Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Simon Forge TAFI workshop


Published on

Presentation at final workshop for EC project Towards a Future Internet, held in Brussels 22 Nov 2010

  • Be the first to comment

Simon Forge TAFI workshop

  1. 1. TOWARDS ATOWARDS A Final Public Workshop, Brussels, 22 November 2010 Scenarios, needs & functional analysis for a future internet Simon Forge SCF Associates Ltd
  2. 2. •Needs •Expression Design
  3. 3. Degree of social/political and technical control by ordinary users Environmentalpriority High High Commercial Big Brother – an authoritarian consumer and political world Low Going Green – the green internet economy Low Smooth Trip – the knowledge-based internet economy Power to the People - emergence of the e-Demos The scenarios reflect differing positions along 2 axae - control by users and the priority placed on an environment-friendly economy
  4. 4. 2: Going Green - the green internet economy
  5. 5. 4: Power to the e-people ! - Emergence of the e-Demos
  6. 6. Parameters of evolution 1. Smooth Trip 2. Going Green 3. Commercial Big Brother 4. Power to the People Internet infrastructure Based on current architectural principles Real-time, data driven, mesh, cloud services Vertically integrated Ad hoc/mesh, data/user driven Technological developments Mobility based No change in archit. principles Interoperability Sensors Distributed network control Streaming requires NGN or "clean slate" Walled gardens, specialized nets Distributed control Online Reputation, Viral adoption Generalized wiki Security, Privacy and Control Security from competing private efforts Tradeoffs with anonymity Sensitive to privacy, data protection Strong Security, either real or apparent Power to data collectors Privacy and identity more important than security Economic models As varied as possible. Work process evolution. Government and business support. Natural resources consumption. May need incentives Entertainment Driven by profits from industry, content and network providers Distributed, user generated Innovation from the bottom Social aspects Social inequality Globalization key No social drive Main social drive Policy Data protection Moderate IPR Transparency Energy, Environment Strong IPR protection No IPR protection Open standards Interconnection Standards Some tension between open and industrial standards Filter / search technologies key Need global standards Competing closed standards may prevail Open standards acceptable Open or Open source standards Multi-cultural support Network Neutrality Important but not strongly enforced Important but not key Ignored, just a burden Key element to enforce Scenario analysis from the MIT workshop
  7. 7. Highlights from the workshops 1. Brussels -1 : Focus on the social, economic, political and psychological factors - not the technology 2. MIT : Scenario 3 is less desirable but more likely - while a green planet internet (Scenario 2) is less probable 3. Tokyo : BUT the Asian view is that a future internet must mix cultures, be multi-lingual - and a green planet is the obvious starting point - while scenario 3 has positive elements of popular culture (eg Japanese gaming genres). Also the EU’s mix of languages and cultures is a good model of the future internet 4. Brussels -2 : Community based design should be the basis for the future, and multidisciplinary research is a must 5. All : prefer Scenario 4 - but it is an ideal
  8. 8. The top-line need by scenario 2 Self assurance of safety for climate change catastrophes, through planetary monitoring, controlling & alerting 3 Escapism, entertainment, distraction, instant gratification 4 Group identification and socialisation, with self- determination through control of own internet world, assuring trust and protection 1 Self development & improvement - closely linked to self-esteem and personality assertion - education through life
  9. 9. The future is mobile internet globally, by 2020 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Expected 7 Bn users 2017 (103% world pop) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Billionsofmobileservicesusersworldwide NICs’ middle classes 1.5Bn users, 2004 5Bn users, July 2010 (74% world pop.) 4Bn users, Jan 2009 (60 % world pop.) 800K users, 2000 Expected 6 Bn users June 2012 (89% world pop.)
  10. 10. Elucidating Functional Requirements Needs analysis Functions required •Scenarios •Workshops •Delphi survey •Historical analysis •Scenarios •Workshops •Delphi survey •Historical analysis •Need for greater trust •Match developing world conditions •Security, privacy, resilience •Simple infrastructure, low cost, etc
  11. 11. Open & shareable • Open standards • Inter-operability • Technology neutrality • Open standards • Inter-operability • Technology neutralityAvailable & accessible • High speed data access • Limitless coverage • Mobile access • High speed data access • Limitless coverage • Mobile access Reliable & resilient Trustworthy & private • Personal privacy & security • Transparent governance • Internet identity layer • Personal privacy & security • Transparent governance • Internet identity layer Non-stop operation: • Crisis management • Autonomic self- healing • Failure prediction, • Attack detect/ protect Non-stop operation: • Crisis management • Autonomic self- healing • Failure prediction, • Attack detect/ protect Future network requirements driven by users’ needs
  12. 12. Conclusions  The problems are in internet ‘politics’ (including governance & regulation), economic and commercial force, the sociology & user psychology, governmental censorship- not the technology  Scenarios point to reasonable possibility of effective failure: a future internet could be worth very little – perhaps <10% of its potential  Must address the lack of a detailed requirements analysis – in social, psychological and economic factors - essential to a useful functional spec of a new ‘social-and-business architecture’  Focus on human interface environment - key to global take-up  Multidisciplinary approach - abandon monolithic technological research cultures