5 ms·

Some interesting comments on this (from fb) from Grahame Lynch who produces CommsDay: ''' I am inclined to agree with this. Looking at various tendencies in i

Some interesting comments on this (from fb) from Grahame Lynch who produces CommsDay: ''' I am inclined to agree with this. Looking at various tendencies in internet governance and national security legislation around the world right now there is more pulling the internet apart than pushing it together. This has been fairly likely ever since the world split 90-50 on how to/whether to regulate the net at a global level via the UN/ITU at WCIT a few years ago. In a sense, the Chinese internet already is its own thing, given how "separated" it is from the rest of the world by firewalls, deliberately constrained bandwidth connections and so on. You will also see the same trend in telecom supply chains. There will be one for America, Australia, India, Taiwan, Korea and other nations in their sphere of influence which will resist China-sourced kit and one dominated by China for the rest of the world. The moves against Huawei in various countries is the forerunner of what is an articulated but little publicised US-drive to favour non-Chinese actors in the network technology supply chain. Samsung will be a big winner from this (as will Ericsson, Nokia, Cisco). https://www.cnbc.com/…/eric-schmidt-ex-google-ceo-predicts-…|linkedin&par=sharebar https://www.cnbc.com/…/eric-schmidt-ex-google-ceo-predicts-…... I've reported on this for a quarter of a century and, to be frank, I am surprised that the net and global supply chains have remained as open as they have for all this time. The next few years are going to be very interesting - or disturbing, depending on your POV. ''' EDIT to reflect CommsDay which I think is the correct short title for Communications Day newsletter.

quink 8y ago
I learned around NBN time that Grahame Lynch is an uninformed hack. Saying 90-50, and I can’t be arsed to verify if your quote was accurate because the intersection of uninformed ramblings, hack and Facebook I’m not deigning to visit, lines up perfectly with the numerical literacy I have seen him exhibit. The idiot argued endlessly against government owned last mile wholesale fibre in one of the most urbanised countries in the planet. And no, Huawei aren’t being excluded by the US, there’s both evidence there and other countries are coming to the same conclusion independently. And out of those four companies only one is American.
- jedwhite 8y ago
  I believe the 90-50 is a reference to the vote on the ITR agreement put together at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in December 2012. There is a breakdown available of the signatories, non-signatories and other available here, which lists 89 signatories: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540516-copy-of-wcitsignatories-dataextract.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540516-copy-of-wcits... There is further information available: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-s... https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/12/14/the-u-n-fought-the-internet-and-the-internet-won-wcit-summit-in-dubai-ends/#59d8666137cc https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/12/14/the-u-...
  - quink 8y ago
    OK then, fair enough. Here is me talking about his scientific illiteracy at least four years ago to give people a rough idea: https://delimiter.com.au/2014/06/17/nbn-debate-heats-ieee-conference/#comment-667853 https://delimiter.com.au/2014/06/17/nbn-debate-heats-ieee-co...
    - GrahameLynch 8y ago
      Rod Tucker originally modelled a wireless only NBN as having access to only 20MHz of spectrum and that this represented the sum total of what the nation's broadband demand would be funnelled through if a policy decision was made to use wireless in the last mile. Do you regard Tucker's 20MHz premise as scientifically accurate or plausible given the NBN actually does have around 75MHZ of spectrum that it uses to serve just 3% of its base with wireless? I take it you would endorse that as the counter-factual. The fact is that there is scores of gigahertz available for the communications needs of end users. The V-band alone (which is being used for last mile for various applications) has 35GHz of spectrum alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_band mmWave bands add another 14GHz of spectrum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency Four years ago I said there was 80Ghz available in service of the nation's communications needs. You interpreted that to mean the needs of a "government owned last mile fibre network". The point I was making is that it is fraudulent to model the limitations of a technology (in this case, wireless) on the basis that any given network only has the use of a tiny fraction of what it could be using (and indeed does). Sorry everyone for hijacking this thread but hopefully it means that the quoted points I made above re China and WCIT make more sense, because I actually do have more than half a clue.

quink 8y ago

I learned around NBN time that Grahame Lynch is an uninformed hack. Saying 90-50, and I can’t be arsed to verify if your quote was accurate because the intersection of uninformed ramblings, hack and Facebook I’m not deigning to visit, lines up perfectly with the numerical literacy I have seen him exhibit. The idiot argued endlessly against government owned last mile wholesale fibre in one of the most urbanised countries in the planet. And no, Huawei aren’t being excluded by the US, there’s both evidence there and other countries are coming to the same conclusion independently. And out of those four companies only one is American.

jedwhite 8y ago
I believe the 90-50 is a reference to the vote on the ITR agreement put together at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in December 2012. There is a breakdown available of the signatories, non-signatories and other available here, which lists 89 signatories: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540516-copy-of-wcitsignatories-dataextract.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540516-copy-of-wcits... There is further information available: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-s... https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/12/14/the-u-n-fought-the-internet-and-the-internet-won-wcit-summit-in-dubai-ends/#59d8666137cc https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/12/14/the-u-...
- quink 8y ago
  OK then, fair enough. Here is me talking about his scientific illiteracy at least four years ago to give people a rough idea: https://delimiter.com.au/2014/06/17/nbn-debate-heats-ieee-conference/#comment-667853 https://delimiter.com.au/2014/06/17/nbn-debate-heats-ieee-co...
  - GrahameLynch 8y ago
    Rod Tucker originally modelled a wireless only NBN as having access to only 20MHz of spectrum and that this represented the sum total of what the nation's broadband demand would be funnelled through if a policy decision was made to use wireless in the last mile. Do you regard Tucker's 20MHz premise as scientifically accurate or plausible given the NBN actually does have around 75MHZ of spectrum that it uses to serve just 3% of its base with wireless? I take it you would endorse that as the counter-factual. The fact is that there is scores of gigahertz available for the communications needs of end users. The V-band alone (which is being used for last mile for various applications) has 35GHz of spectrum alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_band mmWave bands add another 14GHz of spectrum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency Four years ago I said there was 80Ghz available in service of the nation's communications needs. You interpreted that to mean the needs of a "government owned last mile fibre network". The point I was making is that it is fraudulent to model the limitations of a technology (in this case, wireless) on the basis that any given network only has the use of a tiny fraction of what it could be using (and indeed does). Sorry everyone for hijacking this thread but hopefully it means that the quoted points I made above re China and WCIT make more sense, because I actually do have more than half a clue.