Re: [E-impact] kWh/GB should be banned and the IETF should warn against its use

[Rudolf van der Berg <[e-mail]>]

Alexander,

The reason I call for an absolute ban on the metric is because it is
meaningless and misleading. It is not just that it shouldn't be the sole
metric, it shouldn't be a metric at all. You are right to point out that
Telefonica uses it. If you read this thread carefully, I have pointed out
that the GSMA uses it too. The GSMA also shows that there can be a 10-20x
difference between different network providers on this metric.Several
telcos including Orange and KPN absolutely don't use it. Probably because
their staff realised it is a nonsense metric. KPN does report energy use
per network capacity. That already sounds more interesting.

 Furthermore it doesn't give actionable intelligence to anyone. What does
it say if VodafoneZiggo in the Netherlands reports that its energy use went
up from 160GWh to 180GWh while its energy use went down from 0.021kWh/GB to
0.013kWh/GB in its fixed Docsis based network after the Docsis 3.1 upgrade
took place? I know the number of customers didn't increase dramatically,
nor did its footprint change. Yet somehow with rising electricity use the
metric shows a decline.
https://rudolfvanderberg.medium.com/zet-alle-netwerken-uit-om-stroom-te-besparen-geen-netflix-en-geen-5g-d40f61eef0f0

As I explained there is no scientific basis for the metric. If you look at
the work by professor Manner, you will see that using the metric to make
prognosis about the Finnish mobile networks electricity use leads to
estimates 3 times higher than the official figures.

the simple reality is that energy use and data traffic have no correlation
in fixed and mobile broadband networks. It is like measuring the efficiency
of cars based on wiper fluid use. Or traffic lights energy use based on the
number of cars that drive by.

The IETF should do everything it can to develop RFCs that promote the
efficient use of resources, it can't do that if it doesn't have valid
metrics.

Sincerely,

Rudolf

Op ma 15 mei 2023 om 21:02 schreef Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>:

> So, I am a little late to the thread.  Couple of comments:
>
> I do not agree with the premise of this thread that kWh/GB (or MWh/PB, as
> used by Telefonica in their report) should be _banned_.  The only arguments
> that I have heard seem to boil down to that relying on this metric as the
> sole thing to guide us would be a bad idea.  I do agree with this; in fact,
> any single metric can be gamed and will be misleading, and having a basket
> of metrics will certainly paint a much more differentiated picture.
> However, as one (not the only one) of many metrics I don't see it would be
> harmful as the title of the thread suggests.  Telefonica uses this metric
> in their report to track their progress over time - while comparing it
> across different organizations with different contexts may result in
> misleading apple-to-oranges comparisons, using it within the same
> organization and presumably within the same context can be useful IMHO as
> one way to indicate efficiency gains (and you can arguably see a measure of
> their progress year-over-year (as indicated by the numbers they are
> reporting pointing in the "right" direction) in their reports).   I think
> it is fair for them to do so; my question to Rudolf would be, what is your
> counter proposal as to what metrics service providers should use instead?
>
> The use of this particular metric is related to the overall energy
> consumption of a service provider (the overall kWh/mWh/gWh) and putting
> this into some kind of relation to an overall volume of service provided.
> Of course, multiple questions: what is counted as part of the overall
> energy consumption - e.g. just the power drawn by equipment, or the power
> from their entire energy bill?  And, how is "volume" measured - why not
> distance, etc?  Traffic volume in bytes also does not give a precise
> indication of the user experience which may be better defined perhaps as
> "hours of HD video streaming" or such (with actual traffic volume also
> influenced by codecs, resolution etc), but it is still an indicator.  So,
> yes, it is imperfect, and since it is a derived metric, it makes sense to
> provide also the first-order metrics (in that case, overall energy
> consumption & overall volume).  IMHO, clearly isn't a "one size fits all"
> metric.  On a related note, metrics to assess the network-at-large need to
> be arguably different metrics from those that are used to evaluate
> individual transmission equipment.
>
> --- Alex
> On 5/12/2023 12:05 PM, Rudolf van der Berg wrote:
>
> Hesham,
>
> Look at the title of the thread. The kWh/GB metic is nonsense. It doesn't
> convey any comparable and actionable meaning. The numbers are incomparable
> because traffic and energy use are in no way and have never been related.
> How is it possible that with the exact same network and equipment the
> energy use is stable when traffic goes up? Simple it is a useless
> unscientific metric.
>
> Op vr 12 mei 2023 20:48 schreef Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>:
>
>> The DT CR 2022 reports 91 kwh/terabyte. This is higher than 60
>> kwh/terabyte. Is this because the 60kwh is for the mobile network and the
>> remaining 31kwh is for the DT wired network?
>>
>> If DT uses .06 kwh/GB for mobile network,  that is better than the
>> 0.1-0.6 kwh/GB range reported by GSMA. Does that mean that DT network
>> energy efficiency is high or ... ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hesham
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 12, 2023, 8:22 AM Rudolf van der Berg <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> GSMA is mobile only..
>>>
>>> Op vr 12 mei 2023 17:18 schreef Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Rudolf!
>>>> For DT the numbers are getting smaller every year. I would expect that
>>>> the numbers in 2023 to be smaller than 2022.
>>>>
>>>> In a different email you mentioned that Deutsche Telekom reports that
>>>> it uses 60kWh per Terabyte.  This is different from the numbers reported in
>>>> 2022 CR report.
>>>>
>>>> You mentioned that of the participating operators, in this year GSMA
>>>> report  "66% performed in the 0.1–0.6 kWh/GB range  meaning that most of
>>>> the included networks used 0.1–0.6 kWh to transfer 1 GB of data. Values
>>>> outside of this range can be explained by inefficient networks, consumer
>>>> habits or low data traffic per connection". DT 2022 CR report numbers are
>>>> smaller than 0.1 kwh/GB. How to explain this low value?
>>>>
>>>> Hesham
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 12, 2023, 7:32 AM Rudolf van der Berg <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is annual report 2022
>>>>> https://report.telekom.com/annual-report-2022/services/downloads.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cr-report.telekom.com/2022/management-facts/environment/energy-consumption-efficiency#atn-19726-19728,atn-19726-19729,atn-19726-19730
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Op vr 12 mei 2023 16:19 schreef Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]
>>>>> >:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The DT CR-2021 report describes the value for kwh/terabyte [
>>>>>> https://www.cr-report.telekom.com/2021/management-facts/environment/energy-consumption-efficiency#atn-19726-19729,atn-19726-19730,atn-19726-19733,atn-19726-19728]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the total energy consumption increases by 4% year over year
>>>>>> while the kwh/terabit decreases year over year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how the numbers in kwh/GB which are reported in this
>>>>>> email thread are calculated?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hesham
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 12, 2023, 2:20 AM Romain Jacob <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So no DT is not overprovisioned and utilisation is actively
>>>>>>> obstructed. Or do you have other data and sources that support your
>>>>>>> assessment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. It was not an assessment, only a suspicion. I only
>>>>>>> mentioned DT because I understood your previous email as suggesting that DT
>>>>>>> was maybe not to blame for their poor kWh/GB numbers -- it seems I
>>>>>>> understood wrong and DT is indeed to blame. I have no issues with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Romain JACOB
>>>>>>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>>>>>>> ETH Zurich
>>>>>>> Networked Systems Group (NSG)
>>>>>>> Lead: Prof. Laurent Vanbever
>>>>>>> www.romainjacob.net
>>>>>>> @RJacobPartner <https://twitter.com/RJacobPartner>
>>>>>>> @[e-mail] <https://discuss.systems/@jacobr>
>>>>>>> Gloriastrasse 35, ETZ G81
>>>>>>> 8092 Zurich
>>>>>>> [phone]
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> E-impact mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> --
> E-impact mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact
>