Communications

NGN ≠ the Internet, and never will

I see and hear a lot of confusion about next generation networks (NGN).  In most cases people are using the term roughly as the ITU-T defines it:

A Next Generation Network (NGN) is a packet-based network able to provide services including Telecommunication Services and able to make use of multiple broadband, QoS-enabled transport technologies and in which service-related functions are independent from underlying transport-related technologies.

but many people don't realize how little this has to do with the Internet.

The Internet is a "network of networks" that includes millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks interconnected using IP.  It is a hierarchy because there is a backbone of ~28,000 autonomous systems (ASs) which exchange IP packets using routes established by Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).  The remaining millions of networks connect to that backbone via hundreds of thousands of ISPs and other intermediaries who are ASs or connect to an AS.

All of the NGN proposals (Wikipedia has a good summary) involve sophisticated QoS.  But it is well established that there is no technical or commercial requirement for QoS on the Internet backbone (references discussed here and here).

The thousands of organizations that are ASs exist in hundreds of different jurisdictions.  While some ASs are heavily controlled by governments (there is basically one AS for all of China), AS interconnection is independent of any single government.  Interconnections occur based on tradeoffs between the cost of doing business locally and the cost of routes to other locations.

Indeed, to the extent Tier 1 ISPs have attempted to limit free peering, Tier 2 ISPs have established peering agreements that form a donut around the Tier 1s, thus cutting Tier 2s' transit costs to an absolute minimum.  So the effectively unregulated Internet backbone is working remarkably well based on commercial arrangements between thousands of parties, just as it has for 15+ years.

With no technical need for QoS on backbone routes (as discussed here) and no commercial reason that anyone has articulated, it's hard to see how the thousands of parties who make up the core of the Internet would agree to do anything with QoS, ever.

Established telephone companies will deploy NGNs for telephone service.  To the extent they have a monopoly on Internet access, they will be able to use their NGNs to block access to the Internet, but the existence of NGNs won't change the way the Internet core works or the way anyone else's network works.

So NGN's are an evolution path for existing telephony networks, not the Internet, and they will last as long as the existing telephone service model lasts and no longer.

China's 3G license delay is a smoke screen

Last week there was a flurry of stories about China's 3G plans after Jonathan Dharmapalan of Ernest & Young was quoted as saying he expected it to take 12 to 24 months from the start of China's commercial TD-SCDMA trials, i.e. from now, until 3G licenses were issued.  But there was little analysis or comment on what's really happening.

3G licenses are a formality.  They delay the deployment of 3GSM & CDMA 2000 which could otherwise happen rapidly — just plug new cards into existing radios and offer established handsets (already being manufactured, in China, for the world market).

China 3G is happening, without licenses.  China Mobile Group already has deployment-scale TD-SCDMA radio networks on assigned, but not "licensed" frequencies, in eight cities.  The bottleneck is TD-SCDMA handset silicon.  Commercial trials were finally enabled by the recent delivery of an initial batch of 60K handsets.  This also allows China to meet, at least technically, their pledge to have 3G service in time for the Olympics.

Dharmapalan is speculating that it will take 12-18 months of commercial trials to get the bugs out and the system to scale.  That's plausible.  If so, it will be 12-24 months before "licenses" are granted, i.e. before 3GSM and CDMA 2000 deployments are allowed to proceed in parallel with TD-SCDMA.

The problem is China's patent position.  The core patents for 3G and for 4G are already held by the likes of Ericsson, Nokia, and Qualcomm.  TD-SCDMA provided a way for China to obtain patents on a specific 3G implementation and the size of China's market makes that implementation interesting to Ericsson, etc.  Since China missed the boat on core patents for both 3G and 4G, expect TD-SCDMA and it's 4G successor to exist on a parallel path for the next 10-20 years.

The good new is commercial TD-SCDMA deployments have finally started.

