[Chapter-delegates] Discussion Paper: An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the ITU-T
Christian
cdel at firsthand.net
Thu Jul 16 03:32:08 PDT 2020
Dave,
Thank you for this call in the wilderness. Olaf may well need
reinforcements. ISOC could now gather IETF and W3C and attract the many
others who are developing decentralised protocols and services to make a
very big noise in the policy sphere to correct these attempts to game
the global economy and societies.
As far as I know these are still "proposals". That is a Question? They
will as you imply add considerable costs and the performance assumptions
do look very dubious. But we as chapters need clear presentations that
are geared to put considerable public political pressure on policy
mandarins not to go down the oligopolist/monopolistic man in the middle
market capture routes of the bad old days.
As Olaf has commented IETF is shifting with new opportunities in the
transport layer anyway (with QUIC for instance). Henning is someone to
bring in too.
C
On 16/07/2020 00:10, Dave Burstein via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> An update here.
>
> In the 1980's and 1990's, the phone companies failed to dominate the
> Internet. Ask Vint or Dave Farber about the "protocol wars." Many of
> us talked about the battle between the Bellheads and the Netheads.
>
> It's back, I believe, although it's the European and Asian telcos
> leading the way, with the Americans quietly cheering them on. I
> believe that's the purpose of "deterministic networking," which just
> was incorporated by the key ITU Focus Group 2030, defining 6G.* 2030,
> where I am a member, has included the proposals in the final
> "architecture document" that will become the IMT definition of 6G and
> define the future of the Internet. Europe's Non-IP and ITU
> deterministic networking are moving forward. Contrary to /FT/ and the
> handful of other press reports, this isn't about China taking over the
> Internet.
>
> It's about the telcos, European and Chinese leading, taking over to
> enforce Quality of Service, also called network slicing. Cisco,
> Huawei, and other vendors want to sell the more expensive gear.
>
> It's all about money. The telcos think they will make hundreds of
> billions because Internet traffic _needs_ QoS. I, and experts like
> Henning Schulzrinne of Columbia, think this highly unlikely. Our
> voices are drowned out.
>
> Slicing is already included in 3GPP 5G standards. Deutsche Telekom
> believes they will be able to guarantee high capacity, low latency
> service. (5G as deployed is ~30 ms latency; the 1-10 ms latency is a
> fantasy outside the lab. Don't believe the hype.)
>
> But what happens if air traffic control in Hamburg (on DT's network)
> wants to coordinate with ATC in Lyon, on Orange/FT. There's no way
> today to guarantee performance across networks, although the IEFT has
> long had solutions. The same problem occurs with multi-player Pokemon
> Go when one player is on DT and the second on Vodafone.
>
> To solve that problem, the telcos want to (gradually) dump TCP-IP in
> favor of a tightly controlled "deterministic network." TCP-IP has
> proven its ability to adapt and scale. I think the efficiency claims
> will not be realized and the cost much higher. In theoretical
> discussions in standards, the new system works perfectly. I live in
> the real world.
>
> TCP-IP will gradually be replaced by an alternative that is designed
> for QoS/network slicing because the carriers believe they will be paid
> for SLAs and guaranteed performance. This is desired by security
> agencies and the carriers think they can sell it to others. They smell
> $billions and intend to push it through. Like everything else in
> telecom, the Chinese will be the first to a large build, but
> Telefonica, DT and others intend to move forward.
>
> It will take at least 3 years for this to become practical to deploy
> and more likely 5-7.
>
> But if we think this is not a desirable long term future for the net,
> we have to be very public and make the issues clear. Olaf's paper is
> sensible but oblique, and our beliefs are invisible in places like
> Focus Group 2030 and the other places - especially 3GPP & ETSI - where
> decisions are being made. (I sometimes speak to it, but have to earn a
> living and haven't had much time.)
>
> Accurate information is not enough to win a political battle with
> literally $trillions of companies and their governments are on the
> other side.
>
> If this matters, we can and must do much more.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:29 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy
> <6.internet at gmail.com <mailto:6.internet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:46 AM Dave Burstein via
> Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>
> Olaf
>
> We agree on the main issues here, but we need to do a
> much more effective job to win here.
