For every public purpose there are corresponding private interests. The same might be said of connectivity provider regulation. That is the only explanation for a mobile operator association arguing a key 5G capability inherently violates network neutrality principles.
It is so odd an argument that some other agenda must be at work.
Is network slicing--a new feature of the fully-deployed 5G network--a threat to “network neutrality?” Possibly, says SP Kochhar, Cellular Operators Association of India general director. At first glance, it is an odd position for a mobile industry group to take.
"In essence, the main network will be like economy class, and ones derived out of slices with different parameters can be business class or first class,” says Kochhar.
Built into the 5G standard is the ability of the core 5G network to create virtual private networks that can vary parameters such as latency and bandwidth prioritization. The industry has argued that such features allow creation of customized networks that are essentially “tuned” for use cases that are latency-dependent or bandwidth availability dependent.
Industry proponents have argued that this creates new revenue potential for mobile operators. So what are we to make of COAI virtually arguing that network slicing violates network neutrality principles?
One has to work backwards. Since network neutrality prohibits “quality of service” mechanisms for consumer customers, Kochhar is virtually arguing that the 5G network core network should be prohibited from offering network-slicing-based services.
What conceivable benefit is seen? 5G is possible without building out the full 5G core network: 5G end user services can be delivered over the 4G evolved packet core network.
So perhaps COAI believes a bar on network slicing would mean India mobile operators could introduce 5G using the 4G core network, which would delay capital expenditures for a time.
Also, mobile operators believe the ability of enterprises to acquire their own spectrum to set up private 5G networks is a dire threat to public 5G. They believe as much as 30 percent to 40 percent of enterprise mobility revenues are at stake. That seems an exaggeration, though it is conceivable that an enterprise 5G network could reduce demand for public 5G resources when users are “at work.”
True “mobility” needs would not change because an enterprise 5G network exists. In essence, a private 5G network would allow organizations to offload public network traffic to the private network in the same way that they already can offload public network traffic to Wi-Fi.
And most mobile operators consider that an advantage, not a problem.
So it seems the invocation of the network neutrality “problem” is part of an effort to delay 5G core network requirements.
The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) defines net neutrality as the concept of non-discrimination of internet traffic by intermediate networks on any criteria.
"The network should be neutral to all the information being transmitted through it. All communication passing through a network should be treated equally, independent of its content, application, service, device, sender or recipient address," DoT rules say.
Network neutrality means different things to different people, and is applied to different instances in different countries. The basic idea is that internet service providers (and not other entities) should provide nondiscriminatory consumer access to lawful internet content regardless of its source or destination.
Generally speaking, internet access services sold to businesses are not covered. But many regulatory entities have added concepts. Some regulators hold that net neutrality also means ISPs cannot offer a “free tier” of service or allow sponsors to defray the cost of access to their services.
But net neutrality is virtually nowhere a constraint on business customers. And network slicing is virtually never going to be a “consumer” service. It will be purchased by an enterprise or other organization, in the same way that content delivery network services are purchased by enterprises, not individuals and consumers.
COAI has to understand that, so ithe comments about network slicing cannot be taken at face value. There is some other agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment