[discuss] Continuation of problem no. 1 specification, and what could be next steps

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi SM,

That paper is interesting, but both it and your own argument lead me towards the view that this is not a matter of Internet governance at all, but an issue of domestic market (mis)regulation.  I don't see how we can fix that and I'm also not sure it would be correct for us to try. 

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy <sm+1net at elandsys.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>, discuss at 1net.org
Sent: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:49
Subject: Re: [discuss] Continuation of problem no. 1 specification, and what could be next steps

Hi Andrew,
At 04:34 25-01-2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Citations of cases, please.  I don't believe either of those claims is
>true, except in the obvious sense that peering is voluntary and some
>carriers are unwilling to peer with others if there's not a fair
>trade.  (If the proposal is that more-connected carriers have to
>subsidize development of infrastructure in less-connected regions in
>order to increase fairness, I want to know why that is something the
>carriers have to do.  That sounds like international aid to me.)

 From http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/files/4-Brusick-Evenett.pdf

  "Many developing economies are dominated by the state, acting
   directly as the owner of state monopolies or indirectly through the close
   links it entertains with national champions, which the state often seeks
   to promote. The dominance of the state can be at the expense of other
   domestic or foreign firms and can result in heavy-handed
   anticompetitive practices, damaging the very economy that it purports
   to nurture and safeguard.

   As a result of their size, relative financial power, and access to
   foreign markets, multinational corporations are naturally prone to be
   dominant in many markets in smaller economies and could abuse their
   dominant position if not deterred effectively by a competition authority.
   However, such corporations are not the only relevant firms in this
   regard, as the actions of local monopolies and dominant firms can
   inflict considerable harm on their host societies too."

Anti-competition regulation is still nascent.  I read a report where 
it is mentioned that in most African countries, access to SAT3 is 
under the control of the historical operator who exercises a de facto 
monopoly on the sale of international transit to local 
telecommunications operators and (local) Internet Service Providers.

In general, peering does not work that well in one or more regions of 
the world.  It would be good to consider that the local markets have 
rarely, if ever, provided a level-playing field where internet 
ecosystem could strive.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy