ict special edition 2012

7/31/2019 ICT Special Edition 2012

1/16

NEW EUROPE

Featu

ring:

A Cloud computingstrategy for Europe

June 2012 A New Europe Special EditionIssue # 989

NeelieKroes

P. 03

Opening up educationfor new technologies

AndroullaVassiliou

P. 05

Airwaves spectrum andfundamental rights

FrancescoDiasio

P. 06

A limited resource,an infinite opportunity

AlessandroCasagni

P. 07

The internet willpermanently change

FredericDonck

P. 08

See monopoliesfor what they are

RickFalkvinge

P. 09

Re-booting Europesinnovativeness

BrunoLanvin

P. 10

Cyber securitycovers everything

JohnSuffolk

P. 11

Global cybercommons

Dr.KamleshBajaj

P. 12

The cyberwarhoax

Franz-StefanGady

P. 13

Singing thesame old tune?

JonathanZuck

P. 14

Dial Hfor health

JeanineVos

P. 15

Information

TechnologyCommunications

&


2/16

ADVERTISEMENT


3/16

03NEW EUROPE

Cloud Computing is one of the welcome

developments sprouting from an ever-growing Internet. However, it also raisessome issues for citizens and businesses. Totake full advantage of the cloud's poten-tial, while protecting our citizens' inter-ests, Europe needs a cloud-friendly legalframework, and a cloud-active communityof providers and users.

Because if we can build trust for thisnew technology in the marketplace,growth and jobs will follow.

The Commis sion' s Cl oud Comput ingStrategy for Europe, which is being fi-

nalised over the summer, will look at thefollowing three main areas:

1. THE SINGLE POLICY AREA

FOR CLOUD COMPUTING

In terms of policy, Cloud Computingand the future evolutions of the Internetneed to be treated in a coherent way. TheEuropean Cloud Computing Strategyneeds to be a framework to manage re-lated fields more efficiently, coherentlyand transparently.

Because success in the cloud relies on

linking up a number of different areas. Weneed data protection laws that are clear,consistent, and show a passable way for-

ward into the cloud including when thecloud crosses borders to places with lesserlevels of protection. We need to offer legalclarity on issues like contractual terms, li-

ability insurance and how to recover dataif a provider ceases to operate. We need tooffer consistency in consumer and userrights across Europe, so that users know

what they are in for and providers donthave to deal with the burden of 27 sepa-rate sets of rules. We need to make sure

we have the skills and human capital forour continent to embrace the cloud. And

we need to see how we can reduce the en-vironmenta l footprin t for examplethrough more efficient data centres andnetworks.

If we get this r ight, we can ensure lawsand regulations fit the technological real-ity and development. That would benefitboth providers, and users.

But this also means taking policy areaspreviously considered unrelated or frag-mented and joining them up; it means

making regulatory decisions more pre-dictable so investors aren't put off; itmeans a more homogenous set of rules in-

ternationally; and it means an active andinnovative community out there develop-ing and deploying cloud computing inEurope.

2. THE EUROPEAN CLOUD

PARTNERSHIP

The public sector in Europe can becomea lead market in demand for cloud com-puting. I have taken the first steps to setup a European Cloud Partnership, and

will announce the head of that partner-ship hopefully before the summer holi-

days. The purpose of this Partnershipbetween the Commission, public author-ities and industry is to start formalisingthe common public sector requirementsfor clouds: across Member States, acrossregions, and across the many different ap-plications like e-health, tax administra-tion, and welfare payments. Building onthis the public sector will benefit fromsimpler procurement of cloud services. Itshould also provide an important step to-

ward coord inated and ultimatel y join tprocurement across administrative bor-

ders. Let's face it: Each EU MemberState, on its own, is too small (and has toosmall an IT procurement budget) to makemuch of a difference globally, in this as i nso many other fields. But together we pulla lot of weight. This should lead to re-duced costs for governments who need to

deliver efficient and interoperable on-lineservices.

3. MEASURES TO STIMULATEAND AMPLIFY

Lastly, I am also working on a packageof measures to stimulate, amplify and re-inforce the effect of the above initiativeson the cloud.

First, to support education and aware-ness about legal issues: standards, modelcontracts, data portability and so on. Sec-ond, by coordinating industrial and socialpolicies, we can help equip people withthe skills for a broader career and job mo-bility. This should provide the well-edu-

cated workforce that the industry needs.And third, we must support European andnational research and innovation, to helpindustry build a critical mass of know-how so that current applications can mi-grate to the cloud, helpingcompetitiveness and giving a boost to in-novative new services to emerge.

We need to a ct to unlock the economicgrowth potential of cloud computing forthe benefit of citizens and businessesalike. We cannot afford for eitherproviders or users to lose out. That is what

the European cloud computing strategymust achieve and we will start "at home",in the public sector, to deliver a market forproviders, demonstrate the advantages tousers, and ensure that standards and tem-plates are available for to develop thisgrowing and dynamic market further.

The public

sector in Europecan become a leadmarket in demand for

cloud computing


4/16

ADVERTISEMENT

Digital Enlightenment Forum 2012

The 18th century enlightenment period gave birth to a sel conscious sense

o power and responsibility among people in Europe together with a ew

important links to Ben Franklins United States and this proved to be one o

the major revolutionary events o the modern era.

It can be argued that the World Wide Web, emblematic o our Digital era,embodies the basic Enlightenment ideals o Diderots original emblem.

At this moment, two decades ater the emergence o the Web, we can see

changes in our social lives that were impossible to oresee 20 years ago. We

have practically unlimited access to inormation, new attractive ways o

social communication and a wealth o new services. But at the down side we

see worries about security, privacy and access. Indeed, as Sir Tim Berners Lee

states in his contribution to the Yearbook 2012 o the Digital Enlightenment

Forum:As access to the Internet provides new capabilities that become

constitutive of human thought and social life, we conclude that urgent action isneeded in promotion and defense of the Internet and the Web.

Public administration, industry and science struggle with the many

questions raised in this transormation to a digital era. The European

Commission plays an active role in this debate.

