Friday 30 September 2011

The Many Flavors of Multistakeholderism








On the occasion of the latest edition of the IGF that just took place in Nairobi and in general on this debate on Internet Governance I gathered that the word “multistakeholder” has different meanings for different people.

It is indeed kind of funny how after almost 9 years of the reached consensus on this concept at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) most of us still are supporters of the concept and agree that it is through the participation of all relevant actors that Internet Governance should be dealt with. There was consensus back then and still is now. In 2003 when every government, civil society, private sector or technical community delegation went back home, rubbed his or her hands and said, “We won”. The funny thing is that everybody thought the same.  (By the way, the fact is everybody won).

Magic word that did the trick for so many years.  What really happened back then (as it happens in many International Summits) was that a very ingenious group of people found a word that made everybody happy and could end up in a neat declaration where everybody could shake hands and smiled at the camera for the final picture.

Have you asked yourself why would it be debatable to say that “everybody” is entitled to govern the Internet? It didn’t matter if you were a government of a small and least developed country, or an Internet activist, an international organization, a big multinational corporation, a geek, a NGO or simply an individual, you were a stakeholder and could be a part of Internet governance. It is like saying that we all want the world peace or that all children are allowed to go to school.  

What is the problem then?

However, as the years passed each party realized that what they meant by multistakeholderism was not the same other parties thought about it.  What seemed as a positive sum game is at risk of becoming a zero sum game with many undesirable side effects for the development of the web.

Clever and convenient back then but apparently cannot be stretched any further if we are not able to come to a consensus of what we mean by multistakeholderism or better if we are not able to see that undue intervention may change things in an undesirable way.

Are we back in square one? Why are we still debating who should control de Internet or who should run the Internet? It is running and the beauty of it is that no one controls the Internet. 

I am myself (I confess) a biased liberal international-economist who believes that governments should only intervene when a market failure occurs.  We all know the Internet flourished without any central promotion or regulation. It is working quite well and it is actually helping many governments in the world to achieve many economic, political and social goals, without doing almost anything.  The Internet as it is provides a great environment for innovation, which has allowed for the creation of magnificent platforms and applications not only for individuals but also for governments and corporations.  This is helping economies to grow, governments to become more democratic and transparent, business to reach more customers and countries to develop.

If you think about it carefully the public interest concerns in the Internet are not Internet problems themselves. As Vint Cerf has stated the Internet is a mirror of the population that uses it.

"If you stand in front of a mirror and you don't like what you see, it does not help to fix the mirror."

Being a stakeholder does not mean (by no means) that you should be controlling that one thing you have stakes or interests in. It means you should participate in a collaborative fashion with your other stakeholders or partners. Sometimes being a stakeholder would only mean to remain attentive of the evolution of things. 

To put it in plain and simple language: If something is working, why fix it?

If you are from the government, civil society, private sector, technical community, academic sector and are genuinely interested in the development of the Internet there is one thing that you can do: Get Involved Now and Do not Try to Reinvent the Wheel.  We are all part of the Internet ecosystem, just relax and enjoy the ride. 

Monday 30 May 2011

A Best Practice: To Establish Principles for Internet Governance

In the recent months the Internet Governance debate has gain particular attention. Not only for what was observed in Middle East countries but also for what is being discussed in international organizations. The IGF scope is being revised, developed countries at the G8 are analyzing what type of model of Internet governance should be adopted by governments.

In my recent visit to Brazil to the Comite Gestor da Internet no Brasil (a multistakeholder organization) I realized how important is for any particular country to have on one hand an organization that includes all stakeholders involved in Internet governance (from the government to the technical community, the ccTLD, etc.) and on the other hand to have already developed a series of consensus based principles to guide the processes related to the many issues that surround the Internet governance debate.

These principles are not new. They were published a couple of years ago but they remain valid and updated.

Here is a link to such principles.

For the Latin American region -as one of my colleagues from the Internet Technical Community has pointed out- there are good conditions to advance a regional initiative of this sort.

Tuesday 12 April 2011

A new Title for my Blog

So... if you happen to enter to my blog you may notice the title has changed (not the URL).

I changed the word "regulation" to "governance". Two reasons. First one, the concept "governance" covers more than "regulation". Regulation usually refers to a series of actions performed by an authority, while governance -although it may entail some sort of government intervention- includes the participation of other relevant stakeholders. Second. I no longer work for a regulator. Hope you enjoy the twist.

