EU operators are considering joining up to create a pan-European network to reduce competitive overbuild and cost. This might lower costs and focus operators on higher-level, more interesting services.
I think they do have a lot in common, and I've done work in Oz over the years and watched their NBN proposal develop pretty much from the first. I think it raises some questions as well as raising some prospects, and it's way too early in their experiment for me to be able to call the ball on the outcome. The most profound issue is whether "competition" above the physical layer is meaningful. For example the US CLEC process hasn't moved the ball much in terms of services or pricing, and many argue that it discouraged plant upgrades because it made the investment subject to wholesaling. Would a government-run physical layer spawn real innovation above, or would it just spawn minimal resale of what's below? If the latter, then the costs don't change and you'd be better off nationalizing everything.
This relates to a net neutrality proposal that looks appealing: Separate the physical network from services on top of it. The physical network becomes a regulated monopoly, but the services on top of it are free to compete. This sidesteps the competitive issues that other net neutrality proposals are designed to protect, without creating a rigid and complicated regulatory infrastructure.
Yes, I know the two proposals are very different, but they seem to have that much in common.
I hope it works out for them too; I'm of the view that we need to rethink global telecom policy in light of things like mobile broadband and the cloud. The challenge is that a lot of market damage can be done in 36 months! I wonder if reasoned debate might be necessary to create an optimum outcome for Europe and the US.
It is interesting to think about the old days of monopolized telecommunications and discover there were some pros! We see some replication of that in the US with government rulings about rural access to communications infrastructure -- and studies that indicate lack of access to the Internet is one reason that poorer children perform less well on standardized tests. I'd argue that it's scarcely the biggest factor, but every bit of assistance has to help.
Some of these programs, like the Australian example you cite, can take a lot of time to demonstrate results. It'll be interesting to see 12, 24, and 36 months from now what has happened--hopefully a lot of good things!
Absolutely, Alison! I think I mentioned the Australia experience in my blog here. They decided to create what's essentially a national infrastructure for wireline by buying out and running (via a not-for-profit) the low-level network. That was a multi-year political marathon and it involved only one country! It's also not yet clear whether it worked, meaning that it achieved anything useful.
I look back to the old days of regulated telco monopolies and I really wonder if we'd have been better off now had we just left them in place and regulated to secure the kind of infrastructure investment and service changes we wanted.
Lots of devils in lots of details in this case, I'd imagine, Tom! Think of the bidding process, the political shenanigans, the lobbying and so forth that would go on; not that it's a reason to stop doing this, of course! I can imagine the Chunnel created its own (smaller) nightmares, too! I'd guess there'd be one large contractor who worked with multiple large subcontractors, who in turn partnered with many smaller firms across the continent.
I think there's value in having shared or even government-supported infrastructure for wireline and wireless, but the devil is always in the details. Competitive overbuild is a cost but complacency underbuild is the risk!
It sounds promising and the European Union has certainly tackled plenty of other complex challenges, many quite well. It would be great news for poorer European nations, that's for sure.
The whole Amazon.reader debate is a double-stupid. It's stupid to think that there's any e-book buyer who doesn't know Amazon's URL, and it was stupider to let ICANN launch the whole free-form TLD initiative to start with.
Subsidized handsets, rather than locked handsets, should be the focus of regulators. We're not getting good deals, not fostering innovation, and weakening our power as buyers.
50 billion household devices will be on the Internet by 2020, according to Cisco. And we're hearing foreign governments are hacking our infrastructure. Surely our refrigerators are next!
YouTube's move to a partial pay-for-view model could help relieve a dearth of good new content but it could also complicate debates in many parts of the world over payment by content providers for delivery of their material to customers.
That's what Larry Page said on Google's earnings call, referring to the conjunction of mobile and the cloud. Well, let's chart it then! We need to be thinking about an Internet where 90% of our traffic goes to 70 destinations within 40 miles of us.
Facebook's Graph Search may face some profound challenges and risks, first, because Facebook users haven't been thinking of their posts as product reviews; and second, because Facebook will now have to contend with the social-network equivalent of SEO "gaming" of results.
Congress is considering a bill to extend a moratorium on Internet regulation changes for two years. But with issues like service quality, cloud performance, and privacy looming, we risk contaminating the Internet with fraud.
The risk of the ITU taking over the Internet is overblown. First, it's almost certain its goals are simply to create orderly interconnect and settlement. Second, how good a job has ICANN done anyway? If we don't like international control we should clean up our own processes in both governance and interconnect!
The new Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) initiative of operators is being run out of Europe's ETSI and not here in the United States, even though the issues have been here for five years. The US needs to step up; otherwise, it's surrendering leadership.
That's what Larry Page said on Google's earnings call, referring to the conjunction of mobile and the cloud. Well, let's chart it then! We need to be thinking about an Internet where 90% of our traffic goes to 70 destinations within 40 miles of us.
Many enterprises view high-speed broadband connections as ubiquitous. Yet in about 20 percent of the country, businesses and their employees do not have access to even DSL connections. This shortcoming diminishes enterprises' ability to support their employees.
Because 25% to 45% of broadband cost is due to sales and marketing, we could reduce our broadband prices by eliminating advertising and promotional spending by providers.
Expert Integrated Systems: Changing the Experience & Economics of IT In this e-book, we take an in-depth look at these expert integrated systems -- what they are, how they work, and how they have the potential to help CIOs achieve dramatic savings while restoring IT's role as business innovator. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Email This