Vice President Neelie Kroes, responsible or the Digital Agenda, has taken

initiatives in relation to security and trust in the digital environment,

including on digital signatures and electronic identity, and strongly

stimulates research and innovation in Inormation and CommunicationTechnology and its social consequences. In the feld o Justice, Fundamental

Rights and Citizenship Vice President Vivian Reding has recently proposed a

comprehensive revision o the European Data Protection Regulatory

Framework.

The Digital Enlightenment Forum Asbl, established in Luxembourg in 2011,

aims at stimulating this debate and policy development related to it. It

organises its frst annual Forum in June in Luxembourg. About 60 thought

leaders are invited to come together to address important issues on thegovernance o digital uture. The Forum will be opened by Minister Francois

Biltgen (Ministre d'Etat, Luxembourg), Vivian Reding ( VP European

Commission) and Mario Campolargo (Director European Commission DG

INFSO). Other participants include Peter Hustinx (EDPS), Udo Helmbrecht

(Director ENISA) and many highly respected experts rom science and

industry.

The Forum has recently published its yearbook which is available through:

http://www.iospress.nl/book/digital-enlightenment-yearbook-2012/

Forum website: www.digitalenlightenment.org


5/16

05NEW EUROPE

Desks lined up in neat rows, facing theteacher and a chalkboard. This image of theclassroom goes back at least a century and isstill familiar to many. At the same time, it isnot unusual in European schools to see teach-ers and pupils working together on-line anddeveloping new forms of learning. Europeaneducation is at a crossroads. Progress in theuse of information and communication tech-nologies (ICT) for education and training hasbeen substantial in recent years. But it is stillnot as widespread as it could and should be. For instance, use of ICT in schools has notreached the extent to which it is used in busi-ness and public services.

To meet the educational challenges of thefuture, a change of mind-set is needed. Thismeans changing our pedagogical, technolog-ical and organizational settings and allowingnew learning methods to come to the fore.

ICT has an intrinsic role to play in this shiftof gear; it is one of the main engines forchange. As the European Commissioner re-sponsible for Education, Culture, Multilin-gualism and Youth, I am committed tohelping to make this change happen.

Many ICT related initiatives have alreadybeen launched by the European Commission,as part of its strategic framework for Euro-pean cooperation in education and training,under the New Digital Agenda for Europe,and more generally under Europe 2020, theCommission's strategy for jobs and growth.

They all aim to support Member States intheir efforts to deliver the right mix of skills including e-skills and digital competenceskills to European citizens in the 21st cen-tury.

ICT impacts on education in many ways.Access to satisfactory ICT infrastructure is ofcourse a pre-requisite. PISA 2009, the Pro-gramme for International Student Assess-ment which evaluates education systems

worldwide by testing the skills and knowl-edge of 15-year-olds, found that at least 50%of students in Europe were in schools where

one computer is available for every two stu-dents a significant improvement in com-parison to 2000, when there were between 25and 90 students per computer. Having saidthat, infrastructure needs a suitable frame-

work and new curricula need to be developedto ensure successful use of the technologicalmeans.

Developing e-skills among teachers is an-other basic condition for the introduction ofinnovative teaching methods and satisfactoryuse of ICT tools. Teaching staff are key play-ers in strengthening and fostering the new

digital environment in schools. Educationsystems still need to adapt to ensure thatteachers have the necessary training to useICT in a way that is more student-centred.

Using the natural and innate curiosity ofchildren, within and outside the classroom, tohelp and enable them to take an active role

with ICT and to achieve 'digital fluency' isone of our prime objectives to foster critical,creative and collaborative thinking. ICTknow-how is also important acquiring skills

and competences such as problem solving,learning to learn, risk-taking and entrepre-neurship. Research has shown that using ICTcan increase a students' motivation and facil-itate individual learning, as well as having apositive impact on attainment.

By transforming teaching and learning,ICT also contributes to the acquisition of keycompetences that are essential for boostingemployability: by 2015, it is estimated that90% of jobs will require e-skills. It is crucialthat we start teaching e-skills to children froman early age so that they are equipped with

the abilities they need a find a good job andbuild a successful career.

E-inclusion is another area where ICT canmake a difference, for example by offering tai-lor-made distance education and tutoring, forinstance for migrants and other socially dis-advantaged groups.

The on-going technological change we arewitnessing is a unique opportunity to developnew pedagogical approaches. Technologiesare developing very fast and already cloudcomputing, mobile technologies and openeducational resources can have a significant

impact in the educational world at multiplelevels from campus infrastructure to courseredesign and to professional development.

These are areas where EU-wide coopera-tion adds value and delivers results. We willcontinue to support Member States in em-bedding digital competences in their teach-ing, curricula, learning outcomes andassessment. Our programmes and actions atEU level underpin a full range of innovativeprojects which benefit education stakehold-ers. Under the umbrella of the LifelongLearning Programme, ICT teaching and

learning needs are addressed in numerousways. For instance, greater use of computersfor communicating between schools andmulti-cultural dialogue is encouragedthrough our 'eTwinning' platform.

Classrooms are changing. The desks maystill be lined up in neat rows, but, little by lit-

tle, the use of ICT in education is producingchanges that have an overall impact on the

wider educational system. I have seen this im-

pact on many occasions when I have visitedschools and projects. I am convinced,nonetheless, that efforts need to be scaled upto ensure education and training systemsmore rapidly embrace and embed the full po-tential of new technologies.

In the next few months, the Commissionwill publish a call for proposals on 'creative

classrooms' to encourage governments totest-drive projects for the development ofnew learning environments and for creativeand innovative teaching through the use ofICT.

I will also make proposals for a new Euro-pean-wide initiative on 'open education' tosupport a more systematic use of innovativetechnologies in education. The initiative willfocus on three main topics: open educationalresources (free access to quality online educa-tional content creating a huge reservoir of

learning possibilities); open learning networks(support for collaboration between learnersand teachers who are geographically dis-

persed); and open learning environments(taking into account that learning also takesplace outside formal schools, in other words,at home, in the community, at work, at leisureand in informal ways).

Later this year, an e-skills supplement tothe popular EUROPASS curriculum vitae

will also be launched to enhance the recogni-tion of individual digital competences. And,last but not least, the future 'Erasmus for All'programme for education, training and youth,

which will be launched in 2014, will offerstronger support for embedding ICT for

learning into long-term educational objec-tives and strategies.All of these actions and initiatives require

political will and good cooperation betweenall parties. I will do my utmost to work withthe Member States and to gain maximumsupport for our future programme.