>
> tl/dr unless the issues are important to you.
>
> I learned how to win policy issues through 20 years watching
> silver tongues like AT&T's legendary lobbyist Jim Cicconi.
> They approach the battle by researching carefully "what
> arguments will persuade the people we need to reach and they
> will believe." On telco control, which is the issue here, we
> have great pocketbook issues you've noted in your paper.
> Complexity and control drive up costs enormously. That's a
> great reason to stick with IP - it does a brilliant job
> adapting. Bob and Vint work is extraordinary, not just historic.
>
> Something like this needs support from far more people than
> might be persuaded by _anything_ we might say about
> governance. Very few people care about ITU vs ICANN or IP vs
> Non-IP. "Internet governance" issues are so obscure even tech
> reporters rarely get them right. No politicians understand
> this stuff and 9 out of 10 won't accept some geeks educating
> them. As our board member Pepper (bcc'd) often says, "DC
> doesn't understand anything that won't fit on a bumper sticker."
>
> We need to take a simple, clear position that non-experts
> will respond to.
>
>
> If non-experts are the focus of this exercise, then please show it
> all in pictures and moving images. What is European Non-IP ? What
> is Chinese New IP? And for context, what is precisely the US
> battle with China? How does Europe differ from the US? To the
> extent that I understand, Europeans and Americans wear the same
> clothes and speak the same English.
>
> * We need to stop referring to "New IP," the Chinese
> proposal. Instead, We should talk about "European Non-IP
> and Chinese New IP." Otherwise, our positions can easily
> be confused with the U.S. battle with China and we will
> immediately lose much of the audience we need to reach to
> be effective. Someone we both respect in a private note
> recently said the U.S. can't lead effectively here
> because it will be dismissed as "more anti-China rhetoric"
> He's right. We need to make clear this is more than a U.S.
> China issue. That's why I'm putting the Europeans first.
>
> Even better, we need to find a way to "frame the issue"
> that will advance our goals by getting wider support. To
> win this, we need to define the debate. Very few people
> care about ITU vs ICANN or IP vs Non-IP. "Internet
> governance" issues are so obscure even tech reporters
> rarely get them right.
> No politicians understand this stuff and 9 out of 10 won't
> accept some geeks educating them. As our board member
> Pepper (bcc'd) often says, "DC doesn't understand anything
> that won't fit on a bumper sticker."
>
> That is right. "frame the issue", yes, but frame the issue in
> colorful pictures, for at-a-glance understanding.
>
> * Currently, the telcos and suppliers are doing a good job
> convincing some very intelligent people QoS is crucial for
> things like telemedicine and autonomous cars. (The best
> telecom economist in DC, for example.) It also appears
> obvious to a non-expert that better network control would
> bring down costs. I think those are dead wrong, but people
> are echoing the arguments. How do we answer them?
>
>
> For example, I'm writing this as the "*Telcos want to take
> over the Internet and charge more.*"
>
>
> +1 (that would be an excellent way of reaching the common man and
> the non-technical policy makers.) Lynn St-Amour usually explained
> it by contrasting the way the Internet works with Cable-Telecom
> pricing model.
>
> Also, the complexity will make the system too expensive
> That's not quite good enough. I care about these issues as
> they affect the cost of access, particularly for the less
> affluent.
>
>
> Pricing 'Plan's ? 'bundles' ? Monthly minimum ? Connectivity or
> 'Air' time charges ? Value Added Service Charges ? Premium
> Services?
>
>
> * We need multiple participants at ITU and ETSI. At the
> first meeting of FG2030 in New York, there were something
> like 20 from China and maybe half a dozen from the U.S.
> and a similar number from Europe. After the New York
> meeting, the ratio probably got worse. Hamadoun at the
> 2014 Plenipot publicly urged Kathy to send more people.
>
> *
>
>
> Incidentally, at that meeting I was the only person to
> raise anything beyond technical issues like how to deliver
> holograms. Brazil and India then backed my proposal, that
> one of the "use cases" for 6G in FG2030 should be
> delivering systems inexpensive enough for everyone.
> ITU needs civil society and actively encouraged us. ETSI
> was very positive about ISOC in a private conversation.
>
> * We lose if this is perceived as U.S. and allies,
> especially if Europe is split. Remember, at least 65% of
> the Internet (by almost everyone's definition except AS)
> is not in the US and allies. The BRICS by most measures
> now have more connections than the U.S. and Western Europe
> combined. Our work on this should visibly come from a
> group with Africans and Asians prominent. Our board
> members Olga Cavalli (Argentina) and Walid Al-Saqaf
> (Yemen) have the right experience. India now has 400
> million 4G connections, more than the U.S. has people.
> They would be a crucial swing. I can think of an extremely
> eloquent Indian advocate for Free Software but I think the
> recommendations should come from our Indian chapters.
>
>
> India can be a great ally, if some one can speak to India in good,
> clean English that the phone companies are trying to impress
> Governments everywhere with rosy jargon.
>
> *
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:59 AM Olaf Kolkman via
> Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>
> Colleagues
>
> There were some requests for a public and archived space
> for discussion of this paper. We set up a list that
> doesn’t require ISOC membership to discuss this paper (and
> potential future discussion papers).
>
> Hence a friendly amendment to the text below:
>
> We welcome any feedback on “An analysis of the “New IP”
> proposal to the ITU-T”. Contact the authors directly using
> newIP-discussion-paper at isoc.org
> <mailto:newIP-discussion-paper at isoc.org> or post to the
> discussion-papers at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:discussion-papers at elists.isoc.org> mailing list,
> which is public and archived.
>
> —Olaf
>
> On 28 Apr 2020, at 10:22, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> With the usual cross-post apologies[*].
>
> In the run up to the ITU World Telecommunication
> Standardization Assembly (WTSA-20) later this year
> there has been some discussion about a proposal called
> the “New IP”. It is positioned as a top-down
> architecture to solve a number of use cases that are
> currently been developed in the ITU-T’s Future Network
> 2030 Focus Group.
>
> The Internet Society is carefully following the
> developments in the run-up to WTSA-20. We are trying
> to understand if and how the New IP works with the
> Internet as we know it, if it actually solves problems
> that cannot be solved in the Internet, and, if the
> ITU-T is developing standards, where other standards
> development organizations (SDOs) have change control.
>
> In order to get a sense of the environment we
> commissioned a discussion paper, “An analysis of the
> ‘New IP’
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/>
> proposal to the ITU-T.” The paper helps inform us and
> the broader community whilst the public debate around
> these proposals shapes up. It also aims to inform and
> shape the discussion from the Internet’s Society’s
> perspective. Eventually the debate around it will
> inform our position and the potential further
> evolution of the discussion paper itself. Note that
> the paper documents the Internet Society’s emerging
> opinion, but does not represent a final Internet
> Society position. Instead, we intend it as a means to
> gather information and insight from our community on
> the topic.
>
> We welcome any feedback on “An analysis of the ‘New
> IP’
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/>
> via the email address NewIP-Discussion-Paper at isoc.org
> <mailto:NewIP-Discussion-Paper at isoc.org>
>
> —Olaf Kolkman
>
> [*] This mail has been sent to various relevant
> mailing lists and featured as a blog on the Internet
> Society website.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Olaf M. Kolkman Tweets as: @kolkman
> Principal - Internet Technology, Policy, and Advocacy
> Internet Society https://www.internetsociety.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Olaf M. Kolkman
> Principal - Internet Technology, Policy, and Advocacy
> Internet Society <https://www.internetsociety.org/>
> Tweets as: @kolkman <https://twitter.com/@kolkman>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
>
>
> --
> Editor, https://Fastnet.news <http://Fastnet.news>
> https://wirelessone.news <http://wirelessone.news>
> Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and
> Wireless One
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
>
>
> --
> Editor, https://Fastnet.news <http://Fastnet.news>
> https://wirelessone.news <http://wirelessone.news>
> Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
--
Christian de Larrinaga
----------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200716/ac08fe3b/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list