You are here

IGF 2018 - Day 2 - Salle II - WS142 Net Neutrality vs. 5G and New Technological Challenges

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Paris, France, from 12 to 14 November 2018. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 

***

 

>> Hello.  Please get in and have a seat.  The next workshop will begin in one minute. 
    (Pause).

   >> Hello everyone.  And welcome.  So I'm Laura Letourneau, the French telecommunication regulator and I will be glad to model this debate with Jean Cattan with the online Moderator sitting there and with the advisor.  It would be to answer the question or at least to try to set and clarify the terms of the debate Net Neutrality and 5G, friends or foes. 
    As ARCEP we are committed to ensure both Net Neutrality and the freedom of speech, freedom of enterprise, freedom to access knowledge and to share it.  And the spread of 5G and it is essential and exciting innovations that come along. 
    But some say that that the two are not always compatible.  The European regulation and its Guidelines as well as many other international laws were built to be technology agnostic and in particular not impair the development of 5G as long as it does respect to key requirements.  So it is very important for us as a French regulator and for our European and international counterparts and for everyone actually to understand in‑depth and concretely and why and all it would be the case.  It is even more important to have this debate today as there are still ongoing discussion in Net Neutrality in the U.S., and that on the other side of the Atlantic, Europe is going to decide next year whether the regulation and/or its Guidelines have to be reviewed.  So that's why we really wanted to foster the dialogue between the stakeholders and we are ready today for very good speakers.  I will introduce them quickly.  We have on the left side Carol Anderson with American and vice‑president of international and external regulatory affairs at AT&T.  As you probably know it already.  She is responsible for strategy and coordination on issues including trade.  We have Lisa Felton with British.  Head of regulation at Vodafone and expertise in consumer and telecom regulation.  We have Luca Belli with famous Brazilian and Italian speaker.  Ph.D., Professor of Internet Governance and regulation.  As well an associated researcher at of Paris University.  He previously served at Net Neutrality expert for the Council of Europe and then we have Masse Estelle with French, global data protection lead at Access Now an international non‑profit dedicated to open and free and secure Internet.  She especially led the work on Net Neutrality and 0 rating on the adoption of the European regulation and Barak Guidelines, Barak being the body of regulation for European telecommunication.  I am from ARCEP.  Will I be moderating the debate.  So my role will be to structure the discussion.  But not to give at this point in time ARCEP or Bakark Point of View.  Thank you very much for the invitation.  The debate will be in two parts.  The first one will last about 20 minutes and will have to clarify what are we talking about.  Net Neutrality and 5G are quite complex studies, including technical and legal, societal business aspects.  And one definition may vary across the world.  We thought it was important to be factual and make the most to avoid dialogue of depth in the second longer and it will last longer and will be 40 minutes.  It will be focused on the crux of the issue on what is at stake, compatibility of 5G and Net Neutrality. 
    We jointly decided to organize a discussion around three concrete use cases in order to look precisely in to potential limitations of some new innovative offers, due to Net Neutrality.  We take some quick questions from onsite and online participants at the end of the first part and then more at the end of the discussion on new cases. 
    So let's start with the first part, what are we talking about?  And the concept of Net Neutrality first.  So maybe a question to Masse Estelle and Luca to begin.  In your opinion what are the core principles of Net Neutrality and what are the different framework that could be found around the world. 

   >> Thank you very much for the invitation.  Excuse me for your voice.  I hope you are hear me well.  We are very pleased to be talking about Net Neutrality here today as was mentioned Access Now is a kwloebal organization and we work to defend this principle all around the world.  I involved in the European discussion but we have colleagues in India and U.S. and other part the of the world working to protect that right.  Before getting in to that we should first discussion what is Net Neutrality and why is it important from our perspective.  It is the guiding principles that preserve the essence of the Internet.  These are the qualities that are have made the Internet a Foundation from which Human Rights can thrive, enabling free come of expression and jaen ritor of ideas and servicing a r as well competition.  More pefkically Net Neutrality prescribes with a fee proportion exceptions that all traffic should be treated equally without discrimination regardless of thes center reception or type of content shared over the network.  For many years the Net Neutrality was mostly a concept on which the Internet was based.  Throughout the years we have seen that ISP across the world was started to violate those principles by engaging in what was network discrimination.  Some specific services were give special treatment to the detriment of others and some services or products had their speed or quality reduced and ISP were choosing for users and choosing the winners or loser online.  With this we saw that in reaction to the growing violation of the principles countries rrnd the world starting to adopt binding protection.  Chile was the first one to do in 2010 and since then more than 50 countries arnt the world have either passed binding Net Neutrality laws like in the European Union or are considering some protection like the U.S. at the moment or in 2014.  We will see today that having the Net Neutrality law is important step to protect this concept and openness of the Internet.  But this doesn't mean it is the end in proteking Net Neutrality as there is always debates coming back.  Despite the fundamental for the openness of Internet.  One of the issues is that the development always of in new technologies like 5G can be one and this will be the topic of our discussion today. 
    

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thanks.  Maybe you want to add. 

   >> MASSE ESTELLE:  I am the only man on the panel.  So congratulations for this because more panels like this are needed.  Secondly coming back to Net Neutrality, I think what is very important is that it is the social function of Net Neutrality that is a nondiscriminatory principle that was originally baked in to the original design of the Internet.  If you think ‑‑ if we think about TCIP, you have a structural separation.  You have transit functions and you have applications and the intelligence is at the edges where the user utilizes the Internet.  It is a constitutional almost design of the Internet.  And that constitutional design put the intelligence at the edges and the information being the data packets being transported on a best effort paradigm.  That created a level playing field by design.  We have all the E ploegs of information and innovation we had over the past 20 years was a design choice and that I think what's very important to understand is that that configuration made the users not only customers, the Internet is the first network which is disruptive because of the purpose of the network is not selected by the operator.  It is not liking broadcasting where you can watch a movie because the editor of TV channel has chosen that the movie is approved and watching the movie is the only service.  It is a general purpose service.  It is a general purpose network where users are proconsumors.  They can produce and they can consume.  They are not only consumers of predefined services.  If when Marc Zuckerberg decided to create his very notorious startup, then he was a student.  Dwoog gel funders were students and they plugged their services in to the Internet and then they became billionnaires.  The fact that discriminatory treatment differentiated treatment happens is not per se something against Net Neutrality. 
    It is not against Net Neutrality to differentiate as long as you do not target specific users, specific devices, specific applications.  So it is all Net Neutrality frameworks are not fixed in stone frameworks where you have to treat all data first in first out.  It is not like that.  That would be an extremist vision.  It is a ‑‑ it is a principle that impedes abuse of discrimination.  Discrimination in both the European framework and also in the Brazilian framework.  Article 9 of the so‑called Brazilian Bill of Rights which was initiated by my research center as a project almost ten years ago and then ended up being a law defining rights and principles for Brazil.  It did sh differentiated treatment is allowed as long as it is necessary for the efficient operation of the application.  Which is the ‑‑ is the ‑‑ we are thinking about classes of applications.  We are not speaking about blocking Twitter, and prioritizing my commercial partner.  So that is my initial comment.  It is a ‑‑ nondiskrim na na tore principle is necessary to allow the session function of the Internet operator. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thank you.  We be make switch to the next slide, please.  That summarizes a little bit what we have heard and now we listen to Lisa and to Carole.  Lisa, what should be Net Neutrality in your opinion?  And how do you deal with it on a day‑to‑day basis when you manage the network? 

   >> LISA FELTON:  Thank you for the invitation to be here and to speak. 
    So Vodafone supports open neutrality on the Internet and the right of consumers to choose what they want to access.  And for innovative services to flourish by having an opener Internet.  Background on Vodafone we operate in 25 countries and we have ore 530 million mobile and fixed customers.  We have invested over 818 billion in our networks and spectrum over the past five years.  Mobile data is growing at exponentially.  Our mobile data traffic increased by 76% per annum.  The Net Neutrality regulation in Europe which is the main one that we have to look at, protects choice and aims to protect the Internet as a platform for innovation.  At the same time it allows us to implement reasonable traffic management, to manage our network efficiently and with the necessary safeguards allow services that require a specific level of quality to be offered.  In relation to 5G and how we think this would impact on us we don't think there needs to be changes to the Net Neutrality regulation.  However we do think there does need to be changes to the more prescriptive barak Guidelines which needs to be updated not just to deal with 5G but on a regular basis together with other stakeholders to make sure that it keeps pace with the evolution of technology and networks.  And I don't know if people were here for the earlier debate, but there was a question about would Net Neutrality be fit for purpose for the future.  I think it will be if we enable these multi‑stakeholder debates about what Net Neutrality should be and how it works with the state of the art network that we are dealing with. 
    So essentially the real problem that we are facing with 5G is quality differentiation.  For the first time quality differentiation will be possible for specific services and the issue with the Barak Guidelines that we are addressing that 5G wasn't really invented or clear at the time that the Barak Guidelines were written.  So this is really about evolution rather than revolution.  Small changes are needed but changes are needed to make sure we are clear what we can do as and operators protect those key principles regarding innovation and choice.  Thank you. 

   >> VINCENT TOUBIANA:  Thank you. 

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  Thank you.  Can you hear me?  Thank you very much for ARCEP for inviting me to be here in Paris for your Armesty day celebration.  I am glad to be a part of this event that you have put on.  I am Carol Anderson and I'm based out of Washington D.C. in the United States.  A little bit of background of AT&T.  It is a global entertainment and telecommunication and company.  In United States we have consumer wireless and fixed broadband.  And here in European Union we serve multi‑national customers as well as IoT customers through roaming an arrangements.  We don't have wireless consumer relationships here in the European Union.  We operate our network in an open and trains parent way and we lulls do.  We don't favor certain websites or international applications by blocking or throttling Internet content.  We don't block websites unless for security or legal reasons.  We don't censor online content.  We have been publically committed to these principles for ten years long before the Net Neutrality debate has become heated as it is today.  We will continue to abide by these details so the customers can enjoy the open, safe, Internet experience that they have come to expect.  In the United States we have and we continue to call for federal legislation.  Internet service providers application providers or edge providers.  In the United States Internet service provider are required to provide accurate disclosure regarding the practices on publicly available websites.  It is founded on the prin pale that pains sirntly will ensure discipline in a marketplace and as competitive as you the states or there is opportunity.  As Lisa pointed out there has been exponential growth in traffic on our networks.  AT&T sees more than 220 pe da bytes of data across our network every day.  Mobile data traffic on AT&T wireless network increased more than 350,000% between 2007 and 2017 and we have invested over 335 million dollars since 2013 in United States networks.  In 2017 video traffic contributed more than 75% of mobile traffic on this network.  It is the surging demand for more devices and more data usage gives the service providers to invest.  And it places strains on the network.  It is essential for operators.  It is essential for the health, the safety, the optimization of the network.  It is allowed worldwide in varying degrees and important as Internet users increase in volume and price sense tifrPity.  As part of this debate one of the things that we should consider is that Government policies need to be a smart as nimble as the devices and the networks upon which we rely.  Thank you. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thank you.  That's very interesting.  I think that time is flying and we should speak about 5G now.  So Lisa and Carole, could you quickly present the new technical and commercial possibilities provided by this next generation network. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  5G is a real step change in technology.  All the other Gs, the 2G, 3G, 4G have been about speed.  5G on the other hand, offers the ability for higher quality, lower lay sent at this and keablt to offer quality differentiation and IoT at scale.  This is really the results of improvements in radio and network technologies as my technology colleagues keep saying to me they have really improved the math.  And this allows operators to scale services very rapidly known as network virtualization, and allocate resources smartly across applications which you will hear about as network slicing.  This enables a whole range of new services, connected cars, remote health care, virtual reality, 4K streaming, in the UK recently we had our first halographic call which is exciting in terms of reducing travel and next year perhaps we will all be here by halogram as opposed to reality.  That would be quite exciting.  5G also provides better reach for rural areas.  It is lower cost than rolling out fiber to the home.  So, for example, Vodafone UK has already announced some of the first places to get 5G will be our more rural areas.  So why is this relevant for the Net Neutrality debate?  So for the first time ISPs will be able to offer to their customers more than just speed and data caps which is what we see today.  They will be able to offer services which really map to the needs of their customers.  So, for example, if you are a gamer and you spend a lot of your time in massive gaming environments then you could take a tariff with lower latency.  Much more mapped to what you want to do on the Internet.  And, of course, today the barak Guidelines talk about today's business models, the speeds and data caps but nothing else.  There is a need for evolution there.  5G enables a whole range of enterprise services.  Robotics, IoT.  The Barak Guidelines have and I know vagus by permission approach where all of these need to be reviewed and assessed in advance which is going to slow down the possibilities for European businesses and the way in which European businesses compete globally.  And the third point I wanted to quickly highlight about what is different with 5G is that for the first time 5G moves control in to the software layer.  This means that parties other than ISPs will for the first time also be able to control quality differentiation.  So as we were talking about from the earlier session neutrality needs to be thought of not just at the network and the infrastructure but much further than that.  As new players are able to control that quality.  That's my summary. 