Classrooms arechanging. The

desks may still be lined upin neat rows, but, little by

little, the use of ICT in

education is producingchanges that have anoverall impact on the

wider educational system


6/16

Radio spectrum is a common good. Wavestraveling in the same air we breathe. Com-munication rights are a fundamental right.

The situation is complex because we talkhere about the articulation between a com-mon good and a fundamental right.

Moreover, fundamental rights are a for-fait! We have them all, or we not havethem at all. It's not like a forfait or a pack-age in a hotel, where we can choose between

half pension or full pension: some rights forlunch, a sandwich for dinner. The rights ofchildren at lunch and an hamburger for din-ner. It's not like this! Women's rights are myrights, the rights of children are my rights,the rights of migrants are my rights. Andconversely, communication rights are therights of children, women, migrants...

For sure, communication rights are facinga scarcity, such as radio spectrum. Today, ourcommunication needs, real or induced, aremainly concentrated in cell phones, a voiceterminal where we want to receive radio, tel-

evision, internet... all that is in relation tothe so called modern communication.

And from here we can understand the greatfrequency hunger of the "Telecom" compa-nies, now representing the great "enemy" ofthe spectrum as a common good, which isreturned to the public with a price, a charge.

The debate between the articulation offundamental rights and the use of a com-mon good, then it's also the debate betweenthe use of certain frequencies at the detri-ment of fundamental communicationrights, and in particular, the right to cultural

diversity and social inclusion.The role of radio in this debate is crucial.In the use of radio spectrum, the FM bandhas always been a small piece of land in ahuge farm where te levisions, airports, secu-rity, ambulance had their own place. Each

with its own frequency. This small portion

of band, just 20.5 MHz (between 87.5 and108 MHz) has always ensured this culturaldiversity and social inclusion (through pub-

lic service, commercial radios and commu-nity radios), an international standard wherehundreds of thousands of voices around the

world and in all languages have reported onthe latest news, traffic, on the latest trendsof modern music or the nostalgic notes ofthe past years.

To define the transition from analogueradio to digital radio, also means then to de-fine the contours and the perimeter of thisdiversity in the optimal use of a scarce re-source like spectrum.

The debate between parti sans of a tech-

nical standard or another (especially be-tween DAB + or DRM +) is quiteparticipated, but it is not the concern here.

The interest o f the partisans of right s, isto ensure cultural diversity and social in-clusion in the rational use of the publicgood whereas these new technologiesshould offer even more channels, andtherefore, even more diversity and evenmore pluralism.

It's not the interest of the parti sans of therights to lobby for the use of one technologyover another. In mobility rights, we need

highways, provincial roads and smaller ruralpaths, always in the respect of the environ-ment in which we live.

The World Associat ion of CommunityRadio Broadcasters (AMARC, gatheringmore than 4000 members all around the

World), does not fight for a technical

standard or another. Both the DAB + andDRM + have advantages and disadvan-tages. Wide geographical coverage, or

coverage restricted and therefore bettersuited to "traditional" local radios, man-agement of transmission systems, costs.Both techniques may be appropriate if ap-plied to large urban areas where there is ahigh demand and consumption of radioproductions, or rural or isolated areas

where the capacity of production and con-sumption are more limited.

In this sense the most important aspect isthe access to airwaves and spectrum: to en-sure that access is open and transparent,

with fair and balanced costs. Europe has

same values, but not equivalent approachesso while In Belgium, the communicationinfrastructure (concretely the masts, cables,and multiplex transmitters which allow theparallel broadcast of several stations withinthe same equipments) will be in the handsof the public service of the RTBF, in Italythe business is controlled by a family busi-ness starting with "B" and ending with"SCONI" who is already managing the in-frastructure.

Without going into a technical discus-sion, the DRM + standard certainly allows

the direct control of the broadcasting facil-ities, thus avoiding external controls interms of censorship and access, but would itbe really effective in a scenario like the Ital-ian or French (with big urban areas tocover)? Would it be a truly optimal use ofspectrum?

The solution is surely hybrid: the key el-ement is in the future receivers in the cars orat home, which will need to have the capac-

ity to pick up signals on DAB +, DRM + orFM band. Another element that representstoday the great European debate about aradio "single market" or, on the contrary,the abstention from any market accordingto the principles of "Good of Public Util-ity" (what the French call SIEG, Service d'Interet General Economique).

To articulate a public good with a funda-mental right is not easy ...

Certain signs of appropriation of thispublic good and there. Small boxes that canencode, with a free software, a signal on

DAB + and thus avoid a technology that sofar remains theoretically closed. A systemthat recalls the same movement that be-tween the 70' and 80' led to the birth of freeradios in some European countries.

This is no t, and c an not be, the officialposition of an organization like AMARC,

which moves in the interest of social com-munication, and the respect for legality. Buthowever, if these principles of diversity, plu-ralism and access will not be observed fromthe political world, perhaps this could be thedirection enhanced by some social move-

ments, not just in order to reaffirm their cul-tural identity, but aiming at affirming thefundamental communication right and pre-serving the cultural identity of each one ofus, a diverse and genuine pluralism in termsof contents and appropriation of a publicgood as the radio spectrum is.

In this sense, themost important

aspect is the access toairwaves and

spectrums: to ensurethat access is open and

transparent, with fairand balanced costs

06 NEW EUROPE


7/16

07NEW EUROPE

Society is increasingly reliant on the abil-ity to access broadband wherever and

whenever. Internet ever ywhere can bringgreat benefits to society and be a signifi-cant driver for growth, but it relies on ascarce resource the radio spectrum.

The ra dio spe ctrum i s finit e and has to

accommodate calls and data traffic that isgrowing at an unprecedented pace. Thebroadband community of regulators, op-erators and equipment vendors must co-operate closely to ensure the opportunitiescreated by ubiquitous wireless connectiv-ity can be fully realised.

In Europe regulators at both EU andnational level are addressing the chal-lenges to wider mobile broadband adop-tion through various policy initiativesincluding the EUs 2020 Strategy forGrowth, Digital Agenda and Radio Spec-

trum Policy Programme (RSPP). Allocat-ing new technology-neutral spectrum hasa key role in the overall information andcommunications technology (ICT) debateby enabling universal mobile broadbandaccess the right to roam for data throughout the European Single Market.

