Inflammatory headline? Perhaps, but the clear reading of the announcement below implies the US wants to create the biggest split in Internet history. It goes far beyond the attacks on Huawei & TikTok. The U.S. Secretary of State just called for the US and 30 other countries to:
- Remove Chinese and other “untrusted apps” from the Android and iPhone store
- Not to allow China Mobile and China Telecom to connect with domestic telecommunications services
- Block Alibaba and other Chinese clouds, even if they agree to store information domestically. (Alibaba is growing fast and a threat to the leaders, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.)
- Prevent apps from around the world – not just the US – from being installed on Huawei phones, currently the bestselling in the world. Huawei has close to half of the Chinese phone market, meaning that even those apps not blocked by China will be blocked in China by US fiat.
Pompeo made clear he wants much of the world to go along.
“Momentum for the Clean Network program is growing. More than thirty countries and territories are now Clean Countries”
Everyone reading this has her own opinion on the security and economic battle between the US and China. You don’t need to hear mine.
I was a member of this group, which was led by exceptionally able and gracious engineers. There is an enormous amount of misinformation from people who haven’t read the primary documents. This isn’t about Chinese control, and I expect CNET and FT will soon correct the errors in their articles. It’s about telcos wanting control, to guarantee low latency/QoS and charge more. See the list below.
Putting it in the middle of the US China war will alienate those needed to prevent it being approved, especially the Europeans.
I think New-IP was a mistake. I was actually on the ITU Focus Group 2030 where it was presented. Among those who approved the final document were
Mehmet Toy, Verizon
Alexey Borodin, Rostelecom
Yuan Zhang, China Telecom
Yutaka Miyake, KDDI Research (Japan’s #2)
Dong-Hi Sim, SK Telecom (Korea’s #1)
Sundeep Bhandari, NPL
Actually, nearly all the large telcos, including Deutsche Telecom, Vodafone, and British Telecom, support this kind of control. (Deterministic Networking, also called Non-IP at ETSI, the European Standards group.)
Kyle Malady of Verizon is holding the first Ericsson 5G radio built in the U.S. It’s interesting to see the size and weight of the unit. Kyle is neither a giant nor a champion weightlifter; today’s base stations just aren’t that big.
Verizon ordered over 10,000 of them, as have AT&T and T-Mobile. That wasn’t enough to persuade Ericsson to manufacture domestically, especially since the Chinese are buying 100,000 from Ericsson.
But DC came in, imposed a tariff, and put numerous non-tariff obstacles in front of Ericsson. Nokia and Ericsson lobbyists were laugh out loud silly when they attacked Huawei on 5G, given that both did primary 5G manufacturing in China.
Protectionism has disadvantages. By definition, it reduces competition in the short run, raising prices and hindering innovation. Economic orthodoxy has long been that “free trade” is always best, but Nobelists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman use empirical data to rip apart the theory.
Apple has just started making its high-end models in India because of tariffs. America has 7 of the top 10 Internet companies. It would probably have 10 out of 10 if China hadn’t protected its companies. India, Germany, and France are now pressing for “digital sovereignty.”
Ed Markey for two decades has been the most important US legislator protecting the Internet and consumer rights in telecom. His opponent, Joe Kennedy, has a distinguished name and an undistinguished record.
Maya Wiley, probably running for New York Mayor, forcefully advocated for protecting consumer and public access to spectrum for Wi-Fi when the telcos proposed to take too much for LTE-U. Sharing unlicensed spectrum is a reasonable idea, but the particulars of the telco proposal mismeasured the interference caused and the disruption of other users. Wiley, then working for New York City, was one of the very few who spoke up.
This is a technical publication and rarely makes endorsements except on a strong record on Internet and telecom policy. Readers should know the editor’s politics are left.
it does not control enough of the industry …
It has not built its system to give its own services an advantage …
They denied that the company’s software gave it an inappropriate advantage…
Until Google presented these facts, investors (and just about everyone else) assumed that in fact Google did have strong market power. It was fined almost US$2 billion by the EU and the US Justice Department is likely to file an antitrust suit shortly, So are the state Attorney-Generals and possibly the UK.
The $1.067 trillion dollar market cap represented a 32:1 price to earnings ratio. As investors discovered they were mistaken about Google market power, the stock fell over $200 billion, although the P/E ratio remained above the 22:1 average of the Dow.
(The stock price effect here is pure satire. Everyone knows Google lawyers were doing what American lawyers usually do, make claims on behalf of the client that are not true. Jennie laughed out loud when I told here what Google claimed.)
The remarkable rise of Reliance Jio, to 383 million 4G users in four years, has brought India to the #2 position in the world Internet. Bharti has 143 million broadband subs and Vodaphone 118 million. (Trai data).Some people still have two sims but that’s become less important as caps are more generous and other charges approaching unlimited.
The U.S. population is 329 million. Western Europe is 222 million. All Europe, minus Russia is under 600 million. India’s Internet growth is slowing but still substantial. It will be several years before India, like China, has more Internet users than the U.S.
