[Chapter-delegates] Discussion Paper: An analysis of the “New IP” proposal to the ITU-T

[Paul Brooks]

On 17/07/2020 12:46 am, Dave Burstein via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> Paul 
>
> I completely agree with your reasons to think it a mistake, which is why I'm
> bringing it here. Impact will be 5-10 years out, but network decisions are being
> made today and that will be too late in most of the world.
>
> What I bring to the discussion is information on what is happening, not what should
> happen. 
>
> Deutsche Telekom, Telefonica, Verizon (Mehmet Toy wrote most of the ITU architecture
> document) and the Chinese billion users are very powerful. The vendors are backing
> them. 
>
> They smell many billions in revenue.  They also have an attractive story,
> "guaranteeing" performance. (In practice, that's unnecessary. My Netflix works fine.

I completely get that - but if we're right, taken to its ultimate conclusion, do we
need to care? what are the actual consequences? Yes, its a mistake - but its their
mistake, not ours, we'll still be here when they fail, no? Or do you genuinely believe
there is a risk that vendors will stop making 'real IP' kit, and the telcos will block
'real IP' from working?

If we're right, whatever they come up with isn't going to replace TCP/IP, it'll be
yet-another-underlay carrying TCP/IP on top.

Vendors are backing it, because they want to sell more kit - thats obvious and
transparent self-interest. We won't convince them they won't sell more kit.

But the carriers - will they *buy* more kit, if they can be shown economic studies
that show their wide-eyed forecasts are bunkum, there is no willingness-to-pay,
they'll make no more $billion than if they just build normal networks and provide
'real IP', and may well burn their shirts off their backs and go broke if they spend
so much more with no extra return?

And if they do follow this foolish path - what are the consequences? A generation of
engineers get employed, a lot of boxes get manufactured, but don't get purchased,
vendors make losses. Or they are purchased, a lot of networks get deployed, that are
commercial failures when nobody wants to pay for the expensive features, the shiny
networks are used to carry TCP/IP anyway, telcos make losses, maybe one or two
providers go broke and are taken over. A lot of money is splashed around in R&D for
little actual return than employment.

If DT, Telefonica, Verizon, and a bunch of vendors, lose their shirts building new
networks and kit where the new functions aren't used in practice, *why do we care*?

Would we be having this existential crisis debate if they called it 'New ATM' instead
of 'New IP' - are we reacting to the name? If they called it 'New ATM' instead, would
we chuckle knowingly, and tell them to go right ahead, the Internet will still be here
when they run out of $ and realise the error of their ways, thanks for building some
foundations without completing the house?

(Devils Advocate remember! - I want to tease out a really good *why we should care*,
and 'they're going to waste $billions of their own money' isn't a really good reason
in my book)

For the record, I *think* we care because (variations for personal preference):

1) by calling it 'New IP', it sows confusion with 'real IP', which distracts and
divides and hampers our program for bringing universal Internet connectivity to
everyone at affordable, if not as close to free as possible, by keeping things as
simple as possible. We'd prefer it was called something that didn't include 'IP' in
it, and don't purport it is related to 'Internet'.

2) the carriers will want to make a commercial return on their R&D and shiny new
expensive boxes, so will be pricing services higher than they otherwise would need to,
which will hamper takeup and use by the less-well-off which is contrary to our mission

3) the ITU process for development is harder for people to contribute to, longer to
achieve anything, etc - all the normal arguments why IETF processes are better at
achieving outcomes than ITU processes

4) if 'deterministic' is the goal, the vast resources, energy and shareholder funds
that will be wasted would be better utilised all pulling in one direction, and be
contributed to the IETF and 'real IP' R&D instead.

Paul.

(rest trimmed)


-- 
Paul Brooks
Chair, Internet Australia
paul.brooks at internet.org.au
mobile +61414366605
https://www.internet.org.au

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200717/8d23b605/attachment.htm>