Huawei, as a leading global ICT solu-tions provider, is fully aware of the im-pact that current policy decisions willhave on the future of the whole sectorand on European citizens, and is activelyengaged in on-going debates on telecoms

policy issues.But why is the issue of radio spectrum

so important? Society has rapidly em-braced mobile broadband. Increasinglysubscribers, whether personal or business,see mobile broadband as a must haveservice. Global traffic on mobile broad-band has grown much faster than foreseen

with current leve ls already exceeding pre-dictions for 2020. By 2015 global mobilebroadband subscribers are expected to ex-ceed three billion and in the next decademore than 50 billion mobile connections

are estimated to fulfil device-to-devicecommunication needs. This level of traffic

will cle arly require add itional bandwidth.It is recognised that mobile broadband

is the spectrum user delivering the best re-turn in terms of social and economic ben-efits for citizens. However, how finitespectrum bandwidth is reallocated mustbe fair and managed in a way that is clear,transparent and respectful of the funda-mental needs of other applications, whileensuring the highest final utilisation effi-ciency. This requires a carefully planned

bandwidth migration process over an ex-tended timeframe.At t he global l evel prepar ations are in

hand for the next ITU-R World RadioConference in 2015, which will build ondecisions taken by participants from 167countries at the recent WRC-12. One of

the key targets will be to identify newradio spectra for mobile broadband.

At EU level the EU 2020 Strateg y hassome ambitious communication targetsfor fixed and wireless broadband provi-sion. How these targets are to be achieved

is broadly set out in the European Com-missions Communication on the Digital

Agenda.With specifi c refe rence to spec trum,

the RSPP has been effective in Europesince April 2012 and has the ambition forthe EU to take the lead in wireless elec-tronic communication. In the short termit is overseeing the migration of the800MHz band to broadband use acrossthe EU (with a few limited exceptions)by January 2013, as well as allowingMember States to authorise additional

bands by the end of this year, subject tomarket demand.In the medium term the RSPP looks to

roughly double the total bandwidth as-signed to mobile broadband from625MHz today to 1200MHz by 2015

with further bandwidth to be iden tifie d

for the longer term. Around the worldsimilar plans to boost the spectrum allo-cated to mobile broadband are being putin place.

The availa bili ty of adequa te mobi lebroadband capacity is increasingly seen as

a key global competitiveness issue.Huawei welcomes the European initiativeto develop common policy and objectivesfor spectrum harmonisation and to pro-

vide c lear pla nning in the longer te rm.We ha ve analy sed current radio spec-

trum usage in Europe and identified anumber of bands that can become fullyharmonised and available at the EU levelfor mobile broadband in the coming years.

These bands can supply the extra spec-trum required to achieve the RSPP objec-tives for 2015.

ICT providers are well placed to con-tribute to the definition of regulatorymeasures and standards in Europe andelsewhere. Our own technology base issupported by the largest R&D division inthe ICT sector. This means we can bothprovide sound science-based input to the

spectrum debate and understand and re-spond to the eventual market environmentin a flexible manner.

Currently mobile broadband spectrumis assigned through national market-dri-

ven aucti ons with spect rum caps to guar-antee competition and obligations toensure that spectrum is used. Beyond2015 it will be more difficult to identifyavailable spare spectrum. The regulatoryprocess can yield some further bandwidth,but there will be a limit, and access maynot be possible within an appropriatetimeframe.

We believe a more dynamic approach isneeded, such as Licensed Shared Access

in combination with Cognitive Radiotechnology. This spectrum managementinnovation allows intelligent sharing ofspectrum between users. An example isthe 2300-2400MHz band that is currentlyused by several applications, such as wire-less cameras at major sporting events. Ifthe locations, dates and times when thecameras will be in action are known, thenmobile broadband traffic can share thisbandwidth during silent periods.

Personally, I am confident that, throughthe opportunistic combination of tradi-

tional spectrum management approachesand more flexible and innovative ap-proaches, sufficient bandwidth can befound. Combined with internet every-

where developments, this wi ll unlock op-portunities and benefits for business andsociety in Europe.

Personally, I am confident that, through theopportunistic combination of traditional

spectrum management approaches and moreflexible and innovative approaches, sufficient

bandwidth can be found


8/16

The time for dress rehe arsa ls is over.This time we are going live. On June 6,thanks to the sterling efforts of the

world s lead ing conten t p roviders, In ter-net access providers and home equipmentmanufacturers, there will be real IPv6(Internet Protocol version 6) traffic onthe global Internet. And unlike the testflight a year ago, it will be for more than

just a day. Next we ek, the Internet worldas we know it will change forever.

For non-geeks, a quick primer: IPv6today runs alongside and eventually willreplace IPv4, the protocol that has beenused to direct Internet traffic since theearliest days of the Internet. IPv4 is notbeing turned off but the spectaculargrowth of the Internet means more ad-dresses are now needed than is possible

with IPv4. The g lobal reser ve o f the 4 .3billion addresses enabled by IPv4 was de-pleted in February 2011.

At the time of its crea tion, I Pv4 wasnot intended to satisfy the needs of a

global commercial Internet. It was onlymeant to support experimental researchand government networks. We haveknown all along that it was a limited re-source which would one day dry up. Thatday has come. Already in the Asia Pacificregion, there is no remaining IPv4 ad-

dress space to be distributed. Europe isexpected to run out th is year, followed bythe US in 2013 and Latin America and

Afric a in 2014.To move f orwa rd and con tinue adding

new devices, services, and people to theInternet, we must deploy IPv6, the next-generation Internet protocol which es-sentially provides an unlimited number ofaddresses. It was designed with the needsof a global commercial Internet in mind,and deploying it is the only way we cancontinue to progress with an open and

innovative Internet.For all this, businesses and other or-ganisations have been slow to adopt thenew protocol. Most still have not takenany steps to plan for IPv6 transition. Thiscould be because they are not yet affectedby the limitations of IPv4. They cannot

afford to remain ostrich-li ke however. Bycontinuing to rely solely on IPv4 with noplans to implement IPv6 in the near fu-ture, they risk facing a host of challenges,ranging from higher costs and limited

website functional ity to competitiv e pres-sure and reduced growth opportunities inemerging markets.

