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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Rudolf,

Any suggestion or examples use of what you consider to be better metrics ?

How about kwH per square km of coverage for mobile networks
Or kwH per Mbps of maximum access bandwidth

Aka: in both cases not taking into account whats actually being used, but how
energy efficient the infrastructure is. Of course, this may be too simple, but
maybe as an idea of the direction we might look to...

These metrics would then separate out the important societal questions
of how much bandwidth and how much coverage a network should have before it
could be considered to be wasteful. But that of course is a lot more fluid
metric, so its not a good idea to separate this out as another (set of) metric(s).

Cheers
    Toerless


On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 01:43:35AM +0200, Rudolf van der Berg wrote:
> You want the IETF to use a meaningless metric that has no scientific basis
> ... Please... Let it stop... The GSMA found a 20x difference between mobile
> telcos, that is how bad the metric is. Or telia  Finland which I pointed
> to.. or take the Shift Project etc etc...
> 
> Op za 27 mei 2023 00:26 schreef Marie-Paule Odini <[e-mail]>:
> 
> > kwh/GB is already largely used in the industry including with GSMA -
> > https://data.gsmaintelligence.com/api-web/v2/research-file-download?id=60621137&file=300621-Going-Green-efficiency-mobile.pdf
> >
> > ietf can try to get it banned but maybe there are more important battles
> > to fight ... may I suggest that ietf works on how to best implement this
> > metric depending on the protocol being used for instance, on measuring
> > flows, etc
> >
> > *envoyé :* 26 mai 2023 à 23:42
> > *de :* Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>
> > *à :* Dom Robinson <[e-mail]>
> > *cc :* mp <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> > *objet :* Re: [E-impact] kWh/GB should be banned and the IETF should warn
> > against its use
> >
> > I thought Rudolf wants to ban KWH/GB.
> > Therefore, we do not have consensus on this metric
> >
> > Hezham
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023, 9:53 AM Dom Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that taking an holistic view is paramount.
> >
> > However at the moment we don't; we take a ‘co2’ view and that is becoming
> > ridiculously gamified to the point that even when you point out it doesnt
> > make sense there is so much entrenchment that the response is ‘well it
> > means well so let it ride’ - co2 is in danger of becoming a myopic and
> > farcical measure for reducing our sustainability impacts.
> >
> > At least with kWH we have a starting point for calibrated measurement in
> > digital service delivery. If measurement is a key pillar in working toward
> > sustainability goals then that is where I am starting.
> >
> > --
> > Dom Robinson
> > www.id3as.co.uk
> > www.greeningofstreaming.org
> > uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson
> > Meet >> https://calendly.com/id3as
> >
> > On 26 May 2023, at 08:10, mp <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > With correction:
> >
> > On 26/05/2023 09:09, mp wrote:
> >
> > No, surely it is the other way round, it is ____EASY____ avoiding doing
> > that and focusing single-mindedly. It also opens up for a power game over
> > the right method of counting either apples or lemons.
> >
> > The trick surely is to compare apples, oranges, lemons, rhubarb, potato,
> > asparagus and whatever else grows in you garden; and then, holding multiple
> > paradigms in mind, paint a holistic picture of what is going.
> >
> > Checks and balances applied between metrix, parameters,
> > methods/methodologies, and an open-minded discussion that can embrace the
> > totality by including as many elements as possible.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > ..
> >
> > .
> >