I'm most interested in 3G applications.  China has a vibrant market in value-added services for 2G.  As more and better TD-SCDMA handsets get deployed, we should see some really interesting innovation coming out of China — innovation that will be applicable to any 3G technology, anywhere in the world.

Models for Muni WiFi completely neglect technology evolution

Modern travel means interminable waits, but it's a good time for reading. I finally read Wireless Pittsburgh: Sustainability of Possible Models for a Wireless Metropolitan-Area Network by Jon M. Peha, published in February as a working paper of the New America Foundation.

The good news — it’s full of interesting cost estimates and projected subscriber take rates based on specific demographics in Pittsburgh, Minneapolis and Philadelphia.  The paper also examines a range of business models, in detail, from complete monopoly to structural separation (wholesale–retail) to let-the-market-take-care-of-it.

The bad news — all of the models turn out to be extremely sensitive to revenue assumptions, i.e. to the estimates of subscriber adoption and willingness to pay.

The flaws in this study

All of the models compute a net present value based on five years of stable operations, but there is no mention of technology evolution or adoption rates of competing broadband services, i.e. cable and telco (DSL or FiOS) services since this is a US study.  Technology is evolving at a great rate.  You can’t bet on stability.

During the past five years we saw WiFi go from 11 Mbps to widely deployed 54 Mbps systems and bleeding edge (pre-standard 802.11n gear) systems doing well over 100 Mbps.  The last five years also saw costs decline to the point where we see widespread deployment of WiFi by individual consumers, a significant percentage of which are running open WiFi hotspots. 

On a recent drive through three different neighborhoods in Portland Maine, I was interested in looking up real estate information on the web.  On each of a half dozen occasions, I was able to find a open WiFi hotspot within one city block of deciding I wanted to connect.  In January, I was in north New Hampshire and spent two nights at small motel (not part of any chain) in Littleton, NH.  They had no Internet on offer, but a quick check for WiFi signals revealed two within range of our room.  If you don’t like my anecdotal information, look at the WiFi hotspots that have been mapped by Navizon.  It’s very different than five years ago.

No matter how much it simplifies the analysis, you can’t bet on stability.

What might happen with WiFi in the next five years?  The latest WiFi specifications add multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) support, additional modulations and other goodies.  As low cost WiFi routers incorporate these advances we’ll see speeds go over 300 Mbps, but more importantly MIMO technology increases both range and directionality.  This means overlapping systems work better (despite their overlap) and the signals from isolated systems reach further.

If you’re worried today’s open systems will be locked down, then spend your time thinking about schemes like FON which offer more secure ways for consumers to share WiFi bandwidth.

If you’re worried consumer solutions won’t reach the inner city, perhaps someone needs to relook at where WiFi has already been deployed, and then forecast what might happen over the next five years, given the cost of a basic PC is approaching that of a television and the Cable and Telco duopolists both push triple play bundles. 

Don’t short change technology evolution. 

Dark fiber policy — my talk at eComm

At eComm 2008 in March, I gave a short presentation (15 minutes including questions) on dark fiber as a key element of broadband policy.  Brad Templeton has a good summary in the last four paragraphs of this post.

Recently Lee Dryburgh posted all the eComm presentations on Slideshare. Since my presentation was mostly pictures, you need the script that went with the slides. The only way I can see to support this on Slideshare is to add one comment per slide, which I have now done.  If you are interested, go to the version on Slideshare.net, click on the "Comments on Slide 1" tab and then click forward from there.

I discussed the clear line between rights-of-way, conduits, poles and dark fiber - all of which are long-lived elements - and the technologies that light up fiber or run traffic over it.  The latter get obsolete very quickly, so it makes sense to foster rampant competition at these layers, or give control to users. The idea is those that want the latest electronics ought to be able to get them.

Dark Fiber

Turns out there are multiple examples of communities and even whole countries (Sweden) that have fostered the availability of dark fiber.  Not surprisingly, these locations lead in broadband performance (and in price-performance!).