World IPv6 Launch is the frui tion oflast Junes test flight which contentproviders passed with flying colours. Inthe meantime, we have cleared the nexthurdle: how to convince content

providers and access providers to offerIPv6 as part of the ir new normal of In-ternet business.

But the time has come, and accessproviders participating in next weekslaunch will roll out IPv6 as part of theirregular offering on and after June 6 and

they will have enough of it in place bythen to have 1% of their network trafficto participating content providers overIPv6. To the non-expert, 1% of some net-

works tr affic over IPv6 afte r June 6 maynot seem as a big deal. But it is a signifi-cant milestone and a solid starting point.In fact, because many home users havedevices that limit their use of IPv6, par-ticipating Internet service providers(ISPs) will be enabling it on a great dealmore than 1% of their footprint.

The Inte rnet Soci ety is pleased to bework ing with Facebook, Google , Mi-crosoft Bing, and Yahoo! to measureIPv6 at ISPs.

These websit es wil l, d uring the weekafter 6 June, measure the percentage of

visi tors using IPv6 f rom ea ch of t he net-works that signed u p to part icip ate.

Crystal ball gazing is never e asy. But wecan say with certainty that much work re-mains to be done to relieve the pressureon IPv4 address depletion and to ensurethe continued ability to have a globally

connected Internet before its too late.Clearly, IPv6 is the future of the Inter-net, and without it we can no longergrow. In todays Internet-driven world,businesses and organizations that aim togrow need to consider IPv6 a strategicpart of their future as well.

To move forward and continue addingnew devices, services, and people to the

Internet, we must deploy IPv6, the next-generation Internet protocol which essentially

provides an unlimited number of addresses

08 NEW EUROPE


9/16

09NEW EUROPE

If it's one thing pirates fight against, it'smonopolies, and how they harm Europeand our heritage from the Enlightenment

with respect for civil liber ties , our econ-omy, and our culture. In this article, I'lloutline three of the most problematic mo-nopolies in Europe today from a pirate

perspective.The first of the three is the copyr ight

monopoly. It has derailed ridiculously, andharsher - draconian, actually - enforce-ment has not only proven to be utterly in-effective in stopping citizens from sharingculture and knowledge; enforcement ofthe copyright monopoly is now threaten-ing our most fundamental rights, such asfreedom of speech and secrecy of commu-nications.

Before we go on: Yes, copyright is a mo-nopoly. It has nothing to do with property:

in fact, it is a limitation of property rights.If you buy a DVD, the copyright monop-oly on that DVD limits what you can do

with the property you have legi timatelybought, things you could normally do withproperty. If you buy an empty hard drive,the copyright monopoly limits the bitpat-terns of data you can use it to store, de-spite the hard drive being your property.(If you have ever listened to copyrightlawyers speaking, you'll notice that theyare talking about "exclusive rights", notproperty; in more everyday language, ex-

clusive rights is simply a "monopoly".)Further, the so-called pirates don't just

share culture and knowledge - they alsopreserve it, in violation of the monopolylaws, but it wouldn't have been preservedotherwise. Today, the vast majority of ourcommon culture from the last century isliterally rotting away in vaults, becomingunreadable and unplayable, because themonopoly constructs make it more prof-itable to keep arbitrary 70-year-old assetsstill on the books, rather than makingthem available to the public. Were it not

for pirates who have shared what theycould, this culture would have been lostforever, seriously harming European cul-tural diversity.

But it's not just a matter of civil liber-ties, impossible enforcement against thelifestyle of voters in the hundreds of mil-lions, or of European cultural diversity. Atthe end of the day, the copyright monop-oly conflict is also a trade conflict, prima-rily driven from the United States. It is,frankly, not in Europe's economic interestto prop up this monopoly. A publication

from the European Commission revealsthat the United States gain from the copy-right monopoly, but the European Unionloses massively - specifically, the copy-right/patent loss for the European Unionis 24 billion USD yearly. (In contrast, theUnited States gains as massively.)

With the European Union being theworld 's largest economy, there is ab-solutely no reason for us to accept theseconditions. If we decide to change whichmonopolies we honor (and we should!),the rest of the world has no alternative butto respect that, and it is the duty of Euro-

pean politicians to care for Europe first.We have absolutely nothing to gain fromtaking orders from the United States here- put bluntly - to hand over European cit-izens' money to the United States.

(Read more about the trade war: "Infor-mation Feudalism: Who owns the knowl-edge economy?" by Peter Drahos and JohnBraithwhite, detailing the origins of the

TRIPs agreement.)This brings me to the second prob lem-

atic monopoly, which is how the EuropeanPatent Office keeps awarding patent mo-

nopolies in violation of the law. Despitethe European directives clearly saying thatcomputer programs as such fall outside ofpatentable matter, software patents keepbeing awarded in violation of these direc-tives. When threatened over an awardedpatent monopoly, it is less of a businessloss for most entrepreneurs to pay the de-manded license fees rather than challengethe patent's validity in court, and so, a vi-cious cycle is created, where patent hoard-ers drain money from innovation withoutcontributing to the economy.

In the United States alone, patent mo-nopolies held by so-called "non-practicingentities" - also known as "patent trolls" -have drained 500 billion USD, half a tril-lion dollars, from the innovation sector.

This is according to a re cent study fromBoston University. The vast majority of

these are software patents. Today, the dys-functional patent system drains over one-quarter of innovation funding.

The only peopl e gaining from theseborderline-illegal software patents (tech-nically they're only invalid, not illegal, butthey still cost tons of money to defend

against) are the patent lawyers. Others are,rightfully, furious. The business angels and

venture capitalis ts who fund our s tartupshave had more than enough. One invest-ment capitalist recently went on recordsaying - quote - "I can't believe our gov-ernment allows this shit to go on" -endquote.

