Gilder has stated:
"The American Internet "bubble" was actually a crisis of policy."
Further, he states: "The real threat to monopolize and paralyse the Internet is not the communications industry and its suppliers, but the premature modularizers and commoditizers, the proponents of the dream of some final government solution for the uncertainties of all life and commerce"
commerce.senate.gov
You cannot legislate network architecture.
What you can legislate is the underlying precepts which will drive network buildout and existence.
My post was about the order of things: principles, then particulars. From the general to the specific, with the force of law. I do not propose to criticize American telecomms policy, but I sure as hell intend to criticize its Canadian counterpart, which is very close to being a clone.
Canadian policy reflects an ongoing series of ad hoc decisions in response to telegraphy, telephony, the law of common carriage, and now the internet, among other things. There never was a guiding concept.
Until the late second half of the last century, this was equally true, worldwide.
Now, Japanese, Korean, Malaysian and Taiwanese policy reflects the national interest: these nations have stated unequivocally that they intend to take a leadership position in network buildout. Motivations are a mix of competitive reasons, national pride, and the enablement of their citizenry. For a quick overview of policy development in Asia, this is a good site:
newmedia.cityu.edu.hk
"COUNTRIES' OBJECTIVES
Countries in Asia are now re-appraising the telecommunications sector. Such assessments are being brought about to develop the economic and social status of the countries. Most of the countries have stated policies to enhance telecommunication development in their national plans.
Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong: aim to sustain their position as regional hubs and have clearly pointed to telecom infrastructure development as one of several strategies to attract foreign investment and to compete in a global environment.
India and China: aim to meet the high tele-density requirements.
Korea and Malaysia have outlined guidelines to bring about knowledge-based societies."
Koreans even allowed the equivalent of Affirmative Action:
"LG’s lobbying efforts ultimately prevailed. As the wireless telecommunications industry grew in size and political importance, and a consumer movement to reduce rates gained strength, LG intensified its efforts to persuade policymakers of SK Telecom’s monopolistic advantage. These efforts were successful: in May 2001 the Korean government announced that it would “guarantee a market share of at least 20 percent for a third major telecom operator [LG Telecom] through asymmetric regulation on Korea Telecom [the state-owned provider] and SK Telecom.” (Korea Herald 2001)."
ifc.org
Thank heavens we're not being exposed to that kind of imaginative thinking, eh?
There's a good, quick overview of Euro policy evolution in Nicola Kreuzer's dissertation here:
lawspace.law.uct.ac.za:8080/dspace/bitstream/2165/239/1/KreuzerN_2005.pdf
"The culmination of the public process, begun in 1993, was the Telecom Package.
The new unified regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services in the EU is also referred to as “Telecom Package”. It consists of the following five harmonisation directives, one decision and one regulation:
• There is the general Framework Directive, plus four specific directives:
• The Authorisation Directive,
• The Universal Service Directive,
• The Access Directive and
• The Directive on privacy and electronic communications.
To these should be added:
• The radio spectrum policy Decision of 2002 and
• the Regulation on unbundled access to the local loop which was adopted in December 2000... This new regulatory framework had to be transposed into the national laws of the Member States by July 24th, 2003."
It's instructive to look at complaints about broadband buildout (or rather, the lack of same) in the UK from 6 years ago, and see the difference today. As is openly acknowledged in the UK, policy review was driven in large part by the Euro construct.
What BT has been forced to do in the UK is a direct outcome of policy review. To say it's irrelevant, that it's not applicable here is hogwash. The real reason is legislative sloth: lack of imagination, lack of creativity, susceptibility to influence of vested interests, and lack of political will.
Even more important is the fact that nowhere, not in Korea, Japan or Malaysia, not in Sweden, the Netherlands or the UK, is anyone claiming that the public is ill-served in such policy-driven initiatives, OR that companies involved are losing money, or not profitable.
What was proposed was a future point when spectrum became so overloaded that reallocating broadcast video to optical became possible. The point of that hypothetical was that a sufficiency of wired (optical) capacity confers freedom that is otherwise not available.
Peter stated that wired and wireless were "alternatives". They may be, except Shannon has placed no limit on the amount of fibre you can run. They are not equivalents. One offers endless capacity, relative freedom from interference (including atmospherics and EMF), and stability in the transmission/reception medium. The other does not.
"all bits are not of equal value."
Message 22886002
"As all bits are not of equal value, a better problem statement acknowledges value of bits."
Message 22883992
Gentlemen, I'm indebted to you both: you have obviously found a different meaning for "value" than that which I used.
"Yes, there are value judgements behind the decision"
Message 22867250
So when value judgements ('57 Channels (And Nothin' On)") Message 22741073 - and simple need dictate spectrum is being inefficiently used, the availability of network capacity, spectrum re-use and new RF technologies say: you have an option: re-allocation. The purpose of hypothetically re-allocating video to optical was intended: precisely, to allow the use of advanced RF techniques in freed-up spectrum.
fcc.gov
Peter said: "How about 'can we use the spectrum more effectively (considering National Policy, Security and International Relations)', rather than efficiently (Life-cycle cost per bit)?"
OK, Peter, how about it? Is "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)" sufficient reason to allocate spectrum with unique and desirable properties to broadcast video, now and forever? And is using spectrum to broadcast pure advertising content "effective", if not "efficient"? Or is it questionable from the standpoint of many value judgements?
The point is that no single source can satisfy all content demand, and no lawful content should be proscribed. From the standpoint of distributing content alone, allowing the user to select through his (W)ISP is a much more satisfactory answer than allowing local stations to decide the viewing demographic in their area. And as I write, my television shows PBS from Detroit, here in Vancouver. So we already know from experience that wired redistribution of content is a viable alternative to broadcast over spectrum.
It doesn't take A Beautiful Mind to see that when the time is right, moving broadcast content to fibre makes sense from more than one perspective, judged by more than one value.
"Explosive growth in wireless has produced a paradigm shift with a name, the Negroponte Switch. This is the observation of Nicolas Negroponte of the M.I.T. Media Lab that, while we were born into a world in which we made our phone calls on wires and watched our television over-the-air, we will die in a world featuring just the reverse."
aei-brookings.org : The Wireless Craze, The Unlimited Bandwidth Myth, The Spectrum Auction Faux Pas, and the Punchline to Ronald Coase's 'Big Joke': An Essay on Airwave Allocation Policy Thomas W. Hazlett. Working Paper 01-02. Jan 2001.
I'm not going to get into an extended discussion on the econometrics of fibre (which are improving) vs. alternatives. If you gentlemen want to denigrate the per-bit life-cycle cost of fibre, then be my guest.
Gilder further stated:" The telecom industry is nowhere near some mythical paradox of perfection or cul de sac bargain basement of commoditization. It is still engaged in a thrilling adventure of putting together worldwide webs of glass and light that reach from your doorstep or teleputer to every other person and machine on the planet."
Yup. "Thrilling". Especially to those who've built state-of-the-art wireless networks in our Interior, and are denied access to the incumbent's fibre. That's the "thrill" of doing 90 miles an hour down a dead-end street.
Gilder's statements, well-reasoned as they are, mean different things to different readers. While he is correct in many respects, I don't think his remarks should be taken as an excuse for failure and lack of vision, except by those who need one.
Regards,
Jim |