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  Thanks.  Building on what Lisa had to say we believe that the network of the future will be about the entire connected experience, but for all the reasons speed is going to be important by but the true promise of 5G is much more.  Enabling lower latency and increase battery life and handle for data like surging video growth on mobile networks and also to help us handle and manage the upcoming what they are telling the massive IoT explosion with wireless network is projected to grow from 20 million to 20 billion devices on network.  And the pioneering work that we have done in network virtualization and Software Defined Networking will help enable the network to handle the growth and data consumption driven by mobile video and advanced applications.  Lisa was explaining the idea of edge computing is that instead of having a monolit lick network, with 5G the network can be divided in to multiple virtual networks that are specialized to the particular needs of the sposhed application.  One such virtual slice could be devoted to the high connection density or long battery life needs of the IoT and another could be devoted to the low latency reliability needs of automated vehicles.  But this is an evolution from current technology rather than a complete overall.  And it will take time before the impacts can be felt.  AT&T is proud to be leading the evolution of 5G.  And these technologies will serve as the runway by boosting the existing LTE network.  We are collaborating with key industry players on 5G solutions in our lab and outdoor tests and in real world trials.  In September we made the first wireless 5G transfer over millimeter wave using standards based production equipment.  And in October we achieved a world's first by successfully completing a standards based millimeter wave 5G browsing session will what will be a commercially net gather night hawk hot spot and we are serving in leadership positions across the industry and one of the largest contributors of 5G standards in North America.  And are working to resolve key standards issues to bring 5G to the market sooner.  Thank you. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thank you.  Luca and Estelle in your opinion, one minute each, what are the opportunities and the aligning the risk that come with 5G? 

   >> LUCA BELLI:  I think that 5G has a lot of opportunities, really a lot.  But every time we hear about 5G I cannot avoid to think about the classic hype that there is around every kind of new technology that is launched and whether ‑‑ that usually this high hope becomes more realistic and we end up understanding that yes, the promises that were announced maybe are not so consistent with reality.  So I think on paper 5G has an incredible number of opportunity low latency massive data transfer reduced costs network slicing extent.  But my question is, how this is going to be implemented.  So from theory how do we go from theory to reality.  How do we ‑‑ is it first of all is it really going to be 5G or an updated 4G?  Because this in case I would say that the current gripping frameworks are perfectly fit to regulate 4G.  5G may need some adjustments.  5G arrive and where.  So my initial comments would be when we are speaking about 5G, besides the thooe receipt kal sides that we experiment in the lab.  On our territory when and how it is going to be deployed and there is a very nice study by McKenzie done at least in February of this year, calculating the costs of 5G and explaining very well that we have through 5G networks implemed between 2020 and 2025 before an update of 4G and that will be extraordinary costly if we really want to cover all the territory and if we don't want to limit ourselves only to the wealthiest neighborhood of the biggest cities.  So my initial comment would be I think it is an extraordinary opportunity but I would like to see the practical sides more detailed before signing the agreement. 

   >> MASSE ESTELLE:  I'll be very brief in building a little bit on what Luca said.  There is a need to see the practicality beyond the announcement on 5G and see how it will impact the reality of our network.  So far most of the use cases presented on 5G and services to be delivered on 5G are actually not necessarily new.  Ne were already part of most of the Net Neutrality debate.  So we don't ‑‑ we are excited by those new technologies and the possible of more and more reliable connectity.  But we don't see these new type of technology and 5G in particular to require a comeaj in our framework.  And in particular when the Net Neutrality framework and principle are at the core of the Internet.  So it is more the need of 5G services will have to adapt to it other than other way around.  We need to see really at those services so new that we need to rethink the whole structures that has been agreed upon or can we sort discussing the details and use cases. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thank you.  Well, the debate on the compatibility of Net Neutrality and 5G has already begun in general terms.  Let's pick one or two questions and dive in to the three use cases and concrete examples.  Yes, please.

