Again excellent points. And I agree, in the current UK model there appears very little opportunity for independent ISPs to offer any significantly improved service over the incumbent's own, and thereby grab market share. It's all a matter of what else one can package with it - effectively the separation principle anyway.
> Creating the conditions for network competition is a hard problem with no easy answers. Where there's a will there's a way. The big question, to some extent is, is there the will? One doesn't miss one's water etc. I was cheered to see in the recent Canadian usage pricing fracas, Marc Garneau handing out buttons saying "My Internet Shouldn't Suck"[1], and also to see Susan Crawford urging students to take to the streets over the issue [2] before it's too late. But it's going to take the equivalent of 10 Tahrir Squares to overcome the incumbent clout and establishment inertia. Meanwhile we are seeing widening pre-emptive strikes like N. Carolina. the incumbents ride roughshod over everyone stating words to the effect - if we can't gouge we won't build.. There surely still have to be answers, however tough - and some kind of separation would seem to be an inescapable component. I am no techie, but alternatively I imagine what could be practically discussed is how much new technologies like cheap plastic fiber driving little wi-fi chips, mesh etc, could give those communities that haven't already been legislated out of the game an opportunity to economically and successfully build their own connectivity. [3] j [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/crtc-wont-include-retail-services-in-internet-price-hearing/article1938694/ [2] http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1930 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1930> [3] I am in the process of organizing a panel to discuss same at the INET NY on Jun 14, expressions of interest welcome offlist<j...@punkcast.com?subject=INET-NY> . On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Richard Bennett <rich...@bennett.com>wrote: > I think the motive for the traditional separation actually was completely > different from the one for new separation. Silos had the effect of limiting > competition for specific services, while the avowed goal of functional > separation mandates is to increase competition. > > Opportunities for service competition between the telegraph and telephone > networks were limited by technology in the first instance - you couldn't > carry phone calls over the telegraph network anyway because it was a low > bandwidth, steel wire system with telegraph office - to telegraph office > topology - but you could carry telegrams over the phone network, but only if > permitted by law. > > In a sense, ARPANET was telegraph network 2.0, and even used the same > terminals initially. Paper tape-to-tape transfers became ftp, the telegram > became email, and kids running paper messages around the office became > routers switching packets. > > The layer 0 model has some merit, but has issues. In areas nobody wants to > provide ISP services, and there is still a tendency toward market > consolidation due to economies of scale in the service space. > Facilities-based competition remains the most viable model in most places, > as we're seeing in the UK where market structure resembles the US more than > most want to admit: Their two biggest ISPs are BT and Virgin, the owners of > the wire, and they have less fiber than we have in the US. > > Creating the conditions for network competition is a hard problem with no > easy answers. > > RB > > On 3/25/2011 11:48 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > I take your point, the separation was of a different order. But a > separation, nonetheless. The motive is not so much different. > > I think we can all accept that "traditional telephone regulation" is > rapidly losing its grip as the beast morphs. Now that applications outnumber > networks new problems require new solutions. > > I've heard Allied Fiber's Hunter Newby argue convincingly that really > it's about separating Level 0 - the real estate, the wires and the head end > premises - from everything else, and facilitating sufficient open access to > guarantee healthy competition in services. > > And yes, where there's a monopoly there will have to some price > regulation. At least that's traditional. > > As we've seen in the UK, while it's not so much a stretch to impose even > higher level unbundling on the telcos, when it comes to the cable industry > it's going to be a very painful pulling of teeth. > > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=46077&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > > j > > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Richard Bennett <rich...@bennett.com>wrote: > >> The principle that kept telegraph and telephone apart wasn't a functional >> layering concept, it was a "technology silos" concept under which all >> communication networks were assumed to be indistinguishable from their one >> and only one application. If you read the Communications Act of 1934, you'll >> see this idea embodied in the titles of the act, each of which describes >> both a network and an application, as we understand the terms today. Wu >> wants to make law out of the OSI model, a very different enterprise than >> traditional telecom regulation. >> >> >> On 3/25/2011 10:27 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> >>> aka the "separation principle" ( Tim Wu - the Master Switch) >>> >>> What surprised me is that when I put his point to Richard R.John at the >>> Columbia Big media event back in Nov >>> <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1563> - John totally agreed with it, citing >>> the >>> precedent of the telegraph companies being locked out of the telephone >>> business back in the day. >>> >>> j >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, George Bonser<gbon...@seven.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay >>>>> Internet on both cable and television, and to have television >>>>> competition via satellite. >>>>> >>>> In "the old days" the phone company didn't provide "content". You >>>> called someone and the people at each end provided the content or the >>>> data going over the network. The phone company simply provided the >>>> network. I still believe the biggest mistake we made was breaking up >>>> the Bell System. We should have let them be, regulated the crap out of >>>> them, and then said "no, you can't get into the business of providing >>>> content". They system should have been left as a regulated public >>>> utility. >>>> >>>> To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the >>>>> home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and >>>>> operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and >>>>> operated by a corporation granted an exclusive right to service an >>>>> >>>> area >>>> >>>>> (think telephone, at least pre CLEC). >>>>> >>>> Yup, bring back "The Bell System". >>>> >>>> >>>> Where you immediately run into a snag is the next layer up. Should >>>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> government provide IP services, if the fiber is government owned? >>>>> Should private companies be required to offer competitors access to >>>>> provide IP services if the fiber is privately owned? >>>>> >>>> I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would >>>> be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably >>>> connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus. >>>> >>>> Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities >>>>> would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution, >>>>> possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial >>>>> entity to come in and offer layer 3 services. >>>>> >>>> I don't. What happens when the "government" then decides what content >>>> is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that >>>> provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off? >>>> I want the government very strictly limited in what they can and cannot >>>> do and I want them to have to go to an outside entity for things like >>>> lawful intercept because it is another check on their power. A private >>>> entity might insist that there is a proper warrant or subpoena while the >>>> government might simply decide to snoop first, get the paperwork later. >>>> Keeping the network at arm's length from the government helps to make >>>> sure there is another entity in the loop. >>>> >>>> For simplicity of >>>>> argument I like people to envision the local government fiber agency >>>>> (like your water authority) dropping off a 1 port fiber 4 port copper >>>>> switch in your basement. >>>>> >>>> Big difference. Water is not a good analogy. The "content" in that >>>> case is from a central source and everyone gets the same thing. With >>>> the network, you have people communicating back and forth and much of >>>> that communications is private or expected to be private (say, a phone >>>> call or a secure financial transaction). If a private entity screws up, >>>> it is much easier to fine them or fire the person responsible than it is >>>> to punish a government department or fire a government worker. Besides, >>>> we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll. >>>> >>>> Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be managed >>>> by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing the >>>> content, only provide access through the network. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > -- > Richard Bennett > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
