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

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. •Needs
•Expression
Design

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

5. 2: Going Green
- the green internet economy

7. 4: Power to the e-people !
- Emergence of the e-Demos

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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