Re: [E-impact] Carbon-Intelligent Global Routing in Path-Aware Networks

like this book "*The Master Switch*".
It has a chapter on the *separation principle* would mean "*the creation of
a salutary distance between each of the major functions or layers in the
information economy. It would mean that those who develop information,
those who own the network infrastructure on which it travels, and those who
control the tools or venues of access must be kept apart from one another.
At the same time, the Separations Principle stipulates one other necessity:
that the government also keep its distance and not intervene in the market
to favor any technology, network monopoly, or integration of the major
functions of an information industry. Such interference—often to preserve
an industry that figures mightily in the national economy (in a sense, too
big to fail)—is ultimately destructive of both a free society and the
healthy growth of an information economy or any other kind*

Hesham

On Thu, May 11, 2023, 7:42 AM Cedric Westphal <cedric.westphal@futurewei.com>
wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> See below...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: E-impact <e-impact-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 11:51 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; e-impact@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [E-impact] Carbon-Intelligent Global Routing in Path-Aware
> Networks
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > 2. How much reduction in service will society tolerate? (Example:
>     > yesterday while waiting for a bus during a heavy rainstorm, I noticed
>     > that the electronic sign at the bus stop had no data and displayed
> "Low
>     > battery", because it was solar powered. Will society accept such
>     > trade-offs, especially less trivial ones?)
>
> I think that this is really a very important point.
>
> If the effect of the next-stop information being absent from the bus
> shelter, because of a rainstorm, is that Brian takes his car, then it's an
> overall loss!
>
> In another part of the thread, an argument was made that the Internet
> infrastructure is on anyway, whether it's transmitting cat videos or not.
> That's an argument called: fallacy of composition.
>
> >>>CW: I don't understand how the fallacy of composition applies here.
>
> In transportation economics, it's called "induced traffic"
>
> If marginal costs of new uses are low (or zero, or even negative) then new
> uses come up, and then the infrastructure becomes congested, and more
> infrastructure is added.  When that happens to highways, it's a problem for
> everyone other than the road construction companies. (There is always a
> lobby) It's not clear to me that the same is true for Internet
> infrastructure.
> But... there is also always a lobby that benefits.
>
> >>>>CW: This goes contra how networks are deployed. No operator would
> deploy a network for which the capacity planning doesn't say at which level
> it will be used, in the hope that once it's available, the availability
> will attract traffic. Every operator has pretty detailed estimates of the
> growth of traffic so has to match the network to the traffic demand (and
> eventually make money). Deploying capacity just for the sake of it doesn't
> happen.
>
> >>>>>CW: in the case of highway infrastructure, there is a pool of money
> to spend (tax revenues) and allocating these moneys to project depends on
> the lobby. There are some funds to be allocated to some "information
> superhighway", and active lobbies behind this (read Tim Wu's "The Master
> Switch" for a great history of this), most of the infra deployment is
> private and motivated by profit maximization.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-impact mailing list
> E-impact@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e-impact
>