[Chapter-delegates] Discussion Paper: An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the ITU-T
sivasubramanian muthusamy
6.internet at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 07:32:02 PDT 2020
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 4:02 PM Christian <cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:
> 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
>
or whisper in the right ears...
> 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> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:46 AM Dave Burstein via Chapter-delegates <
>> 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> 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 or post to the
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> —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/e1cea9a5/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list