The th ird monopoly i s the old nationaltelecom monopolies, which have nowbought out the vast majority of wired and

wireless internet bandwidth. This presentsa strategic growth problem, as these tele-

com companies will delay the rollout of afunctioning net as long as they possiblycan: it will disintegrate their sunk invest-ments and cash cows. (The thought ofpaying per minute for a 9.6-kilobit con-nection that can only be used for voicecommunications appears laughable andridiculous when you have a general-pur-pose, fixed-fee, unmetered 100-megabitconnection.) To trust the old national tele-com monopolies with rolling out the netat the pace that is optimal for the growthof overall European economy is like trust-

ing the fox to guard the henhouse: it's justnot going to happen. In this case, the spe-cial interest of the telecom companies -specifically, their luggage of obsolete in-

vestments - i s a ctivel y counteracting thepublic interest of economy-boosting,ubiquitous bandwidth.

Let's take a tangible example, dataroaming. There's regulation coming downthe pipe to make that situation justslightly less unbearable in the coming

years, but it's still nowhere good enough.A company in a healthy market can have a5-10% profit margin on a specific product.

For data roaming, the profit margins typ-ically vary between 100,000 and 1,000,000per cent. (Yes, you read that right.) Thiscan only happen in a thoroughly oligopo-lized or monopolized market, in whichcase regulation is required to restore free-market functionality.

The ri ght regulat ion in this ca se wouldnot necessarily have been a price ceiling.Rather, if our dream is a seamless Europe,it would have been to regulate plans totreat the single market as exactly that - asingle market, disallowing its segmenta-

tion. Disallowing premium charges fortraffic originating or terminating in othermember states. (The extra operating costsfor the telecom companies are, as we havealready seen, negligible.) Only then,

when cross ing borde rs of member s tateswouldn 't matter for o ur ci tizens and en-trepreneurs, would we start to see freemovement of business and economyacross borders, integrating Europe in thestrategic way needed.

It is entirely unreasonable that weshould let a legacy industry's sunk, obso-

lete investments stand in the way of thisunified vision.Medium- to long-term, we should re-

gard an anonymous, loginless, and pub-licly-operated wireless network coveragein urban areas to be as basic a public serv-ice as streetlighting or fire stations.


10/16


11/16


12/16

Cyberspace is comprised of computernetworks, computer resources, and all thefixed and mobile devices connected to theglobal Internet. A nations cyberspace ispart of the global cyberspace; it cannot beisolated to define its boundaries since cy-berspace is borderless, unlike the physi-

cal world land, sea, river waters, andair - that is limited by geographicalboundaries. Is it a Global Commons likesea, air and space? Since all the networksand devices connected to them belong topeople and/or organizations in specificcountries, do these constitute privateproperty, and hence a national asset? If itis a global commons, what internationallaws should apply to cyberspace? Howcan countries defend their part of theglobal cyberspace? If cyber attacked, dothey have recourse to existing laws like

the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)? Ifit is a national asset, how can it be de-fended since the attacks can come fromafar, with the challenge that attackersmay be hard to identify. More so, becausethere are no barr iers to cyberspace entry,since attack vectors - freely available atlow cost enable non-state actors tochallenge large organizations and coun-tries by attacking them for financialfrauds, terrorist or ideological reasons.Even worse scenario is a nation-stateusing non-state actors against its adver-

saries for cyber espionage, and disruptionof critical infrastructures with outcomessimilar to kinetic attacks.

Whe ther cyb ersp ace belongs to theglobal commons, can be better appreci-ated, by examining how the governanceof global commons for access and stabil-ity has evolved internationally, and whatkind of rules of road have been createdfor them by the international community.

Global CommonsSea, Air and Space have long been ac-

cepted as global commons by the inter-national community. They bringeconomic benefits to nations; facilitatethe passage of good and people. Mili-taries and nations view it as a means toprotect national territory and strategicinterests, since navigating safely throughthese is deemed to be part of national de-fence. This led European thinkers recog-nize the potential for internationalconflicts in the commons, and hence, theneed for international agreements tobroad rules and regulations.

Cyberspace as Global CommonsWhere does c yber space fit in? It spans

the entire globe almost seamlessly. Doesit have any national borders? Yes, thereare national gateways where countriescan install filters to enforce censorship

as is done by some of them - even thoughthese are porous and its not possible toblock content with complete certainty.

This is because the stand ardiz ed proto-cols that enable the accessing of informa-tion and services easily from anywhereare used by servers and networks any-

where in the world passing throug h na-tional gateways.

To become only a national network, acountry will need to snap connection ofits gateways from the landing statio ns; in

which case i t will be a national asse t, op-erating as an intranet, without being ableto connect to the outside world. It is clearthat national assets have to be part of thecyberspace, the global commons, to de-rive benefits of connectivity global e-commerce, email, funds transfer, stocktrading, and other relations for trade and

social networking.

Challenges to Cyberspaceas Global CommonsCyberspace is indeed a global com-

mons, albeit of a new kind, since it isman-made. But it is a national asset too,since it enables a host of business andgovernment services to citizens; criticalinfrastructure depends on it for its effi-cient operations. Cyberspace is anarchictoday since there is no formal governanceregime.

Market-based governance that includespeople, groups and governments aroundthe world has produced a flexible and ef-fective global network of networks. Butits regulation is complicated by severalfeatures. Cyberspace is asymmetric, andoffense dominant, provides anonymity

because of difficulties in attribution -with implications f or bringing criminalsto justice and for deterrence and reprisalin the battle space. Governments do notknow how to protect cyberspace becausemore and more infrastructure is owned byprivate sector. Existing internationalagreement, the Council of Europe(COE) convention on cybercrime, is lim-ited in scope and even more limited onenforcement. Its the owners of infra-structure, and individual users whoshoulder the burden of responsibility to

provide cybersecurity.It is certainly time for internationalagreements, though not necessarily fortreaties. This is because the dynamics ofcyberspace is probably not understood

well enough for inte rnat ional regi mes.Governments and private sector have to

work tog ether t o evolve rules of behav ior.Wil l LOAC be appl icab le in case ofcyber war?

Are stat es resp onsi ble for computernetwork attacks and espionage that orig-inate in their territory? Since distinctionbetween Cyber attacks and cyber warfareis thin (same attack vectors can lead todifferent outcomes), there is need to de-fine under which condition is a computernetwork attack and act of war?

National security of every country de-pends on safe cyberspace commons.

