Andrew ha pubblicato un articolo dal titolo:
E’ un articolo che chiunque si interessi al futuro di Internet, secondo me, e’ bene che legga fino all’ultima pagina (non solo l’abstract).
Ne segnalo solo alcuni passaggi (dove i piu’ attenti di voi riconosceranno qualche traccia delle nostre discussioni)
Inizia con questa tabella e le considerazioni che ne consegue.
Table 1. Value of bits: Price per megabyte of various services.
service revenue per MB (aprox. ndr.)
wireless texting $1000.00
wireless voice 1.00
wireline voice 0.10
residential Internet 0.01
backbone Internet 0.0001
Conoscete bene la questione;
una riflessione che lui aggiunge e’ che il grande operatore che eroga
servizi (Google, per antonomasia), paga la banda 1/100 di quanto la paga un utente.
The basic conclusion is that whether AT&T or Google wins the net neutrality battle, the outcome at a high level may be similar, namely society exposed to the prospect of an unprecedented degree of discriminatory pricing. It is doubtful that competition could mitigate the risks. On one hand, there is doubt whether several competing physical networks can be viable. On the other hand, in cyberspace, the “winner take all” phenomenon is very pronounced.
One network. I prezzi dei servizi sopra la connettivita’ avrano prezzi altamente differenziati per persona; il limite alla personalizzazione del prezzo e’ il limite imposto dalla privacy. (GB, CC, vi ricorda nulla "Tutela della persona ed efficienza socioeconomica" ?)
The general conclusion is that some form of government intervention, to set the rules, is inevitable. (And at some point it may be welcomed by the players, just as government intervention was welcomed in the end by the railroads.) Society needs basic rules to operate by, and modern technology creates potential scenarios that old rules did not cover. But we need to remember also that it is not easy to regulate markets, especially ones in cyberspace, and especially when policy makers labor under the burden of many false myths.
Da scolpire.
As was mentioned before, railroads initially were sub ject to structural separation, but governments found it impossible to enforce this. (See Chapter 9 of [12] for more information about the transition of British railways to become carriers instead of just providers of rail roads.) And we have more modern evidence of the need for clear interfaces in telecommunications for effective regulation [4]. It appears very hard to regulate a packet data network like the Internet, which depends for its basic justification on statistical multiplexing.
It would be far easier to enforce neutrality rules on a network that provided dark fiber or wavelengths only. That, of course, would require a complete restructuring of the industry.
It might be wise, both for society and for shareholders of those companies, but very hard to achieve.
One network, bitstream access, global services…
Diciamo che avere una situazione in cui appena il business tossisce, il debito prende la broncopolmonite, potrebbe aiutare.
(For a discussion of how inexpensive the backbones of the Internet are, see [23]. And for pointers to evidence that those infamous “exafloods” are not swamping the Internet, see [15].)
eccone un altro..
That is why capital expenditure (capex) of the telcos has been so weak, as their replacement cost has been consistently lower than their depreciation charges. And that is what has helped produce the bountiful free cash flow and profits of recent years.
Questo e’ un punto importante. Accidenti, non ne ho mai scritto!
The one thing that has been well documented (see, for example, [25]) is that established service providers are terrible at innovation in services. Their core expertise is in widespread delivery of basic connectivity, and they, and their suppliers, have done well in innovating there, introducing DSL, cable modems, wireless transmission technologies, DWDM, and so on. But they have failed utterly in end-user services.
L’innovazione la fanno i piccoli
In conclusion, the basic conclusion is that for pervasive infrastructure services that are crucial for the functioning of society, rules about allowable degrees of discrimination [intende price discrimination, in assenza di ristrutturazione dell’industria, ndr.] are needed, and those rules will often have to be set by governments. For telecommunications, given current trends in demand and in rate and sources of innovation, it appears to be better for society not to tilt towards the operators, and instead to stimulate innovation on the network by others by enforcing net neutrality. But this would likely open the way for other players, such as Google, that emerge from that open and competitive arena as big winners, to become choke points. So it would be wise to prepare to monitor what happens, and be ready to intervene by imposing neutrality rules on them when necessary.
Conviene stimolare la neutralita’ della rete, bisogna capire che bisognera’ regolamentare i grossi fornitori di servizi.