NY Times grossly misreads WEF report

Today's New York Times includes an article by John Markoff entitled "Study Gives High Marks to US Internet."  But either John Markoff is fuzzy about exactly what the Internet is or he didn't actually read the report.  His title is way off base.  He did interview a few people who are quoted in the latter part of the article, so there is some information in the article.  But he's done a major disservice for the many who read only the title or perhaps first paragraph.

The study in question is the Global Information Technology Report recently published by the World Economic Forum.  While the printed report costs money, the summary is on-line and an interactive version gives access to all their data.

This is a report on information technology not specifically on the Internet (just look at the title).  The researchers measured 68 different attributes of information technology, only a few of which directly pertain to the Internet, e.g.

Attribute	US Rank
Internet users (per 100 pop.)	7
Internet access in schools	12
Broadband Internet subscribers	17
Internet bandwidth	19

To his credit, the first section of the report is about "network readiness" and the US is ranked #4, however the study's definition of network readiness includes all sorts of features of the broad business environment, regulatory aspects and computing infrastructure.

Prior to this, I remember John Markoff only for the book Takedown, which I enjoyed.reading even though my sympathies were with Kevin Mitnick.  :-)  So this article is a major disappointment.

Here are the 68 attributes the World Economic Forum study examines:

Visualizing African Internet Connectivity

Here is a great illustration of the not-so-fast or reliable connectivity at African Universities as seen from Trieste, Italy.  Only 46 seconds.

Thanks to Marco Zennaro at the Science Dissemination Unit (via TIER at UC Berkeley).

WiMAX in the US, a limited window of opportunity?

Their first service launch has been delayed, but Sprint Nextel CEO Dan Hesse repeated his vow to blanket the US with a WiMAX network in his talk at CTIA this week.

I sincerely hope he succeeds.  We need as many competing data networks as possible, if we're to see any measure of open mobile Internet access. However, I'm worried.

WiMAX has been quite successful in emerging markets, providing fixed wireless Internet access in countries as diverse as Pakistan, Bulgaria, Nigeria, Georgia, Ethiopia and Georgia (the country!).

The US is another story.  The only significant US deployment is Clearwire's with roughly 400K subscribers, but on a mostly “pre-WiMax” network.  Again, the application is fixed wireless Internet access. 

It’s one thing to use fixed WiMAX to provide Internet access in Pakistan.  It’s another thing to compete for fixed access in the US.  Yes, our telephone & cable duopoly is moving slowly, but they are going after all the more profitable neighborhoods with broadband offerings substantially faster than what fixed WiMAX provides.

What about mobile WiMAX?  Mobile WiMAX is in trials today, using technology and providing performance that the 3GSM community will only see 2–3 years from now.  Sprint clearly hopes to use WiMAX as a springboard past its competitors and past concerns about its declining user base.  Presumably, in the longer term, they hope to converge their dissimilar networks (Sprint EVDO and Nextel iDEN) on mobile WiMAX.  But can mobile WiMAX build a large enough market soon enough? 

Volume drives down cost and cost advantages win in the end — witness Verizon’s announcement that they are jumping ship on Qualcomm’s CDMA evolution in favor of the 3GSM community’s long term evolution (LTE).  Today, GSM networks (GSM/ EDGE/ W-CDMA/ HSPA) have 80% of the world mobile phone market with billions of subscribers and a billion or so handsets manufactured each year.  Right now the entire Sprint-Nextel customer base is ~54 million subscribers.  Perhaps emerging markets will also adopt mobile WiMAX, thus driving up volumes?  Unfortunately emerging markets are even more price sensitive with the high volume application being basic voice telephony plus SMS.  GSM is the lowest cost solution by a wide margin. 

