out there.
True. It's an issue the ITU will become intimate with, if they pursue this.
> "Pendants", ie. networks connected to the rest of the network through
> a single link, sometimes pay to get connected to the Internet
> backbone, with no "discount" whatsoever. This has always been the
> case, and it is therefore entirely possible that an end user gets
> charged according to the amount of traffic they send and receive. The
> great thing about the Internet is that charging models at the edge of
> the network (customer access points etc.) can be whatever you design
> them to be. Of course, you can't charge on a per destination basis,
> but that's the whole point of the Internet.
True, but are they referring to the destination, or to the traffic flow?
It looks to me like they are talking about traffic flow ... in, out,
through ... whatever.
> The use of the word "Borders" in the article is even more confusing:
> "China wants to meter all internet traffic that passes through its
> borders", ie. into/out of the country, and there is allusion to the
> "Border Gateway Protocol - BGP". What an amalgamation! These two, I'm
> afraid, are completely unrelated.
China is implying that it seeks to establish a ring of modified BGP
routers at all points of ingress to its network infrastructure. They
already have similar tech in place (obviously they already use BGP
routers, plus we have the "Great Firewall" example), so this is not
either unrealistic nor all that confusing. They want to meter the
traffic through their infrastructure, and they are proposing using BGP
routers to accomplish that metering. I'm not agreeing that this is the
best tech to use for that purpose, but if they want to spend their money
to modify basic BGP routers to do this, it certainly seems to be within
their ability and interest to do so.
> Also, the paragraph "It would allow countries which currently receive
> no payment for use of their lines to generate income." is completely
> misleading too. Short of a few insane volunteers like us lot, I have
> never heard of an actual "country", (1) being in the business of
> owning and running telecommunications lines, and (2) doing it for free.
China is one.
> Finally, I find it... amusing, for lack of better fitting word, to see
> that the ITU, an organisation which has brilliantly excelled in its
> absence of involvement in the development of the Internet, is
> purported as being "the UN body in charge of internet standards".
I agree. And, to me, this is the most disturbing part of the article. If
true, we are seeing a political body in its attempt to execute a
technological paradigm with only the input of "several experts", rather
than seeking and considering the input of (a) the bodies responsible for
implementing and maintaining the standards in question and (b) the
consensus of the global technological community as a whole.
> Is the ITU trying to introduce a PSTN-era monopoly telecom control?
> Shall we all turn back our clocks 30 years?
>
> Red herring or serious political move? I wonder if any of you have
> sources which could validate this article, and whether the perceived
> threat is real or grossly inflated?
> Bonus question: if metering Internet access in this way, how will
> economic growth be impacted in Western Economies when their digital
> economy plans collapse?
I'm not sure how the connection is being made between adding a tariff
and the collapse of the digital economy. Sure, it would be affected, but
"collapse"? Maybe a bit alarmist. To me, this seems more to be a stab at
attention-grabbing and a bit of a power play by China, which is
dovetailing in with the similar goals of the already-irrelevant ITU.

Finally and frankly, when was the last time the UN did anything
regarding the Internet that the rest of the world paid any attention to?
If the ITU wants to issue some sort of decree ... let 'em. The hard part
is implementation, and I've never heard of anybody being forced to do
anything by the UN, all by itself. The member States would need to do
the enforcing, and that's a really long row to hoe. If China wants to
start modifying their BGP routers and then assessing tariffs on traffic
coming through their area, let 'em. Try to collect the money, China.
Figure out who owes it to you and send them a bill. Good luck with that.

As you may be able to tell, this doesn't particularly worry me. Talking
about some plan at the UN is still a long, long way from getting
anything done, and they have a lot of plans to consider, according to
the article. In this case, there is a heck of a lot more work to be done
by dozens of governmental agencies and thousands of ISPs, if the UN and
the ITU agree to this scheme. Decades will pass before the idea is
finally shelved for lack of support.

My 2 cents (including tariff).

James Butler
Board of Directors
Internet Society - Los Angeles Chapter