more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: June 21, 2006 8:21:16 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: "'Dana Blankenhorn'" <dana () a-clue com>, Gerry Faulhaber <gerry- 
faulhaber () mchsi com>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act  
Proposal

The reason we don’t have facilities competition is that there really  
isn’t a separate business in facilities competition any more than  
there is a business in competitive electric distribution. Mandated  
pole access is a good idea but I expect it will quickly lead to  
viewing the bit paths as simple infrastructure.

The reason we don’t ask for competitive electric distribution is that  
we don’t buy light, we buy electricity. At first people did buy light  
and you still some buildings labeled “Municipal Light Company” or  
something like that.

As long as we frame the debate in terms of services and fund the  
infrastructure by selling services we have a problem. You can’t fund  
the transport if users create services themselves and you can’t sell  
bits at a price that covers the cost of the infrastructure unless you  
limit the supply because the bits have no value until they are turned  
into a service outside the network.

As I note in http://www.frankston.com/?name=Opportunity the value of  
the term “network neutrality” is in giving voice to the sense that  
the carriers are not playing fair if they do something like block  
VoIP or try to get a cut of the users’ value. I do worry about being  
too specific since what is important is the marketplace dynamic not  
the particular implementation of the current Internet. We don’t even  
have to require global addresses because, as Skype has shown, we can  
program around such things.

If we look back at what happened when we were able to own our own  
phones and then later the phone wires in our homes we can see that  
people do indeed pay for infrastructure when they understand the  
value. There is no reason that doesn’t extend to community  
infrastructure be it roads, sewers or bit paths.

Even better when the cost is reduced because we have a shared  
infrastructure rather than having each service provider have to build  
a separate infrastructure and then watch all the value disappear as  
others use the transport but create new services outside the network.  
The carriers should indeed be angry but the solution is not to  
prevent competition – the carriers should be asking themselves why  
they have to pay for the infrastructure. They should be the first  
advocate community ownership.

Of course the carriers see control of the infrastructure as giving  
them an advantage in the marketplace but the FTC should be asking  
hard questions about such tie-ins. The carriers may also believe that  
they need control because they still think in terms of scarcity and  
can’t imagine that a community would deploy enough capacity even as  
they leave many gigabits of copper fallow by carrying only an  
occasional phone call per pair.

The carriers’ plight is deeper as new services aren’t using their  
infrastructure anyway – the studios (AKA, TV broadcasters) are  
already assuming a download and peer model for distribution since  
only a small amount of their content needs streaming anyway.

Once we have the idea of infrastructure—the community owning the  
connectivity—and we fund the infrastructure transparently as  
infrastructure we go far far beyond network neutrality. We no longer  
have to contain the bits within billing paths and there is no reason  
not to leak it out to provide ubiquitous and extensible wireless  
coverage. This is where things get exciting because that’s a real  
tipping point – once we get past the fear of abundance (as the  
carriers explicitly decry in http://www.frankston.com/? 
name=AssuringScarcity) we have no barriers against ubiquitous  
wireless coverage and, even better, anyone can extend coverage even  
to subbasements or caves or wherever. You can then have you medical  
alert bracelet call home instead of waiting for someone to read it  
and then find a phone.

This why I don’t like the whole focus on broadband and am not  
convinced Korea is the right model. I sued to think minitel in France  
was a great idea but in the end it kept them off the Internet. I  
think of broadband as being like a railroad when we really want to be  
able to walk and drive where we please. It’s easy to get speed but  
coverage is more important.

We can argue about the technical details of how infrastructure works  
but it would be hard to do worse than today’s misaligned incentives.

For entertainment purposes you can read about viewing sidewalks in  
terms of services. Of course no one would charge for sidewalks –  
after all it’s just concrete and dirt and maybe some hops, skips and  
jumps when we go groundless for a short distance.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:15
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal







Begin forwarded message:

From:   Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>

Date:    June 21, 2006 10:07:41 AM EDT

To:       dave () farber net

Cc:       faulhaber () wharton upenn edu

Subject:            Re: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act  
Proposal



[for IP]

Amazingly, I find myself in agreement with Dana Blankenhorn. This  
business of restricting the use of Internet to only service that  
follows IETF/RFC protocols really is fairy dust. Does anyone think  
that customers really care about “IETF/RFC Inside”? In the few  
minutes since I read Dana’s post, I have thought of a dozen names  
that Comcast/Verizon could call it other than Internet that would  
work just fine in the marketplace. And what about all the non-  
complying systems in place today?

I also wholeheartedly agree with Dana about making the market  
competitive as the only true solution to this. However, he seems to  
think that Congress must act to “take away their monopoly right of  
way.” In fact, Congress already did; the Telecom Act of 96 removed  
all local monopoly franchises, period. Even further back, there are  
FCC Pole Attachment rules requiring telephone companies to share  
their poles at specified rates. Everything is actually in place for  
competitors to enter.

The question is: with all the railing against “monopoly” BB  
providers, and all the rant about how well it works in Korea, how  
come we haven’t seen competitive entry? And with all the hype about  
unlicensed wireless as the answer to the maiden’s prayer, how come we  
have almost no private entry into wireless BB (except Clearwire)?  
I’ll bet if all those great entrepreneurs spent less time writing  
outraged letters to Congress, IP, etc., and more time building a  
business plan to offer competitive BB, all our problems would be  
solved. And yet, and yet....where are the competitors? Why so much  
whining and so little market entry? Come on, guys; if it’s a great  
business for Comcast/Verizon (highly questionable, actually) then it  
should be a great business for you. Yeah, it’s you I’m talkin’ to,  
buddy.

Dana has it absolutely right; what he doesn’t have (and should have)  
is a business plan. If he doesn’t have it, then why not any of those  
guys who signed on to the Internet Platform thing?

Professor Gerald Faulhaber

Wharton School, Univ of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA 10194

Professor Univ of Pennsylvania Law School



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/