Thursday, August 30, 2007
Structural Separation in Europe
From the FT [link]:
Meanwhile in the U.S. Comcast apparently blocks Bittorrent and lies about it, AT&T promises $10 DSL and fails to deliver (and then says it's fixed the problem, but it hasn't), AT&T repeatedly blocks political speech it doesn't like and lies about it, and Verizon has stopped maintaining its copper and takes many days to complete residential line repairs. To such companies competition means, "I'm the biggest sonofabitch, so c'mon little stuff compete with me."
Can we trust these companies not to, "block, impair or degrade content, applications or services"?
The evidence is clear -- we can't.
The European model presents a very clear guide. If it is simply illegal for Internet access providers to have a financial interest in the content, services and applications carried by their network, they won't have any motive to discriminate.
The European discussion is advancing. We in the United States should start the discussion on our side of the pond as well. But as long as we focus on legislating telco/cableco behavior and ignore the structures that motivate the undesired behavior, we can expect our telcos and cablecos to lie, cheat and steal so they can pursue what they think of as, "Business as Usual."
EU drops a broadband bombshell[Thanks to Jim Baller for this pointer!]
By Sarah Laitner in Brussels and Philip Stafford in London
Published: August 30 2007 01:46 | Last updated: August 30 2007 01:46
Britain is sometimes embroiled in bruising battles in Brussels. But it finds itself singled out by the European Union’s telecoms chief as a model pupil in the drive to boost broadband competition.
Viviane Reding, the EU media commissioner, this week cited the decision to split the networks and services division of BT of the UK as a potential template for [European] former state-run telecoms operators . . . BT agreed in 2005 with national regulator Ofcom to create an independent unit responsible for giving rivals access to its networks. The division, which BT still owns, is obliged to treat competitors on the same basis as its own services.
Meanwhile in the U.S. Comcast apparently blocks Bittorrent and lies about it, AT&T promises $10 DSL and fails to deliver (and then says it's fixed the problem, but it hasn't), AT&T repeatedly blocks political speech it doesn't like and lies about it, and Verizon has stopped maintaining its copper and takes many days to complete residential line repairs. To such companies competition means, "I'm the biggest sonofabitch, so c'mon little stuff compete with me."
Can we trust these companies not to, "block, impair or degrade content, applications or services"?
The evidence is clear -- we can't.
The European model presents a very clear guide. If it is simply illegal for Internet access providers to have a financial interest in the content, services and applications carried by their network, they won't have any motive to discriminate.
The European discussion is advancing. We in the United States should start the discussion on our side of the pond as well. But as long as we focus on legislating telco/cableco behavior and ignore the structures that motivate the undesired behavior, we can expect our telcos and cablecos to lie, cheat and steal so they can pursue what they think of as, "Business as Usual."
Technorati Tags: AT&T, Comcast, NetworkNeutrality, Organizational Culture, StructuralSeparation, Verizon
Comments:
Structural separation is a good thing--and worth fighting for--and just about the only thing that will work for most of this country.
But its a second-best alternative...the current disease does not arise from vertical integration. It emerges from the differing interests of customers and owners untempered by real competition. Structural separation eliminates the symptoms, by greatly reducing the motivation to abuse customers and communities.
But structural separation does NOT cure the underlying disease. What really should be desired is a company that is motivated to act in the interests of the community of owners. What is wanted is an alignment of the interests of owners and customers. And this is most directly achieved by making the customers owners.
We need municipal ownership, coop ownership, and regional partnerships. It may not work every where but you can see the seeds of a possible new model in Burlington, Bristol and, differently, in Utah. In those places each local municipal success has inspired neighboring areas to come on board--and the regional leader has helped; their headend equipment, experience, and developed expertise makeing the formerly daunting task seem doable.
(Yes, I know you are in favor of muncipal telecom (thanks!) and I know structural separation would be an extremely helpful palliative. But we shouldn't lose track of the fact that what we should really want is a telecom that acts in our interests. Not just one with less motivation to exploit us.)
Just being fussy. :-)
But its a second-best alternative...the current disease does not arise from vertical integration. It emerges from the differing interests of customers and owners untempered by real competition. Structural separation eliminates the symptoms, by greatly reducing the motivation to abuse customers and communities.
But structural separation does NOT cure the underlying disease. What really should be desired is a company that is motivated to act in the interests of the community of owners. What is wanted is an alignment of the interests of owners and customers. And this is most directly achieved by making the customers owners.
We need municipal ownership, coop ownership, and regional partnerships. It may not work every where but you can see the seeds of a possible new model in Burlington, Bristol and, differently, in Utah. In those places each local municipal success has inspired neighboring areas to come on board--and the regional leader has helped; their headend equipment, experience, and developed expertise makeing the formerly daunting task seem doable.
(Yes, I know you are in favor of muncipal telecom (thanks!) and I know structural separation would be an extremely helpful palliative. But we shouldn't lose track of the fact that what we should really want is a telecom that acts in our interests. Not just one with less motivation to exploit us.)
Just being fussy. :-)
I don't feel competent enough to comment on the need for structural separation (incidentally, I was given to believe that BT's case is functional separation since it's still the same company, but that's besides the point).
However, I find it surprising and, to some extent, a little ridiculous that Viviane Reading would use Britain as a model for broadband development in Europe when many countries (off the top of my head, Sweden, France, Spain...) are at least as good as Britain without structural separation.
Furthermore, looking at broadband in such a binary way is a little restrictive as well. When you detail the level of service (bandwidth, additional services) and the prices, I don't think Britain is necessarily the leader of the pack.
Much as I think structural separation is a solution that should be examined closely, I really despise political agendas and ideology getting ahead of rational thinking...
I'm rattled, now. I think I'm going to have to blog about it...
Post a Comment
However, I find it surprising and, to some extent, a little ridiculous that Viviane Reading would use Britain as a model for broadband development in Europe when many countries (off the top of my head, Sweden, France, Spain...) are at least as good as Britain without structural separation.
Furthermore, looking at broadband in such a binary way is a little restrictive as well. When you detail the level of service (bandwidth, additional services) and the prices, I don't think Britain is necessarily the leader of the pack.
Much as I think structural separation is a solution that should be examined closely, I really despise political agendas and ideology getting ahead of rational thinking...
I'm rattled, now. I think I'm going to have to blog about it...
