Stupid Networks & Telecommunications Policy

There is an interesting (and long) article at the Internet Society's "On The Internet" site: Telecommunications Policy and the Internet, written by Geoff Huston. It covers the issues very well I think, and makes some interesting comments. For example, on policy objectives, states:

"* Develop the Internet as a part of mainstream public communications.
* Build on a structure of private investment into the Internet service industry.
* Ensure that the Internet continues to be cost-efficient to use.
* Ensure that the Internet continues to be useful.
* Ensure that the Internet is ubiquitous."

These seem like the right sort of outcomes. Later, the author talks about a de-regulated communications environment where:

"Within such a perspective, the Internet operates as any other value-added service, in which service definition, pricing, policy of operation, and all other aspects of the service are defined through the operation of market forces within a competitive market. Within such a marketplace, artificial denial of service through appropriate-use policies plays no discernible role, and differential tariffing of services fulfills no role other than market penetration and competitive market acquisition."

He writes about the established communications industry like this:

"The established communications industry had envisioned a data environment more on terms similar to telephony, in which the characteristics of the data service were an intrinsic attribute of the network rather than the host. This model admitted many more elements of control into the network provider domain, viewing host computer platforms as simple data-processing stations. That vision was espoused within the X.25 protocols, frame relay, and asynchronous-transfer-mode virtual circuit services, which are feature-rich network services."

And also notes these requirements for the internet:

"The requirements of the Internet are far more basic in nature. The requirement to support the Internet is for simple bit carriage services-without any service overlay. For the established communications industry, this is not a market that admits a high degree of added-value elements. For some time, the established communications industry resisted this Internet approach to supporting networking services, offering an open-system-interconnection-based network service architecture as an alternative approach to the industry. This has largely receded in importance, and the current approach from this sector is to quickly come to terms with the market, recovering from a somewhat slow response to the arrival of the Internet as a significant market force."

The author points out that the existing communications industry has tended to act like a cartel, and that:

"...although the collaborative community and the deregulated market may see continued change and evolution as positive attributes of the environment, the established communications sector may be more interested in establishing a somewhat slower pace of change in this area."

The author covers the whole range of policy issues which need to be addressed, and comprehensively. The problems are described very well, but I am not so sure his predicted outcomes (Likely Directions & Conclusions in the article) are what we want to hear.

For example:

"Already the skew between the ethos of an Internet as a community resource heavily populated with voluntary effort and the Internet as a medium for mass-marketed commerce and entertainment is readily visible. However, it is both inevitable and correct that the policy initiative of the service network shifts to those who make the investment in operating the service network."

and

"Conclusion

A gulf certainly exists between the typical method of constructing a public policy framework for the communications industry and the exigencies of the Internet.

* The Internet ethos of collaboration as the mechanism for policy formulation has failed to meet the demands of an environment of widespread deployment across many market sectors. Collaboration simply does not scale.
* Industry self-regulation is perhaps more an expression of faith in the outcomes of the competitive market as being an efficient distributor of a public resource of service than it is a well-understood mechanism to achieve the desired objectives in all situations. Industry self-regulation is a faith, not a science.
* The established communications industry players perceive a substantial threat to their existing mode of business within the guise of the Internet.
* The traditional methods of policy formulation in the public sector are attuned to gradual and well-researched changes to a relatively static policy framework, and a very strong tendency exists to preserve the status quo within the process. Public policy often comes as too little, too late."

If you are interested in this topic, have a read of the whole thing.