[discuss] Continuation of problem no. 1 specification, and what could be next steps
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Jan 26 19:05:04 UTC 2014
On 27/01/2014 06:14, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.
That's exactly right - this is a battle that was won years ago by
Judge Greene in the US and later by the European Commission and
throughout the OECD. At ITU level the battle was won by the former S-G
Pekka Tarjanne, but of course this was not accepted by all ITU member
states, and it is the states that refused reforms that are now suffering
economic distortions as a result.
It is not an Ig matter, but the Internet community should remind
the world from time to time that the Internet is its victim.
> -- 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.
> S. Moonesamy
More information about the discuss