[Chapter-delegates] Key questions for achieving the Internet for Everyone

[Dave Burstein]

Board Members and other ISOC people.

The PIR deal is what it is. Other questions are more important for our
future. ISOC can do a much better job.

What can we do for the other 98% of the unserved who will not be reached by
community networks? (See beyond 2%, below.)

Should the board lead a zero-based budgeting effort to bring our costs down
and take some pressure off fundraising? (We all know there's waste.)

How do we strengthen our chapters, encouraging and funding their *independent
*efforts? (A proposal to direct 3% of our budget to chapter control, with
safeguards, unanimously passed the chapters committee and was blocked in a
closed session. We've lost two-thirds of our members.)

How can we get the 2/3rds of Internet users barely represented in ISOC more
involved, in both the organization and our decisionmaking? (2/3rds of net
users are in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. China alone is between 25%
and 40% and we've had *zero* Chinese on our board or senior staff for at
least a decade.)

How do we concentrate our advocacy efforts where they will do the most
good? We are outnumbered 20-1 by the US government at big ITU meetings.
They don't need our help. Nor does AT&T or Google need our support on Net
Neutrality. We spend much of our budget on meaningless generalities and
talkfests, but are invisible at most fora where decisions are made. The
3GPP and 802.11 standards committees have far more practical effect on the
cost of access, IoT, security, and privacy than anything else
internationally. Ask me if you want details. We need to be places like that
to make a difference.)

Should our budget process be as multistakeholder as ICANN's? (They do it
well while ours is secret.)

Should we continue to keep our donors secret? (I personally know two
reasonable initiatives blocked because Verizon and other donors might
disapprove. Anyone with DC experience knows what's expected when they give
us money.)

Should our board get actively involved in decisions? (I don't know a single
time the board has overruled staff in eight years. We have people on our
board far more experienced than most of our staff, especially in policy and
organizational effectiveness.)

How do we bridge the Internet policy gap between the global North and the
global South? (Rich nations versus poor ones;  US & allies versus the Group
of 76; or whatever you want to call it. Since 2011, we have consistently
sided with the United States in *every* dispute among nations. We opposed
three efforts by a united Africa at the WCIT in favor of US policy.)
-------------------------
It's time for the board to make sure we follow our goals of inclusion and
transparency. Or find replacements who will.
--------------
Connecting beyond the 2%. (A first look)
I have volunteered for two community networks and support them. But CNs
will not reach more than 2% of the unserved anytime soon.
Below, some suggestions I've made to ISOC-NY to suggest what is possible.
Our reputation will get us the ears of politicians, a first step.

   - Indians know their issues better than I do. Bharatnet is supposed to
   bring fiber to 400,000 villages and not delivering. Perhaps our Indian
   chapters can find the facts and play a role. India has 96% 4G coverage,
   better than major European networks.
   - People in Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, and Tunesia know their issues better
   than anyone in Washington or NY.  Last I heard, their major international
   cost issue was the cartel-like pricing of backhaul and transit and the high
   royalties on mobile.
   - African carriers have connected over 500M to mobile. I learn from
   them. ISOC at the WCIT opposed African efforts to do something on these
   subjects.

  I'm on a State Department committee on Telecommunications. Frankly, DC
doesn't understand the issues. I hope our Asian and African members take
charge and lead us in the right direction. (That's why we need strong,
independent chapters.)
-------

My suggestions to New York.

When I asked Andrew what ISOC Central is doing on some important US issues
about access, he said he thought the chapters should take the lead.

All improvements welcome. If something is not right, tell me and I'll
change it.

Bringing the Internet to everyone requires many small steps, but ISOC-NY
has the potential to make a difference. I chose three issues I believe we
can have impact on, because very few others are addressing them.

1- T-Mobile already is redlining much of New York City, with no date for
providing quality service. I'm almost sure Verizon will do the same. When I
saw the map of T-Mobile NY deployments, it was painful. In Manhattan,
nothing north of 125th St. (Below.)

Verizon Network President Ronan Dunne has said the majority of Verizon
customers will get 5G at "4G-like speeds." Some districts will get
Verizon's mmWave network, literally the best in the world. It's about 3X as
fast as other 5G, designed for a true gigabit. The rest will be served by
low-band & mid-band, at a much lower speed. (The industry decided last year
to call just about every new build 5G, if the telco adds some software
called 5G NR. 5G NR does little or nothing for network performance compared
to decent 4G. 4G is now routinely over 100 Mbps. In December, T-Mobile will
announce it's 600 MHz "5G network" which will run slower than some 4G
T-Mobile already has in Manhattan.

Nobody else is writing about the inferior networks because there is so
little real 5G in the US. We have an opening to make a difference.

So I'd like to propose this simple policy resolution.

*ISOC-NY believes high-speed 5G should be delivered to all. We resolve: All
levels of government should do what is necessary to prevent second class
service for so many. The first step should be to get accurate information
from the major companies of what they plan to build in New York State
during the next three years.*

(The resolution carefully just calls for information-gathering, not action.)

*2- Protecting the poor*
>
> Charter and Comcast have admirable programs to provide low-cost Internet
> to low-income families with children in school. However, the programs are
> not available to most poor people without children in school. (Some elderly
> with incomes of less than $750/month are included. SSI. That's not enough
> to eat and find a place to live in today's NY.)
>
> We resolve: That all ISPs offer an affordable service to all the poor,
> whether or not they have children in school.
>
> 3- Truth in advertising
>
> We all hate deceptive advertising.
>
> Resolved:  The advertised price is the total amount that the provider will
> charge for or relating to the provision of such service, including any
> related taxes, administrative fees, equipment rental fees, or other
> charges. Exception:  Taxes or fees that are not uniform across the
> provider's territory.
>
> Since most of us learned Economics, several Nobel Prizes have been awarded
> for work showing how unequal information distorts the market. The language
> above corresponds to the language in the Markey bill pending in the Senate.
> ----------------------------
>
> I deliberately did not include net neutrality here, which I know many of
> us support. Some DC types have been confusing the issue. Any
> meaningful resolution requires a longer explanation.
> Here's the first data on redlining 5G.
>
> Verizon, T-Mobile: 4G speeds to most poorer areas, not 5G speed.
> <http://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1136-verizon-t-mobile-4g-speeds-to-most-poorer-areas-not-5g-speed>
>
> [image: T Mobile Mapbox 4G 5G NY 230]
>
> Verizon and T-Mobile believe 5G speeds are not necessary in many of the
> districts in which poorer people live. The pink areas in the Manhattan map
> at left are where T-Mobile is offering its 5G. The darker, more purple
> areas, are not served with T-Mobile's generally excellent 5G. The upper
> part of Manhattan, mostly purple, includes Harlem and the mostly Latino
> Washington Heights. The Brooklyn area on the lower right also shows many
> areas not covered. (Much but not all of the pink are fairly commercial or
> wealthy areas. I do not think T-Mobile specifically intended to exclude
> people of colour, but that seems to be the practical effect.
>
> Verizon Consumer CEO Ronan Dunne is blunt.
> <https://www.verizon.com/about/investors/oppenheimer-22nd-annual-technology-internet-communications-conference>More
> than half of Verizon customers will get 4G speeds, 70% to 90% slower than
> the other half getting the gigabit 5G.
>
> So we've taken a very clear view that we want to have both a coverage
> strategy and a capability strategy. And a very large majority of the volume
> of data that we carry on our networks goes to large, dense urban
> environments. So from a population point of view, it'll be significantly
> less than half of the customers. But from a data traffic point of view,
> it's significantly more than half. So when it comes to the ability to use
> 5G as a significant capacity enhancement, there's more of an opportunity to
> leverage that in the urban areas. Secondly, from a use cases point of view,
> while we can deploy, and we will deploy a 5G nationwide offering, the lower
> down the spectrum tiers you go, the more that will approximate to a good 4G
> service. ...
>
> Millimetre wave gives you between 1- and 2-gig download speeds. The
> mid-bands and lowers are giving you in the low hundreds. So it's already
> very clear, the distinction between the 2."
>
Guess who will get the slow stuff.




Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One. (2
or 3/month)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20191122/c9999dad/attachment.htm>