My attention was drawn recently to the article Europe Is About to Adopt Bad Net Neutrality Rules. Here's How to Fix Them by Barbara van Schewick from Stanford Law School. Much as I would like to spend my morning doing other work, I can see imminent harm that these (and many similar) proposals cause to the public. As a responsible professional and native European, I would like to summarise why it is imperative for EU regulators to ignore these siren calls (if they want to retain their legitimacy).
Yesterday, as many of you heard, the European Parliament voted to reject the 'net neutrality' fundamentalist amendments to the already flawed proposals they had helped to create. That's the good news. The bad news is that the law that we now have is merely ludicrous, rather than insane. Furthermore, it doesn't properly protect end users, hold ISP feet to the service delivery fire, or truly encourage broadband ecosystem innovation.
Between December 10th and 11th 2015, the China Future Network Development and Innovation Forum, jointly hosted by the Chinese Academy of Engineering and the Nanjing Municipal Government, is scheduled to be held in Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. The forum will be jointly organized by Jiangsu Future Networks Innovation Institute and Beijing Internet Institute, with the theme of "Building future network test facilities and promoting network development & innovation", and it will invite nearly a hundred industrial experts at home and abroad, to establish a platform marked by security, innovation, openness, cooperation where the policy, industry, academics, and application are integrated.
NANOG 65 was once again your typical NANOG meeting: a set of operators, vendors, researchers and others for 3 days, this time in Montreal in October. Here's my impressions of the meeting... The opening keynote was from Jack Waters from Level 3, which looked back over the past 25 years of the Internet, was interesting to me in its reference to the "Kingsbury Letter".
There is currently a great deal of debate regarding the need for gigabit networks. There are still a lot of voices, often led by conservative political and media people, who argue that hardly anyone needs such networks. Unfortunately for them, however, their arguments are totally flawed. And who are they, anyway, to set the tone for such new infrastructure. Isn't necessity the mother of invention?
Communication service providers around the world are about to embark on an epic journey. A journey which has the potential to be a major game changer for hardware and software vendors alike. The simple concept of decoupling software from hardware, referred to as network functions virtualization (NFV), promises to improve an operator's ability to differentiate themselves from the competition by moving network functions from dedicated appliances to generic commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) servers.
I recall from some years back, when we were debating in Australia some national Internet censorship proposal de jour, that if the Internet represented a new Global Village then Australia was trying very hard to position itself as the Global Village Idiot. And the current situation with Australia's new Data Retention laws may well support a case for reviving that sentiment.
A great deal of discussion is taking place about topics such as the digital economy, sharing economy and networked economy. Obviously these are concepts rather than being well-defined, but they are being used by the various players in the market to argue for or against certain developments. For example, in some of the broadband debates around the world, the digital economy is the key reason why national broadband infrastructure gets developed.
Ever since we first became involved in developing policies and strategies for countries relating to what are now known as national broadband networks, we have argued that those taking part in the strategic decision-making processes of designing these networks should look, not at what broadband can do now, but at what high-speed broadband can do to assist countries to create the best opportunities for future developments.
You don't always need to dazzle consumers -- but you do need to deliver what they want, when they want it, or else risk being left behind. The crux of service activation is to provide requested services to the subscriber in the shortest possible timeframe. The rise in multi-play service offerings can sometimes make this goal difficult, with service fulfilment involving multiple back-end components, including billing, provisioning, activation, monitoring, and diagnostics, as well as different technology types.