It is clear that national assetshave to be part of the cyberspace,

the global commons, to derivebenefits of connectivity

12 NEW EUROPE


13/16

13NEW EUROPE

Cyberwar is coming!announced twoRAND Corporations analysts in 1993, yet

to date, there is a wide controversy sur-rounding the existence of cyberwar. Opin-ions among policy makers, IT experts andthe military differ widely with some refer-ring to the threat as a looming CyberPearl Harbor, while others simply statethat cyberwar will not take place. TheUnited States military views cyberspace ascrucial to military operations as air, land,sea, and space.

This current ambiguity is impendingpolicy development and leads to confusionamong governments about the true cyber

threat. As a report by the EastWest Insti-tute on Rendering the Geneva andHague Conventions for Cyberspacestates, It is possible that the binary peace

versus war paradigm is too simple f or thecomplexities of the Internet Age. The re-port recommends the development of athird, other than-war mode to clarifyhow to use existing policy instruments andmore importantly, the applicability of in-ternational law.

Scattering the metaphor of war regard-ing cyberspace dilutes and extenuates thetrue nature of warfare. As an inscriptionin the Swedish Army Museum in Stock-holm reads, This isafter allwhat thismuseum is about: killing and maiming, orat least threatening to do so. Among themany definitions of war, cyberwar often(not always) fails to meet two of the most

basic aspects of how we understand war;war must be lethal and politic al.

To gain clarit y in thi s discuss ion, I pro-pose a system of categorizing cyber attacks

based on two simple criteria: impact andintent. Any act in cyberspace can be as-sessed through the prisms of this IIModel. Assessing various high profile ac-tions in cyberspace such as the infamousStuxnet attacks, it becomes fairly clearthat the war metaphor fails to apply tothese occurrences. While the intent ofStuxnet may have had a political compo-nent (e.g., forcing the Iranian regime toreturn to the negotiation table), the lethalcomponent was missing. Even if lives werelost in these attacks, the principle aim wassabotage, an accepted act in the interna-tional arena and a form of political war-fare, not war and death in itself.

If the II Model is applied rigorously, itbecomes clear that most cyber attacks inthe political sphere (the core criteria forany discussion of organized violence to-

wards a clear politi cal objective) should becategorized as sabotage, espionage, andsubversionall actions short of war andgenerally not constituting a casus belli in

international law.As such, cyberwar, is merely an exten-sion of already existing forms of political

warfarea metaphor that may have led tothe nascent cyberwar metaphor. Political

warfares ultimate goal, however, is to alteran opponents actions without using mili-tary power.

Many pundits argue that cyberwar isdifferent because of the strategic impactand the immense power an individual can

yield with just a few keystrokes . Above all,they lament the omnipresent power ofcyber weaponry to strike anywhere and atany time; however, this is historicallynothing new.

During the Seven Years War, the Aus-trian Army introduced irregular forces, thefamous Grenzer (borderers), recruitedfrom the Austrian provinces adjacent to

the Ottoman Empire, where for centuriesthe Ottomans and Croatians fought smallskirmishes, raided each others lands anddestroyed crops while the Austrian Em-

pire was officially at peace with the Ot-tomans. When Austria introduced thisconcept into the rigid understanding of

Western European Warfare, the outcry byorthodox commanders, such as FrederickII, was immense and led to confusion: Wasthis warfare or was it not?

The Grenz ers uninte ntionally had astrategic impact on the war since the Prus-sians simply lacked a military doctrine onhow to deal with these acts of sabotageand plundering. The Grenzers principleaim was not lethal but like some cyber at-

tacks today, could have indirect lethal con-sequences (e.g., a starving population).Also, like todays cyber attacks, once un-leashed, the Grenzers were hard to con-tain. Last, the aims of the Grenzers werenot political but only to plunder. Again weare confronted with the dilemma of fail-ing to properly categorize actions in cy-berspace because of our own rigidunderstanding of war.

It is finally time to jettison the conceptof war in the context of cyberspace, andthe II Model may be a good starting point.

When the model is applied, cyberwar failsto meet the most basic criteria of war, butthen again, metaphors have their own life.Lest we end up with Bertold Brechts old mocking phraseimagine there is a cy-berwar, but nobody shows up for it!wemust establish new criteria now.

It is possible that the binarypeace versus war paradigm

is too simple for the complexitiesof the Internet Age


14/16

The European Commissions proposed data

protection rules are at the core of an in-creasingly passionate debate between civilsociety, industry and policymakers; andrightly so. Policymakers are working to en-sure citizens privacy is adequately protected,and that all data collection is transparent,including what personal data is kept, how itcollected, by whom, and where it is held.

Moreover, Europe must provide an envi-ronment where businesses can operateseamlessly across borders in order to maxi-mize the benefits of a unified internal mar-ket and effectively tackle the current

economic crisis. This requires a harmonisedapproach to regulation of these areas.Well designed data protection rules have

the potential to boost trust in the digitaleconomy and encourage the development of

what is arguably the most promising sectorof our times: information and communica-tions technology.

However these rules must be crafted withgreat care as they also have the potential tosmother burgeoning SMEs and furtherpush the EU into a vicious circle of de-creasing economic growth, increasing un-employment and dwindling revenues.

Throughout our current s luggish econ-omy, app development has remained re-markably resilient. Pierre Abel, the founderof L'Escapadou and developer of award-

winning apps like Montessori Crosswordsand Word Wizard, is an example of the

micro-SMEs that dominate this new mar-ketplace. Over 80% of all app developershave fewer than 10 employees, and as an in-dependent app developer, Abel has mademore than E200,000 through the Apple

App Store since he introduced his first appin August, 2010.

The data collection and use which theEU is regulating is critical for SME app de-

velopers. In addition to interest-based ad-vertising, data collection helps appdevelopers like Abel optimize their pro-grammes and create new products by re-

vealing which features consumers use most.During the development phase, Abel re-ceives feedback from users through a but-ton on the app that allows users to contacthim directly and ask for new features andfixes. All these sources of data are importantto allow Abel to further develop and im-

prove his product, but such customer feed-back may be unintentionally eliminatedunder the proposed EU regulation on dataprotection.

