Hi Frank -
'While that does indeed seem to be the case, I'd question if "disproportionate" were the proper characterization, or just "proportionately greater".'
Your response, where you reasonably questioned the use of "disproportionate", lead to a long train of thought. Well, long for me, anyway.
I was playing Regulator - or even better, Policy Maker.
The growing slice of resources allocated to video includes that portion of spectrum allocated to continuous broadcast, which is public property. That spectrum could be better allocated to other uses, such as fixed/mobile wireless.
(Yes, there are value judgements behind the decision - such as the difference between the original concept of broadcast video, and what we have now. Have you read some of the original broadcast applications, and contrasted the lofty aims with the present reality?) Now, they we pump out 10, 20 or 30% of broadcast time as marketing, infotainment, and what I'll call questionable content. The point is whether this spectrum is being wisely used).
How much time would users spend watching ThighMaster videos or reruns, if they exercised choice - and if use of that spectrum wasn't ordained by "the way it is"? Aren't we subsidizing broadcast of questionable content? OK, so what's questionable content? Not the pejorative "questionable"... I mean content about which we have legitimate questions.
One can theorize a station that broadcasts only infotainment. Or, in some possible jurisdictions, only religion. One can even envision states where the only content would be religion, and state-supported content. There, spectrum would be deliberately allocated to support secular and political aims.
Here, what's the answer? Do we subsidize all religions by access to airwaves, or just some religions? Or, is it better that no religion be so subsidized, in the interests of impartiality?
The point here is that spectrum - valuable spectrum with unique properties - is being used for questionable purposes. Says who? Says me: because the telecomms construct is arbitrary.
In a democratic society, no non-criminal content should be proscribed. But valuable spectrum shouldn't be wasted, and questionable content should be exposed to demand.
So, move video and radio to wired and wireless networks, for rebroadcast and consumption by those who want it.
The point of this preamble is that there is a relationship between content, and both the value and the cost of the medium (and therefore the infrastucture) propagating it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our concept of modernity was largely formed in the aspirations of the pre- and post-war years. The US was the Principal Advocate of a certain world vision. The US vision of telecommunications, with the incumbency model, was widely adopted.
That vision was constrained by the technology available at the time, commercial interests, policy created by lawmakers and administered by regulators. Now, in a multipolar and deregulated world, there is no Guiding Light.
The constraints, varying by jurisdiction, seem to be
1 - The residue of legacy telecomms, including incumbency
2 - New technology
3 - Commercial interests (including 1)
4 - The public and/or national interest, as (or if) defined in each jurisdiction through political and governmental action
4 & 2 can trump 1. 1 & 3 can trump 2. 3 can trump 4. 1 can trump 3. And so on...
Decisions can be made democratically (Sweden, the Netherlands) or by fiat (China, Korea, Japan). The instrument is policy.
The question is: Who is articulating - and expressing - the public or national interest in such policy? The answer is: Whoever has the power to do so.
Post-deregulation, the underlying assumption in the States (and presumably the basis for questioning my statement) is that the public interest is best served by responding to demand: i.e., the public interest is self-defining, and should be market-driven. So far as it applies to infrastructure providers, I question that premise. The reason is simple: telecommunications is not an unrestrained free market, and may not respond to demand. The ability to respond is forced upon telecommunications by the policy construct.
Other jurisdictions have intervened in telecomms to various degrees, dictating how the game shall be played. Where they appear to differ from the United States is that the question of whether they are responding to market forces hasn't necessarily entered the matter. Indeed, in Japan, it can be argued that the Japanese are creating new playing fields for access to content - for satisfying demand (and market forces) - by pushing FTTH. They have done so on the basis of what is considered prudent. That's it. They don't have an ideological basis for their decision: it's their own definition of what satisfies their interests.
With that example we come up against the Janus-faced question of demand, and a satisfactory definition of the market.
Demand for content drives infrastructure. The construct of infrastructure drives access to content. "The Market" is content.
When infrastructure providers become arbiters of access to content, they are acting against market forces, and against national/public interests. In the presence of sufficiently advanced technology, it is neither their function nor their right to restrict access to content. Restraint of trade, if you like. Their job, their place in "The Market" is to provide access.
Noted from past discussions, that nations which choose a particular technology to promote such access may err. In fact, infrastructure obsolescence is a fact of life: the billions committed to the relatively short life of microwave towers being an example. The possibility of making a mistake in advancing access should be contrasted with penalties for delay and inaction. "Rational" is good enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The point is that decisions on how telecomms will run are a subset of content, access to.
In different jurisdictions, the decisions can be entirely arbitrary, dictated by factors foreign, perhaps even contrary to our way of thinking. Despite our protestations, ours are arbitrary, too.
From a democratic, capitalistic and non-secular point of view, those nations which provide their citizens with the best (i.e., high capacity, high-throughput) access to content at reasonable cost are ahead of the telecommunications game. If they utilize all components of the system (including spectrum) efficiently they have taken access to its logical conclusion, to the best of their ability. In so doing, they have satisfied the demand equation for both infrastructure and content, and are in fact more "market driven" than we claim to be.
That of course is an idealization which cuts across shared international standards and practices. Nevertheless, IMO it's true that many nations have understood the dynamic better than we, and satisfied the equation more completely. Here, powerful vested interests restrain access instead of providing it, crossing the boundary into content as a profit multiplier, not satisfying demand, not responding to market forces. Meanwhile we split philosophical, ideological and political hairs, paralysed by a faulty premise.
I hope this long-delayed response makes some sense.
Regards,
Jim |
