BLOCO
Blog dos Coordenadores ou Blog Comunitário
da
ComUnidade
WirelessBrasil
Agosto 2009 Índice Geral do BLOCO
O conteúdo do BLOCO tem forte vinculação com os debates nos Grupos de Discussão Celld-group e WirelessBR. Participe!
30/08/09
• Mensagem de José Smolka: 4G, net neutrality e marco regulatório
de J. R. Smolka <smolka@terra.com.br>
para wirelessbr <wirelessbr@yahoogrupos.com.br>, Celld-group <Celld-group@yahoogrupos.com.br>
data 21 de agosto de 2009 09:10
assunto [wireless.br] 4G, net neutrality e marco regulatório
Para pensar...
[ ]'s
J. R. Smolka
---------------------------------------------------
Net neutrality could hinder 4G and differentiated services
Keith Willetts, Chairman and CEO, TM Forum
08.17.2009
The Internet has been in widespread use for more than 15 years, but it seems
every so often the specter of net neutrality looms over what would otherwise be
a fairly peaceful existence. Now that 4G wireless has come along with its
promise of hundreds of megabits per second to devices over a pure IP
packet-switched network you can bet legislators and regulators are keeping a
keen watch on what transpires.
Any time you get a significant bump in technology, like the shift from 2G and
2.5G to full 3G in most parts of the world, and the exponential leap to 4G that
many subscribers will see in the next 12-to-18 months, you also see the long arm
of the law try to smack down any semblance of differentiated services.
My view has always been that regulators have it fundamentally wrong by trying to
regulate at the network level instead of the service level. I have to wonder if
being in a 4G world will make the current thinking we have about legislation and
regulation seem pretty silly, or if government entities will continue their
crusade to try to equalize Internet access.
4G changes the regulation game
I believe 4G will be a game changer when it comes to regulation. With the
possibility of blazing fast speeds coming to smartphones, is there any sense
forcing legislation that would prevent customers' ability to pay for better
classes of service?
If during the recent healthcare debate in the U.S., President Barack Obama said
everyone is going to get basic government-provided healthcare with no option for
private care, you can bet there would be rioting in the streets. Take a look at
other types of markets that offer different levels of service and quality. You
don't see regulators stepping in if someone wants to pay more to get their
package to its destination faster, or if they want to get premium options for
their new car.
But that's essentially what net neutrality proponents are saying about
communications. Is this mentality really going to serve a world where people are
eager and willing to pay for subscription services that give them HD-quality
video with the highest service quality levels and speeds? Do providers really
want to be forced into a position of having to decline this potential new
business and new revenue streams because short-sighted bureaucrats passed a law
saying they couldn't charge premium prices for premium services?
Network carriers straddle monopoly and competitive markets
So we find ourselves in this bifurcated world where we have network carriers
that tend toward a natural monopoly in a low competition type of market, and
well as an incredibly buoyant, competitive world sitting right on top of it
delivering new services and doing clever things. What is the boundary between
the two? Is it merely all-you-can-eat IP packages, or is it a much more rich and
complex boundary where underlying enabling technologies are provided by enabling
technology suppliers that may not all be like AT&T or Verizon. Instead, they
could be companies like Apple, Amazon or Google.
Down the road, service providers could even become part of these new technology
players or divisions of them, or there might be a whole host of new companies
that enter the picture to deliver services.
What would be the role of regulation in these situations and in others we can't
even imagine today? My sense is to say that even though we've just been through
the worst recession in living memory, fundamentally Adam Smith was right that
regulators, government, lawyers and other meddlers of various sorts, when they
seek to distort or change markets, might get it right for a short period of
time. But ultimately, the market itself is the only regulating mechanism that
truly matters.
So I say let the market run as the market wants to run; I don't see any
advantage in distorting it. If someone is prepared to pay for investing in a
high-quality infrastructure to deliver high-quality services to customers
willing to pay for high-quality services, then why not let them do just that?
Letting the communications chips fall where they may
Some people will argue that if you let the market run as it wishes, you'll end
up with a monopoly for communications services. On the other hand, the
monopolies that existed in the past -- especially in the U.S. -- were sanctioned
by law. You weren't allowed to run up against the phone company, and even if you
could, there were so many rules and regulations about how to interconnect with
them that it just wasn't worthwhile. It took MCI a huge amount of time, money
and effort to break through to compete with AT&T, for example.
I haven't quite worked out what the net neutrality people are worried about. Do
they think premium-grade service will be available only for AT&T's traffic,
while Google's will be stuck in the slow lane? If that's the case, it's
relatively easy to solve.
With the limitless desire for information in today's world, and the better and
faster network availability that will be standard for so many customers, there's
never been a better time to step back and let the market chips fall where they
may.
[Procure "posts" antigos e novos sobre este tema no Índice Geral do BLOCO] ComUnidade WirelessBrasil