   >> Thank you.  Good morning.  Just I would like to ask the panelists, can we understand that the responsibility becomes bigger on 5G in order to reach the Net Neutrality?  Is it this ‑‑ is this facing 5G versus Net Neutrality?  Thank you. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  I think in certain respects yes, I don't think we have been able to do the kind of quality differentiation at scale that 5G offers before.  We can do it in but not in the same way at scale.  It does impose a bigger responsibility which also from our perspective requires more clarity from the regulators as to how that should work.  I think it is ‑‑ Estelle has said the regulation is fit for purpose but in many areas unclear and this is where the barak Guidelines can be useful in provided more clarity and ensuring that innovative services aren't inadvertently blocked and we implement in this absolutely is the right way. 

   >> LUCA BELLI:  In my vision there is not dichotomy.  It is not either 5G or Net Neutrality.  I think they are perfectly compatible and I think they have should be compatible.  And I think also that many of the frameworks we already have make sufficient room for 5G to be deployed.  The question is not impossible ‑‑ all frameworks allow differentiated treatment as long as this is not discriminatory, meaning as long as this does not target specific users, services, or applications.  So you can utilize the full potential 5G shaping traffic, also within slices which are basically parts of bandwidth where you can ‑‑ you can treat as a separate network.  So you can even do within the slice as long as you do not target your competitor, you don't do it for commercial purposes creating an advantage to your, for instance, vertical integrated services or creating a disadvantage to your competitor and this is something that I see quite feasible in the European framework at least the regulation in Article 3.3 already states that discriminatory treatment reasonable traffic management is feasible as long it is transparent, it doesn't target specific services and it is justified by the specific nature of the traffic, meaning not the specific ‑‑ the specific app.  You cannot say I will prioritize Google but you can say all video on‑demand is more sensitive to latency and needs a specific treatment.  It is the same thing in Brazil, Article 9 of the (inaudible) it is specified by the decree, 871 of 2016 that states that differentiation is possible as long as it is ‑‑ it is ‑‑ it is something that was included as a result of a contribution we did during the consultation at my center.  As long as this is compatible with international standards, meaning ITF standards, if you take the ITF there is request for comment about nondiskrim na tore congestion management, explains how to manage congestion. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  One question from Thomas. 

   >> Yes.  Thank you very much.  My question would be to Ms. Lisa Felton from Vodafone.  I was quite surprised that 5G would be suitable for connecting rural area.  So I was wondering if cow elaborate on that or make any outlooks also on your business perspective for connecting the rural network.  And then secondly, I would real ly like to put in to question your point about the Barak Guidelines not being flexible enough and calling for innovation by permission because I think it is a very flexible (inaudible) and not an example regime.  And also the examples that have been given by you and your colleague from AT&T have at length been talked about in European neutrality debate, delayed commissioner has been talking about them all the time while we were making those rules.  I would like to know and learn from you what has changed because think we came to this political agreement in view of the examples and business cases that you have mentioned and I think the debate would benefit from more concrete examples and business models and the industry is the only one that can deliver those. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  I will let the participant answer and then we will dive in to the concrete examples and then come back to the question afterwards.

   >> LISA FELTON:  The second part of your question is answered in our case studies in a lot of detail.  In relation to your question about rural, essentially this is because rolling out 5G to rural areas is cheaper than the alternative which is rolling out fiber to the home in those rural areas.  This is why we committed to do this first in relation to 5G and it is about more efficient and this comes back to the better math in the radio technology which makes it more efficient and therefore more cost effective for rural areas.  But think our announcement in relation to 5G in the UK is already public.  We have put our money where our mouth is. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  So I will now present the three use cases that we chose together.  There are plenty of possible use cases factor automation, critical communication in public safety augmented and virtual reality in media and entertainment.  We decided to focus on these three because they should allow us to cover the main questions that are frequently asked regarding 5G and Net Neutrality.  So the first one is what we could call connected else.  Remote medical surgery, for instance, which will require strong reliability responsiveness and with time control of the remote equipments.  We chose as well automated driving as it is one of the most investigated use cases at the present time, even that we know in Europe, Europe may favor WiFi over 5G for this specific use case.  It is about intervehicle and machine‑to‑machine communication that will need as well a reliability and low latency but also new maintenance process, new forms of entertainments that are expected to enter the car, et cetera.  And to finish we would like to have a discussion around smart farming and especially soil sensors that can detect soil conditions and increase the efficiency of irrigation of fertilizer, for example. 
    This communication service is quite different from the other two as it is does support tolerance to packet those in to latency than the Internet access service itself.  So let's take the case one by one and begin with connected health. 
    Lisa, could you first tell us a bit more about the functioning of remote surgery service and the potential limitations that come with Net Neutrality, please? 

   >> LISA FELTON:  Thank you.  Yes.  Just as Estelle said earlier a lot of these applications are not necessarily new.  Remote surgery has been around for some time.  Indeed the first remote surgery was actual tli conducted in 2001 with a French surgeon operating in New York on a 68‑year‑old woman in France and I am pleased to say she survived.  It was perfectly successful and the optimization was done by France telecom.  What is different about 5G is not only that it allows this kind of solution to happen at scale and cost e fish sthently but it also allows much greater amount of reliability and accuracy. 
    So, for example, there is a new type of remote surgery called haptic surgery where the remote surgeon receives touch feedback and gets very high imaging as part of the surgery which also relies on very specific quality requirements.  So it relies on high reliability, very low latency, and also high bandwidth for the imaging.  So very specific quality requirements. 
    Now the Open Internet Regulation in Europe allows this kind of quality differentiation for specific services, that is permitted provided that the quality is necessary for that service and it has no detrimental impact on the general Internet service.  Our concern with these two areas not that they are there.  We are very supportive of those needs being there and that it doesn't have an impact on the general Internet access service, our real concerns about how you interpret those in practice.  And this is coming from someone who has to regularly advise the business on how they actually comply with these requirements. 
    So both of these concepts are unclear but I just wanted to look at one in particular in this business case which is how do you assess the impact on the general Internet access service.  So, for example, should that take in to account the massive investment that we have done in 5G to enable this kind of service.  Should it take in to account what the impact would be on the Internet access service if this was offered over the general Internet access services as opposed over a particular network slice.  What is the baseline against which it is measured.  If these areas are not clarified, the risk is that network operators will separate the network slices from the general Internet access services.  They will establish very hard borders which will not enhance quality overall for all people and it is isn't efficient for the network as a whole.  And this one of the areas where we think the barak Guidelines do need to be updated to provide this additional guidance working with operators, working with other stakeholders so that we can understand how it is done and then apply it in a sensible practical way. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Just to understand well, you will not be in favor of renewal but clarification? 

   >> LISA FELTON:  Exactly.  I don't think ‑‑ there is very little clarification in the barak Guidelines at the moment around this area.  We are looking for much more explanation as to how to assess that impact. 

   >> MASSE ESTELLE:  It is an issue that Lisa and I have been talking about for awhile.  Apologies if it is a little European centric.  Specifically these type of ‑‑ the use EL services and the remote surgery, were really at the core of discussion in Europe when Net Neutrality regulation was being developed and the barak guide lines were.  The reason why there is no specific mention in all of these because our regulation needs to be technological useable.  They were largely taken in to account and the very guideline even states that network slicing in 5G network might be used to deliver specialized services and a brought agreement that remote surgery would be considered because it is not taking a service normally referred over the Internet like Facebook, for instance, and giving it better quality.  It is really a new type of functionality. 
    So we don't see any need to change neither oush our framework or Guidelines for those specific use cases and we need to have more discussion for more clarity but not within the context of the Guidelines necessarily.  There are some good points being made on making sure we understand what the standards are and we see them appropriate for those specific use cases and this is the context for Europe where we have those Guidelines but don't necessarily see this as being an issue in other countries as well where they might develop those services.  The discussion on specialized services and Internet access have taken in Europe and we have been seeing similar languages in India, for instance.  So it is starting to be sort of global discussion and applicability as well. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Carole would you like to add something? 

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  If you look at the American framework, there's the adherence to the principles of the open Internet which we have discussed here today and there is ex‑post review by the Federal Trade Commission for anti‑competitive practices.  In that environment you have the opportunity for competition among the carriers, competition among the platform providers to encourage the investment and the deployment of these different services and these options.  As we are talking about remote surgery you know that the performance tradeoffs exist in the network and it is essential to have speed maximized if you are doing the remote surgery so there is very, very low latency.  At that same time you may have somebody in the hospital waiting room our example is a cat video and you would want that person to be there in the waiting room waiting for the person who is having the remote surgery.  As we look at as part of this discussion the ex‑post review to give carriers the opportunity to make that investment and make that realtime decision on that operation.  There is performance and delivery and health of the network and that's an option to consider. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Luca. 

   >> LUCA BELLI:  I wanted to make a comment that everything boils down to how much network capacity exists in the network and that's why in the very beginning I was subjecting to take a look at how pragmatically this will be implemented.  Because remote surgery it is already very feasible if you have a good fiber connection.  You have all the bandwidth that you need for remote surgery.  It is ‑‑ it becomes very ‑‑ much more difficult if you want to do it through wireless but I would see it quite ‑‑ again if we want to do it through wireless, it would mean within the hospital where the remote surgery is performed, there should be micro cell that allow the transmission of remote surgery and other services through very high frequency spectrum that allows to have much more bandwidth but that needs to be constructed.  What the two points that I was raising at the very beginning is that 5G is not a mere update of software:  It requires a lot of infrastructure.  If you ‑‑ to have a lot of bandwidth you need to have also a lot of micro cells, small cells and macro cells deployed and you need fiber to connect all those cells because the network, the network velocity is directly proportionatal to the performance of the network components.  If you don't have all those infrastructure already in place you cannot utilize the fact of 5G.  You can update 4G and maybe brand data as a 5G, for instance, some operators in Brazil are now calling it 4.5G with a big 5 which is questionable marketing but I mean it gives you an idea that sometimes my point at the very beginning was to stress that it is something really 5G?  Or is it LTE or LTE pro , 3GPP which is the third generation partnership project which just released this year the first 5G standard.  It was a standard for advanced 4G, 4G advanced pro.  Which specialists say will have latency of less than two milliseconds by 2019.  This is what 5G is promising.  I am speaking about mobile.  And if you have a connected hospital which is connected through fiber you can already perform every kind of remote surgery you want and you don't really ‑‑ I mean in that ‑‑ I am saying that because Net Neutrality is not impeding the performance necessarily in this case.  So I think those practical considerations are also something that we have to have in mind. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Anybody want to add something or maybe we can switch to the next use case which similarities with the connected ‑‑ so automated driving, can anybody explain what would be the differences between this use case and the remote surgery in terms of technical requirements and structural and would it fit or not in to the Net Neutrality framework?  European one or another one. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  I think many of the issues are the same.  One of the points out of our last case stud study we are going to end up with different requirementeds.  The requirements in the U.S. may be different from the restricted requirements in Europe than will have an impact on enterprises.  You will have the same lack of clarity around what does necessary mean, what is the impact on the Internet service in Europe.  I want to highlight a different point which was that in an automated car one of the things that we are starting to see is that the car will communicate, for example, to a service center.  So it will send updates on how the car is working technically, for example.  Now at one end, what you are effectively getting in the car is a limited access service.  So the car connects only to the service center and nothing else.  So effectively it is a sub‑Internet offer which is something that is prohibted by the Barak Guidelines except if it is limited by the nature of the device.  Connected car is an interesting win.  At one end it is limited by the device. .  So one of the changes that we are asking for in the context of the barak Guidelines is to take a more technologicalically neutral approach and allow ‑‑ it could be machine to person or could be set up by an app rather than on the device, with the intention that the customer has as much choice and innovative services as possible.  So again it is just as these services emerge, the changes need to be made to the Guidelines to keep pace and make sure they are still relevant and they don't prevent this kind of service happening. 

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  If I could add on to that as we look at the automated car as model it is also an example of how a single application may use different qualities of service at any given time.  The connected vehicle may need one quality of service in order to connect back to the service center to provide realtime information about the car, at another time if you are working on the navigation, or trying to determine where other cars may be on the road, the use of the micro cells and the dek connectivity to the field will require faster information.  4G LTE may support the connected car and the use of 5G and differentiate the different qualities of service, will not only shift some of the computing burden off the car to the millimeter wave cells where they can do the processing of functioning, extending the battery life of the vehicle, it is a benefit to consumer even if it is not entirely necessary under the Guidelines.  There are nuances to the use cases with 5G in the automated car that could be considered. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Okay.  So would you see any problem in proposing multi‑generational offer where the intervehicle communication wouldor prioritized?  But not new video game that entertain the kids during the trip? 

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  Laura I don't know how to answer that question.  I think that with 5G if that offer is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis, but regardless of whether or not it is supporting the performance of the car or ‑‑ enriching the speeds of the video game for the children in the back seat, I could see either use case being supported there.  Let.

   >> LISA FELTON:  Just to add there is an interesting question about whether say you provided WiFi in the car, whether it would actually be an Internet access service at all, as WiFi in a cafe, for example, is a private Internet access service because you have a predetermined set of end users.  So if falls outside the regulation.  I wonder if WiFi in a car would be similar.  I'm not sure. 

   >> LUCA BELLI:  I don't want to repeat myself, I would like to reiterate the relevance of infrastructure deployment in this discussion.  Because again it is not ‑‑ 5G is not mere software update.  If you wanted connect cars are a very good example.  It is not like high quality or halo graphic calls.  We call for five minutes, maybe 10, 15.  If he we are talkative we stop the call.  The car connected cars have constant transmission of data.  We have to monitor in realtime as it was just mentioned that cars ‑‑ fine, but that is fine only as long as this high volume of latency sensitive data can be transmitted to the infrastructure.  Again if you have ‑‑ if you are in an urban area that would be feasible although costly.  If you are traveling around and need to have your car connected for the well functioning of the car, maybe for your safety, say you are going to see your grandparents that live in the countryside or your parents or your sister, I don't know who.  And you are traveling along the roadway and are going to the rural area, then it is either along the roadway and in the rural area you already have 5G infrastructure.  Macro cells that allow yous to communicate big amounts of data in realtime that has low latency.  Or if the there is not such infrastructure, the traffic will be automatically handed over to existing 4G.  And if you are prioritizing over 5G high amounts of data, with low latency, 5G can tolerate it.  4G, all bandwidth will be canabalized by this car.  In this case the European framework is usful in proposing the need to preserve bandwidth pore Internet access.  Having a few fancy cars going around the countryside and having entire communities disconnected and not having regular internet access. 

   >> I think one question most live and then comment.  The question would be to you both on we are talking about the fact that we need Guidelines to be technology neutral and there is a need to be more clear for those specific use.  Have specificity for the use cases all the times.  Even though they might be considered.  Connected car is a lot of research, but there is a sort of realization that because of the state of connectivity it won't be fully reliant on 5G.  The most pressing issues here are not necessarily the Net Neutrality one that we don't see clear issues with at but more how do we ensure if we want to have these connected cars, we ensure those connectivities across the countries and how we make sure in areas of like the European Union that we have the spectrum management framework that allows smooth and less travel.  There is a more pressing issues with those services rather than Net Neutrality where we don't necessarily see a need to change those frames works or adapt those frameworks.  (Masse Estelle).

   >> LISA FELTON:  In relation to the requirement not to offer sub‑Internet offers in the Barak Guidelines that is one way the technology neutral approach is really needed.  Because if there an exception for machine‑to‑machine to has to work across all technologies.  You can can be tek logicalically neutral in the way thats define the Guidelines and that's helps with the clarity at the end of the day and on your second question, I think what is ‑‑ what we need to remember with ooP mated driving it is not just connected cars of it is drones.  It is tracking deliveries from an interprize perspective.  We are investing in both the infrastructure and spectrum in order to provide solutions there. 

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  I would add on to that, actually more in response to luca about the connected car using up the connected the bandwidth from everyone else.  When we talk about 5G and incorporate network slicing so that you have certain functions that are logically separated at the millimeter site, in order to optimize the delivery of the particular functions to the particular application it therefore optimizes the remaining band width as well.  So the design of the reasonable network management there is to ensure that there is available bandwidth for that general broadband connection as well as to support the high QoS, high speed low latency applications that are supported on the network. 

   >> LUCA BELLI:  I agree and that's why 5G has a lot of potential but that potentially realistically speaking is only realizable if you have 5G.  If you have a 5G infrastructure I think that this is the core pleasage I would like to communicate.  5G is not possible with 4G infrastructure.  If you want to really have this evolution, this revolution of 5G I either you keep on using 4G but in this case it is 4G it is not 5G.  If it is 5G, you mentioned millimeter wavrs.  They are high spectrum frequency waves.  And they are very good at communicating tran miting a lot of data.  But they have these physics problem of limitation of propagation.  So meter waves works very well within the lab that you work very well with micro cells that you can have within your home or if ‑‑ the densification of infrastructure that is the core term, densification infrastructure, put a lot of micro cells that I allow you to use millimeter waves they don't exist.  They are not deployed yet and they are very costly and that's the reason why I mentioned this very good study that illustrated through deployment of 5G infrastructure will happen, yet still going to happen between 2020 and 2025 and now we are simply upgraiding 4G with massive Nimo which is another technology that will be used for 5G. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thank you very much.  So let's switch to low quality smart farming and its sensor.  We have five minutes left for this business case and then we will take some questions.  Lisa, maybe you can specify the challenge specific challenge you may face with this business case, please. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  Yes.  Of course.  So 5G ‑‑ sorry, IoT farming as a solution smart farming as a solution uses a different kind of quality differentiation.  So the lower frequency radio waves are needed to actually penetrate soil and provide an efficient wide area field coverage and fields are not set up for high power infrastructure.  So the whole system that powers this has to be very low power as a solution.  So the demand we are talking about in this particular example is for less quality and again here we run in to a bit of a difficulty not with the regulation but with the Barka guide lines becaused Guidelines state in a service works on the best effort network, any quality requirements cannot be necessary.  Here we want to offer lower quality because that's what the service requires.  But effectively that's prevented not again by the regulation, which defines necessary by the needs of the actual service and the service users but by the barak Guidelines and go beyond that and being too descriptive.  The result you are limiting choice and increasing the cost for the smart farmer.  The same issues may arise for virtual reality, where virtual reality may work but if the quality is not gad enough it may make the using be sick.  Different factors have to be taken in to account of making that assessment of what necessity is.  There is still objective factors.  So they still comooi with the regulation, regulators and operators need to look at what the service needs and what the end user needs are for that particular service and that would be a very pragmatic sensible way of approaching the definition of objective necessity.  So again because these new services are starting to emerge, it is an opportunity to revisit that requirement in the barak Guidelines and refresh it so it makes sense in terms of these.  It is misused in any way. 

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  If I could pile on, add on to what Lisa is saying about the soil sensing, soil sensors, for example, as a 5G device.  It may work and it does work effectively as a 4G LTE option but with 5G there is the potential to have greater accuracy.  There is, you know, deeper penetration in the soil so that you have a better read on the amount of watering that would be necessary.  With the low power solution it is going to help extend the battery life these sensors.  In addition to looking at what's the benefit of perhaps the agriculture industry from this if you are extending the battery life by being more efficient with water use are there corollary benefits to the environment that we can consider.  As you look at some of these use cases you if you are only focusing on can this be done with 4G LTE, can this this be dub with a broadband connection. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  What the difficulties you would have in creating a new low quality plan open to everyone at the same price and explaining clearly that this plan is supposed to address the market, for example? 

   >> LISA FELTON:  My reading of the Net Neutrality operation you could not offer a lower quality at a better price because you would be reducing the overall ‑‑ you would be bottling traffic.  Did I misunderstand? 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  No. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  I probably misunderstood your question. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  There is a debate.  I would like ‑‑ I wanted to have your Point of View on this suggestion.  I don't know if luca or Estelle you have an answer to this low quality of service. 

   >> LUCA BELLI:  I have some more corollary consideration which is which kind of demands exist for this service.  I haven't seen ‑‑ I know that there are a o lot of case studies about smart farming but I don't know, it is something that the local farmer would need and that would increase his productivity or is it something that would maybe or maybe not needed by some intensive productions that are not particularly the most friendly right now and maybe would yes, it would know how to fertilize or utilize better and also have to disseminate fields with sensors that can generate some negative externalities in terms of environmental impact.  If there are other techniques like perma cultural since the early 2,000s demonstrated that you can increase productivity of 70% with the use of fertilizers.  There is a lot of promises that could be ‑‑ that soil sensor could be revolutionary but I fail so far to see the business case.  If you can forward them to me.  It is something that I am forming my opinion and so far I might have been skeptical because I have never found a solid business case for this but I'm really open to being persuaded. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Okay.  I don't know if anybody wants to add something on this use case?  Okay. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  We do have some early work in relation too agriculture and automated vehicles by at the moment it is ‑‑ it is testing because the technology is quite early. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  So thank you very much.  I think that's a really interesting and useful mapping of the debate.  So we will knew open the floor to the questions again.  One question in the back.  Yes, please. 

   >> I think as a user this is what I don't understand.  I mean what's changing with 5G is the physics of how the package traveled due to the network.  5G really doesn't change the speed because all secondary travel at speed of light, what really opens up is the bandwidth, right?  Now even now if you wanted to do automated driving, remote surgery, you could just buy more bandwidth.  And why ‑‑ if 5G provides so much more bandwidth by using high frequency, why do we need to slice the network and sell it at different price to provide the re liable services when you have a great capacity now.  Even now you can do ‑‑ you could do, you know, what you do with the 4G.  My concern is this, the reason that you have so much free information and free service on the Internet is because telecos, because ISPs did not prioritize traffic.  Meaning ISPs didn't charge content providers for more reliable services because if I start doing that, then content providers will not be ‑‑ will lose insent tive to put so much free information and content out for users to access.  So if ISPs start selling this prioritized lens to content providers, as a user I am concerned that there will be no longer the sea of information, free information and services on the Internet. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  I think some of the confusion arises from the words that we use of the network slicing makes you think you have a slice versus a general access.  That's not really reflecting reality.  What virtualization and slicing allows you to do is to quickly set up resources and take it down again.  So you don't have to build huge amounts of infrastructure.  You can allocate resource where it is needed and then tear it down where it is not.  So it leads to a lot more resource force everyone and you provide that allocation to happen very quickly and improve those flows across the whole service.  I believe that makes it a bit clearer. 