The scope of the proposed EU regulationincludes not only data protection (what isdone to data once it is collected) but alsoprivacy (the collection of data). Inflexibleregulation in both these areas can negativelyimpact the ability of technology developersto compete in a global market. Regulationsdisproportionately affect SMEs because thecost of administrative burdens associated

with compliance is often nearly as high forsmall firms as large, especially when they arebroad and vague. Well-developed productsand growing SME marketplace are thingsthat the EU should be fostering.

As the EU struggl es to emerge fromthe crisis it would be shooting itself in

the foot by imposing these unnecessaryburdens on what is one of the rare reces-sion proof sectors.

Rising costs arent the only issue with theproposal. SMEs need legal certainty andlegal clarity. The 26 delegated acts whichthe draft regulation contains make sure nei-ther is provided. Moreover it is still unclear

whether the rules will grant the increasedsense of security amongst users that theCommission is expecting and even less clear

whether this would lead to greater willing-ness to invest in Europe.

All in all, the European Commissionsdata protection regulation will be a good in-dicator of the future of tech SMEs based in

Europe. Entrepreneurs, the vital forces ofour economy, need to hear that governmentsupports them in their endeavour and needto see the EU act to ensure that Europe is as

welcoming an environment as other parts ofthe world. As it currently stands the pro-posal fails to recognise the complexity of theonline ecosystem where product, not size, isthe core focus. Squeezed between highercosts and lower revenue margins (an ill Eu-ropean governments should understand alltoo well) SMEs are not equipped or capableof supporting the negative implications thenew data protection rules would have ontheir business and the environment they op-erate in.

What European entrepreneurs are cur-rently hearing sounds a lot like Hit the road

Jack and if they do leave, it s likely they llcome back no more.

Well designed data protection

rules have the potentialto boost trust inthe digital economy

14 NEW EUROPE


15/16

15NEW EUROPE

What is the pot ential for mob ile healthin Europe? Globally?

In a word: Huge. By 2017, mobile tech-nology will be a key enabler of healthcaredelivery around the world. The globalmHealth market is expected to exceedUS$23 billion by 2017. The same report,conducted by PwC, identified that Europe

could become the largest mHealth regionwith revenues of US$6.9 bil lion.

In Europe, as in most parts of the in-dustrialised world, government health carespending has risen disproportionately overthe past 10 years, largely because of a risein lifestyle induced chronic diseases andan ageing population.

Governments in developing countriescontinue to face severe challenges in pro-

viding ubiqui tous access to healthcare andtackling communicable diseases. On topof this, they are also seeing an increase in

chronic diseases.In contrast, mobile phone access is be-

coming more common, irrespective ofwhich part of the world you li ve in. In de-veloped countries, almost everyone ownsat least one mobile phone and coverage in

Africa, Asia-Pacifi c and Latin Americ a isexpected to be as high as 82%, 98% and119% by 2014. Its clear mobile devicescan play a pivotal role in supporting healthcare worldwide be it helping individualsmanage their own health and facilitatingday to day medical advice, or supporting

the health system by connecting health-care professionals or enabling more effi-cient processes.

How can mobile health technologieshelp with Europe's aging population?

By 2025, one out of every five Euro-peans will be over 65. This presents atremendous challenge for Europe in many

ways. Health cost s are already skyrocket-ing and in the face of rising life expectancyand a declining workforce, policymakers

are looking for innovative ways to supportindividuals as they age and help them tocontinue to live independent lives. Mobiletechnology can play a role in enablingsmart, innovative and sustainable solu-tions.

mHealth has the potential to deliver so-lutions that will improve care for patients.Mobile technology can help extend the re-lationship of the physician or carer andpatient beyond the hospital or doctorssurgery, support patients with timely andrelevant advice, and track vital stats astheir condition evolves, wherever they are.For example, mobile technology can helpa patient follow a treatment regime andtake medication on time, can help provideconfidence to an individual by ensuringtheir wellbeing and location is continuallymonitored, or can improve clinical care

with consistent monitor ing of vital in for-mation.

This can translate into real cost savings.GSMA-McKinsey research estimates

US$175-200 billion worldwide could besaved annually by managing chronic dis-eases through remote monitoring, whichamong other things can reduce the num-ber of hospital visits.

Is the European Union doing enough toprovide an environment enablingmHealth to flourish?

Governments and policymakers are keystakeholders in mhealth as they can be thebuyers, promoters (for example, spreading

prevention and awareness messages), aswell as the provider s and facilitators . Theyalso function as regulators, catalysts andinfluencers through policy initiatives.

Therefo re, when policymakers across theworld embra ce const ructive agenda formhealth, the market will start scaling uprapidly to its potential.

We are please d the European Unionrecognizes the contributions of ICT forthe health care sector. As CommissionerKroes has said, phones are serious toolsfor health care, and may even save lives.eHealth features prominently in the Dig-ital Agenda, which is a key initiativeaimed at helping Europe achieve a sus-tainable digital future.

Last, but not least, collaboration be-tween policymakers in both the healthcareand mobile industries can truly modern-ize Europes healthcare delivery. TheGSMA looks forward to continuing thedialogue with EU policymakers to ensuremHealth achieves its full potential. After

all, we share a common goal, and that is toensure citizens have access to quality, af-fordable health care beyond the confinesof a hospital or doctors surgery.

What are some of the recent innova -tions and developments happening inmHealth?

Mobile health technologies are alreadybeing applied across the globe. mHealthdeployments total 687 globally, and Eu-rope accounts for nearly 100. At the same

time operators and companies are contin-uing to devote money and resources intoadvancing these technologies. The GSMAtracks many of the commercial deploy-ments in mHealth on its GSMA mHealthDeployment Tracker.

One particularly interesting technologydeveloped by AT&T is Vitality Glow-Caps. A common problem among patientsis forgetting to take their medicine at theright time, or at all. The GlowCap is a pillbottle cap that uses embedded technologyto remind patients when it is the righttime to take medicine.

The caps illumi nate, play music, andeven have the ability to call or text the pa-tient. A record is made each time a bottleis opened, and this information can be ac-cessed by the patient or a designated careprovider.

Mobiletechnology canhelp extend the

relationship of thephysician or carer

and patient beyondthe hospital or

doctors surgery

ADVERTISEMENT


16/16

ADVERTISEMENT

ict special edition 2012

Documents