[Chapter-delegates] Jason's comments on ISOC becoming active in standards

Fri Aug 5 07:47:22 PDT 2016

Last I looked, ISOC is absolutely not an SDO and not setting technical directions.

I can see how a benefit of being an ISOC global member might be to participate in paywalled SDO’s. That would be a tangible benefit to belonging. However, as Jason asked, why would we want to prop up government-lead competitors to open SDO’s like the IETF?

> On Aug 5, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Carlos Vera <cveraq at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all: several of our isoc members are also members of the IEEE, iETF, etc. So we are working on this groups. Do you mean a corporative presence?
> 
> Carlos Vera
> Isoc Ecuador
> 
> Enviado desde mi smartphone BlackBerry 10.
> De: Dave Burstein
> Enviado: jueves, 4 de agosto de 2016 12:02
> Para: ISOC Chapter Delegates
> Asunto: [Chapter-delegates] Jason's comments on ISOC becoming active in standards
> 
> Jason & folk
> 
> I had made the suggestion ISOC and our members take an active role where many decisions are made that are crucial to things like the cost of access and the opportunities for competition.
> 
> Jason is on target that you need to be informed on technical issues to be effective here. I was trying to make a similar point when I said "experienced" members. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
> 
> Fortunately, ISOC has many people with the skills and experience. We have people who are building networks around the world. We can also reach out when we don't have the right skills. For example, on the dispute going on about telcos taking over much of the unlicensed spectrum from Wi-Fi, I have some friends in the Stanford Electrical Engineering department who care about this issue.
> ----------------------
> 
> Where we disagree is whether ISOC should play a role in key standards groups beyond the IETF. I believe that we should, because most of the standards that affect the cost of access are not made in the IETF. 3GPP (a totally corporate group) is the center of wireless standards, the way most people are connecting. IEEE does Wi-Fi, important for community1 mesh and so much more.
> 
> To be effective, we have to be there.
> 
> Jason writes
> 
> [JL] Why would you want to increase engagement with the ITU when it does not develop open Internet standards and is quite the opposite of an open, multi-stakeholder model that the Internet Society has so long advocated for, and given our long efforts to keep open Internet standards with the IETF and other similar groups?
> 
> 1) Because that's where the action is, for example on IoT.
> 2) By being there, we can bring the "models we advocate" to the fore. At ITU, the Secretary-General encouraged Kathy Brown to do just that. It was his way to work around the fear of some countries that "multi-stakeholder" was dominated by giant multinationals. (Vide: the role of Cisco and Ericsson at IETF, something many of us have noted.) We can discuss whether he was being political or had a genuine belief, but the offer was very clear. (In person, at the ITU Plenipot, where I was during an open meeting.)
> 3) Because the IETF, for whatever reason, doesn't claim the role Jason (and I) might like here. Until it does, power is elsewhere/
> 
> > The most important group to attend if we want lower access costs is 3GPP, which makes the 3G/4G/5G rules, the most common way people are connecting today. It has no public interest presence and is only corporations....
> 
> [JL] That group produces technical standards. It is not clear how non-technical participants making non-technical (economic/social policy) arguments would make any progress.
> 
> Me: Agreed that we should seek members with technical competence. We have some and this effort would attract more.
> 
> Jason: It seems to me the only way to lower costs is via external market pressures, in creating competitive alternatives that force prices down. For example, current/future WiFi standards that use unlicensed spectrum.
> 
> Me: That's exactly the kind of issue we need to influence at 3GPP.  In particular, an LTE chipmaker made a proposal at 3GPP to use some unlicensed spectrum for LTE. At 3GPP, the telcos and their suppliers changed that into LAA, which limited the protocol to companies with LTE licensed spectrum. (4 main ones in the U.S.)
> We can, and should, be encouraging competition.
> 
> Me:  We also should be strong at the Wi-Fi groups, including IEEE 802.11, which is an open group. I believe that Wi-Fi will be the right access for village. India, Thailand and others are building backbone fiber to tens of thousands of towns. Wi-Fi is the natural local connection. The telcos want to take as much as  half the Wi-Fi spectrum for their LAA service. I care because I want a public interest presence.
> 
> [JL] This sees better than 5G. But again, these are purely technical bodies. So why would they act on non-technical, economic/policy proposals?
> 
> Me: Because key decisions are not made on a purely technical basis by neutral experts. OTI has just noted "it is alarming to hear that compromises on the test plan within this industry group could leave 50% of Wi-Fi connections at risk of disruption from LTE-U." Jason happens to be a technical person who has made recommendations that may not help his employer. I respect that immensely. Too many at the committees wind up supporting the economic needs of their employers. I can provide many examples. The process is often very political, based on economics. Companies exist to make money, and most do not pay people to go to standards and make decisions not in their interests.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> Jason: Perhaps instead the chapters could figure out how to creatively apply the use of WiFi in local areas, in the village as you say. Such as grants for equipment, training in how to set it up and maintain it, local expertise to go around installing it, suggestions on services that local residents could establish to make the network economically self-sustaining, etc.
> 
> Me: The ISOC-NY Chapter is actively supporting NY Wireless doing just that. Good work, although we need to listen to the people actually doing the work around the world, not assume someone from D.C. knows more. In particular, the people at the U.S. State Department are clueless here.
> ---------------------
> 
> The Internet should be for everyone,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20160805/139cb02b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20160805/139cb02b/attachment.asc>