"qualcuno"suo amico potrebbe dirgli che c'e' un matto che lo ripete da
anni... ;-) (e magari ha delle idee innovative da suggerirgli su come
realizzarlo)
"In a NYC event called Personal Democracy Forum, the question of broadband
access came up. There isn't enough facilities based competition in
broadband and in my opinion there isn't likely to be. I expressed the
opinion that perhaps the Internet should be treated more like the road
system. You don't have multiple roads going to your house for example.
Instead, it is a common resource. I said something like "maybe we should
treat the Internet more like the road system."
The discussion went on and the point was made that the incentives for
the present set of broadband carriers (basically the telcos and the cable
companies) stemmed from their origins as purpose-built networks.
Telephone nets were designed and built to deliver one service: telephony.
Cable systems were built for one purpose: to deliver television.
In that context [and although it was not said, given the monopoly
characteristics of each] the FCC separately regulated them. This worked
reasonably [some might disagree] as private sector systems each oriented
around a single service. The rules were organized around how that service
was to be provided including the network built to deliver it. The Internet
service, however, has been treated as a title I information service. There
is no regulation.
Moreover, the Internet is not purpose built for one application.
It is capable of supporting a wide range of applications. A problem
arises with the provision of Internet service via the telephone network and
the cable network. The carriers of these services seem to feel that
because they own the resource and because the Internet service is
unregulated, they can impose any rules they like and constrain users of the
services however they wish. There is inadequate competition to discipline
this market.
If broadband service is essential to the national economy and to
citizens, given the present means by which it is implemented, and given
that it appears unlikely that the usual competitive pressures will lead to
discipline among the competitors, perhaps we need new national rules to
assure that the service is openly and equally accessible to any
application provider and to all users. Equal does not mean that everyone
pays the same amount.
In particular, higher capacity might be priced at a higher rate.
Provision needs to be made, however, to deal with high cost (to the
provider) areas using a new form of Universal Service or some other
subsidy.
I would not rule out municipal networks that citizens decide to build
through bond processes (usually meaning the private sector is engaged to
build and probably operate). Some of us have termed this kind of open
access rule making "horizontal" regulation since the openness is intended
to be along the Internet service layer. Applications and services provided
above that layer can be highly competitive and provided by any
application provider on the network.
In the UK, BT has been split into a wholesale Internet business and a
retail business. Anyone can buy raw Internet service at wholesale and then
operate any application service above that.
Capacity is priced based not on bytes transferred but on maximum rates
of use (usually capped). The idea is to provide new incentives for
broadband Internet providers to keep the system open to new applications
and to promote substantial competition, not at the facilities base but
above the IP layer. At present, the incentives do not favor such a
posture."
Commenti