I hope I'm wrong.  I hope mobile WiMAX's performance lead (over LTE) is enough to carry the day.  And, in particular, as I’ve written before, I would very much like to see Sprint succeed, with or without Clearwire, because their WiMAX network would represent yet another source of wireless Internet access.  With four of more networks capable of mobile broadband Internet access, competitive pressures alone should give us what the FCC is currently ignoring, i.e. mobile data plans that are both open and reasonably priced.

 

Off for three days in Loma Linda California

I'm leaving (very) early in the morning for Gordon Cook's meeting on the Architecture and Economics of IP Networks, a.k.a. the Cook-In.  It looks like a full schedule, some people I know and many others I know only via email.  This should be very good.

Broadband penetration vs. broadband capabilities

I'm listening to the first session in the VON pre-conference workshop on Competition Policy and getting increasingly depressed.  Everyone on the panel is entrenched in traditional policy infrastructure — no thinking out of the box here.  What's more, at least two of the five people on stage seem to think the US is doing well, among OECD countries, with our deployment of fixed line broadband access.

The problem is definitional.  They are comparing broadband penetration rates.  I am comparing the relative performance of readily available broadband services.

The FCC's defines "broadband" as at least 200 Kbps in at least one direction.  The OECD uses 256 Kbps, while the ITU definition is “transmission capacity that is faster than primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) at 1.5 or 2.0 Megabits per second (Mbits).”  Using the OECD's definition, the US comes in 15th for broadband penetration by country.

But that's not the point!

Speeds of available broadband services

In Stockholm, dark fiber reach to every city block and an enormous number of buildings.  This dark fiber is available for lease by anyone.  As a result, there are many ISPs offerring services in greater Stockholm (and elsewhere in Sweden).  Just about anyone in Stockholm can get 100 Mbps symmetric Internet connectivity for 98 Kroners pe rmonth — that's $16 per month.

Similar service (100 Mbps) in Tokyo costs ~$26 per month and in Seoul it was closer to $30 the last time I checked with friends there.

In the Boston suburbs I have Verizon FiOS Internet access.  Downstream capacity is 20 Mbps most of the time and upstream measures out at 2.7 Mbps.  This costs $50/month.  I'm extremely fortunately to be able to get service this fast.

So my friends in suburban Stockholm have 5 time the downstream capacity and 30 times the upstream capacity for 1/3rd the cost.

Why don't people talk about broadband performance?

Woman in High Tech — Is it getting better?

Woman's Radio News has a great interview with Dr. Dawn Nafus about her upcoming appearance at eComm 2008.

Dawn Nafus, Ph.D., an anthropologist at Intel, discusses why a technology company would have an anthropologist on staff, and exactly what she does for them. Dawn will be speaking at the eComm Conference being held March 12 - 14, 2008 at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA. Her topic will be “Context Aware Technologies” and how they can assist different cultures and countries around the world.

About 4:30 minutes into the interview, Pat Lynch asks Dr. Nafus why there are only a few women on the program at eComm and indeed at most high tech conferences.  She doesn't have a simple answer but she does point out it's a myth that women's position in high tech is getting better gradually over time, at least in Silicon Valley.  Silicon Valley is very young in the grand scheme of things, it has little or no history.  And yet, it has reproduced the male dominated culture that was a characteristic of older industries.  Now older industries are improving at a greater rate than high tech.

I just recently read Herman Goldstine's classic history of the early days of computing, The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann.  Interestingly, some women play key roles, not just Ada Byron (Lady Lovelace), but multiple women during and after WWII.  And when I think back to the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) that I joined as a student in the early 1970s, there were more women involved in programming, and the mathematical side of the computer industry than in traditional industries.  Also my first part time job was with a small company where 25% of the software staff (1 out of 4) were women.  :-)

Recent counts by VC Christine Herron of women at high tech conferences range from 13% to 18%.  Many old line industries have changed.  But not high tech?

I look forward to hearing Dr. Nafus speak on "Context Aware Technologies" at eComm this coming week.  Hopefully I'll also get a chance to talk with her, as she mentioned some references to recent literature on women in high tech.