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  In in addition to what Lisa said there is an indication that 5G is quite a bit faster than the 4G LTE.  In addition with the network slicing you are able to differentiate the way that the speeds are sent.  So if you need something to be quick, you sent very large packets.  If you need something to have very low latency you send small packets.  Allowing the differentiation to take place in the network will optimize the availability of the spectrum that's available for all of these different uses. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Okay. 

   >> Thank you Laura.  I'm Frolech.  I co‑Chair Barak Network Neutrality group.  For the transcript I want to say we have something to do with Barak Obama.  It is spelled with an E.  The E has to do with Europe.  Thank you for the discussions.  I think as general comment I would like to say that the European regulation on Net Neutrality but also Barek Guidelines are fully compliant with 5G deployment.  That's relatively obvious.  Thanks to Vodafone and Lisa Felton for giving this prominent position for the bArek Guidelines on this discussion.  I think it is relevant to give an answer to you.  You know there has been public consultation woony can I go more detailed comments to your response then.  I would like to give an example of one misunderstanding that can be based on 2016 Guidelines.  Mentioned this sub‑Internet aspect.  When you have a clear it is similar to having a computer or mobile phone.  The software executing in your car or on your mobile phone is not regulated.  So if the software on your phone or your car is communicating to one specific end point on the Internet it is not the sub‑Internet service.  Because you are deciding yourself with the software where you communicate.  It is the operator is filtering the traffic.  So you can only communicate to one end point.  So think that's very important when you are understand the Guidelines.  They are not regulating the software.  Only regulating the communications in the network. 
    Thank you. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Yes. 

   >> Yes.  Thank you Jean Pierre.  We have seen in the exchanges that for the moment we cannot see very high differences between what is offering, what we will offer 4G LTE, advanced and pro and the first phase and it is of key importance that phase 2 of 5G standardization that is beginning and will be finished by the end of 2019 and early 2020 with the IMT‑2020 specifications of the ITU be fully accomplished and with input from the verticals taking part all the year 2019 in this standardization process.  In all the full 5G disruption and very knew use case can happen as let' not forget that when you have a standardization process you need one year for getting the equipments ready, the handsets and devices and so on.  So Tess really in 2021 that will have the full capabilities of the full 5G and be able to see these are the use cases, these are the key differentiations.  This is the disruption.  Let's not ‑‑ let's keep the pace of this standardization and do consider let's consider what is announced as 5G launches by this date will be very important steps but only steps toward the full real 5G.  Thank you. 

   >> Thank you.  I can only add on what previous speaker has said.  Our understanding of 5G is based on the current standardization documents.  And based on that I would like to reply to the examples that are up here which I have also asked for before.  Many of them are not novel, particularly connected health.  We have discussed at length.  Think the only real world example of connected health in Europe is remote diagnostics.  Shared medium is not compatible with any remote surgery.  That would be a classical specialized service.  The example of automated driving think far more eloquent description would be remote controlled cars because any existing car with a self‑driving functionality has sensors and doesn't rely on the constant network connection in order to know when has to accelerate or stop.  And there might be use case here for edge computing, but I would then ask the question why not use a matched network instead of relying on network coverage that would be available in tunnel or mountains.  Smart farming is a good concept but 5G will be faster than LTE and it will only be true if you have cells and beams.  If you talk about classal farming I don't blooech that will be the case and I would argue that open spectrum is far more interoperable cheaper and better solution for the use cases and people we are talking about.  Thank you. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thank you.  One last question and then it is time to conclude. 

   >> It is a real question.  You are suggesting if anything clarification of the Barek Guidelines but not any revisiting Open Internet Regulation.  There is a three year review of the regulation taking place by the commission right now. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  That's absolutely right.  We are supportive of the open Internet and we think it is compatible to 5G.  Because the Barek Guidelines are that much more prescriptive. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thank you.  To conclude I would like each speaker in a couple of sentences each to explain according to them what would be the summary I believe the main take away emerging from this discussion.  So let's take ten seconds.  And then maybe Carol and Luca and Estelle.

   >> CAROL ANDERSON:  What I would take away from there discussion in the e evolution of wireless networks.  And what 5G will be able to deliver but this is an evolution and it will take time and I think the exciting aspect of this technology is that we don't know everything that es going to being made available to us when 5G is deployed. 

   >> LISA FELTON:  In terms of new 5G services the one as I have said that excited me is the halo graphic calls and the idea of not having to travel which is environment tally friendly.  I really emphasize the point that Chris rightly highlighted.  We are not looking for changes to the Net Neutrality regulation.  We are in favor of the regulation and support of it.  However, we shouldn't forget that the Barek Guidelines were written back in 2016 before a lot of this detail is known and more is emerging and the network will continue to evolve and the regulations should keep up with the evolution of the technology.  And there are areas that are not clear where more clarification would be helpful as these new use cases emerge.  It would be great to look at the regulation in the context of use cases really analyze them in the that environment with all of the stakeholders.  And to provide that certainty and that clarity so that 5G's potential can be achieved. 

   >> MASSE ESTELLE:  It is a starting point and will continue in it the coming months.

   >> LUCA BELLI:  Being mindful of what is branded as 5G and what is really 5G know that the full deployment is to happen.  And before thinking about modifying regulation or reduct duesing framework it would be good to see where the deployment is going to happen and who is going to pay the bill because that is also always a very important question.  I mean knowing that as I was mentioned before, the through 5G deployment and cell densification will require a lot of investment that I might ‑‑ my opinion very few players very few out of China.  It is a good thought to have in your mind as a regulator to understand what is the investment plan of the various operators. 

   >> MASSE ESTELLE: I will say that Net Neutrality is part of the constitutional law of the Internet and therefore it is 5G that has to be adapt to it and we need to find solution to it. 

   >> LAURA LETOURNEAU:  Thank you very much.

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 678