One consequence is that Internet institutions, like ICANN and 3GPP, are not appropriate to lead if they remain dominated by the U.S. and Europe. Some are uncomfortable with the UN/ITU, but unless existing institutions change, what other choice do we have?
The Internet is for everyone, no matter their place of birth or skin color.
YMTC’s 128-Layer 1.33Tb QLC 3D NAND memory is close to the state of the art. Samples are widely available and volume production is set for this year. It is currently shipping a 64 layer version by the millions. It just broke ground on a new building that will “triple its output capacity to 300,000 wafer equivalents a month.” The Wuhan site has an investment budget of US$24 billion, some provided by the province of Hubei. It maintained production despite being in the early world center of the pandemic.
While most of its 2000 engineers are trained in China, it’s led by Dr.Simon Yang. Western-educated, he was previously at Intel and CTO of leading foundry Chartered Semiconductor (Now Global Foundries.) A huge percentage of leading chip engineers are Chinese and many are being offered lucrative deals to work in China.
SMIC, China’s leading foundry, skipped two generations and now is producing 12-14nm chips. It’s N+1 process, expected by the end of the year, is not the same as the 7nm at TSMC but it incorporates many of the Improvements of that generation. The US for now is forbidding ASML in the Netherlands from delivering the EUV machine needed to do better than that. It will take time for China to develop EUV technology of its own, a major obstacle.
There’s a myth that China cannot build advanced chips. There’s nothing about being born in Taiwan or Oregon that makes you more able to manufacture chips.
Sorry, Paul McAleese, Shaw’s cable network doesn’t match the capabilities of the Bell or Telus fibre to the home. That you offer a gigabit download to 99% of your customers is a great advance, worth trumpeting. It’s especially welcome where the telco hasn’t upgraded to fibre. But coaxial cable is not fibre; calling it fibre+ is simply false advertising.
Shaw’s upstream is “up to 25 Mbps.” Where Telus has fiber to the home, the upstream can go up to 940 Mbps. Neither company releases actual speeds, but I can tell by the network design what customers can expect. Shaw customers will get 20 Mbps upstream at least 90% of the time. Telus fibre customers will get 400 Mbps upstream at least 90% of the time. (Almost all networks are shared, but a decently designed network rarely see serious degradation. All the Canadian networks are well-designed.)
Telus took Shaw to court on the misleading claim. In the U.S., advertisers are allowed some “puffery,” so I don’t know what the court will decide. Shaw is defending vigorously, mostly by confusing the issue with irrelevant technical datapoints. It would have been smarter to concede the semantics and point to the facts of upgraded cable – including that it’s available in many locations where the telcos don’t offer fibre.
I’m sure Vint Cerf – and the vast majority of Internet architects – remain certain that TCP/IP with minor improvements is the right way forward. But the European and Chinese telcos, backed by their suppliers, want a replacement called “New IP Networking.” ETSI, the very powerful European standards group, calls it “non-IP.:They claim, as you can read below, “A fundamental change is needed.” Deutsche Telecom and suppliers are key proponents.
Update July 20:
Current status of deterministic networking:
- IETF RFC moving forward with support from Cisco, Ericsson, and Huawei
- ETSI Special committee formed to move Non-IP forward
- ITU Focus Group 2030 included it in final architecture, likely to be rubber stamped by Study Group 5. US may make noise that will lead to same result with slightly toned down wording.
- Internet Society Opinion piece but no active engagement visible
Highly likely result, unless something dramatic is done: will replace TCP-IP over 5-15 years in favor of telco system. End update
Since the 1980’s the telcos in the U.S. have been fighting to control the Internet, a war described as Bellheads vs Netheads. (Ask Vint Cerf or Dave Farber about this or “protocol wars.”) The telcos are back big time, with proposals called “Deterministic Networking” (IETF, Ericsson, Cisco) New IP (ITU, China,) and Non-IP (ETSI, Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom.)
Telcos have an enormous advantage because they control the physical network. They are businesses dedicated to making money; of course they would like to erect a “tollbooth on the Internet.” The problem they face is that Internet connectivity is very cheap to deliver. The local and long-distance phone networks were enormously profitable.
The telcos continue to be among the most profitable companies on Earth. Verizon’s net income has averaged over US$20 billion the last three years. But they are not providing investors the promised increased profits.
The Bellhead vs Nethead war is back with a vengeance. The European standards committee ETSI launched a new “Group on NON-IP Networking.” The telcos want to own the new 5G services. It has very strong support from the European telcos for major changes in IP networking. Those who remember the bellhead vs nethead wars will recognize what is going on.
The telcos – again – want strong control and quality of service, claiming it will be much more efficient. I believe Vint, David Isenberg, and many on this list discredited that argument 20 years ago, but it’s back with a vengeance.
China Mobile at the ITU made similar suggestions under the meme “New IP.” I don’t think that anyone would be surprised the Chinese government is strongly supporting central control. Some uninformed reporters think this is about China trying to take control of the Internet and restrict freedom of speech in China. That’s nonsense; China already has the tools for censorship domestically and doesn’t need help from the ITU.
This is a telco versus the net battle, with the net advocates almost invisible. Traditional allies, like Google, are now so big they are conflicted.