Saturday 25 September 2010

Latin America Internet Governance Experts

After my recent visit to Montevideo in Uruguay to discuss the eLAC initiative led by ECLAC, I realized that there is a quite strong basis of Internet Governance experts in the region. It was really a wonderful experience to see that these experts come not only from government representatives but also from the (so called) technical community, civil society and the private sector.

When we first met in Geneva for the prepcom meeetings of WSIS only very few people around the world were acquainted with the concept itself. No government or stakeholder knew where the discussion or debate should focus. Perhaps that is why we were only able (sounds easy..but it was not)to come out with these 4 principles of internet governance: multilateral, democratic, transparent and multistakeholder.

The priniciples still hold and everyone in the negotiating table were really involved and had a deep understanding of them. Some (unaware) tried to raise old discussions on the subject but automatically (not really) things were back where they belong.

Needs to be said that ECLAC at a very early stage of the post WSIS process made a substantial contribution in building a theoretical framework to understand all of the sectors and concepts involved in the information society.

By the way digital agendas are also evolving well...

Tuesday 7 September 2010

Technology, Innovation and Competition... Virtues of the Internet World

Vertical Separation and Apps

I was thinking the other day how the new model of "apps" may trigger the so called vertical separation between content providers and carriers...

Guess what? The model is pretty much on its way. No regulation was needed. I (and yourself and everybody) may now downolad an app (content) from our mobile device without any apparent "authorization" or "approval" from our mobile carrier.

As long as the app developer has managed to make it through apple (iphone) or RIM (blackberry)or anyother, we may have the content or app we want.

Competition, again, is the key issue. Competition in the app market is pretty much guaranteed. There are thousands of app developers. Competition in the devices market that allow the apps to run should not become a bottle neck. Innovation is there. Besides BB and iPhone, Motorola, Nokia, Sony Ericcson may all compete and provide a more vigorous app market.

Competition in carriers...mmm there is plenty of room for improvement, but as long as they do not intervene in deciding what kind of apps may or may not be downloaded things will find their way.

The access market is still an issue. That is where regulators should participate. Then I should get back to work... Before that..


Convergence and the Apple TV (or the like)

Another issue for vertical separation. Since iTunes (an a few others)is a legal and accepted mean for downloading content I foresee for tv as we know it now to radically change in the near future.

It is well known that VoD (video on demand) is becoming more popular. The logic is pretty simple people want to watch what they want to watch when they want to. Perhaps only sports will become time sensitive..and news. Then why hire 200 channels if we are not going to watch them all the time.

If universal access to broadband becomes a reality and broadband speed increases, no one will have an incentive to subscribe to any pay tv offer. Why? What is that you want to watch? A movie? Choose it from iTunes (and probably from another platform) pay for it and download it, then use a device like apple TV (I do not work for apple ok?) and watch it on your tv set at your convenience. A soap opera? A drama or comedy series? Act accordingly.

News? Try youtube or perhaps all of the information and interactive news available in the Internet not only from big broadcasting corporations but also from independent means that are available in the Internet.

a Football match?... If broadband speed increases you may be able to watch it online.

Who wants to go to blockbuster anymore! Or to hire expensive pay tv packages... or even make a phone call (oops) through the PSTN?

I ll better go back to work.

Friday 13 August 2010

An Essay on Net Neutrality (Part 3.. that's it for now)

He also declared:

"I do see competition law as the answer to many of the issues."

I would agree that in the face of anticompetitive behavior content providers may assist to the competition law and build a case against blocking or shaping Internet competitive traffic. Nonetheless, that kind of “ex-post” regulation is applied once the anticompetitive conduct has been exercised (perhaps for a long time) and the harm is already done. Many casualties -like companies going out of business or a significant loss in consumers’ confidence- may occur.

This is where telecom “ex ante” regulation comes into picture: to prevent misconducts from regulated parties. It is precisely because of this issue that the institutional design for telecom regulation includes two regulators. On one hand, the so called “sectoral” regulator mandated with creating and maintaining a level playing field (ex ante) and on the other hand, a general competition authority with the aim of punishing observed anticompetitive behavior (ex post).

Now, let’s take a look of what kind of regulatory policies could be enacted to preserve the net neutrality principle.

Remedies

Improving Information Disclosure to Consumers

Assuming a scenario where there is sufficient competition in broadband access, network operators would have very little incentives to block or prioritize traffic without the user’s consent. Since what broadband operators are offering is a “big access pipe”, they will be more concern in offering greater bandwidth and less worried about content and applications, after all innovation at the edges of the network is happening at a very impressive pace and users are often surprised with all the things they can do on the net.

Nonetheless, despite some sort of competitive environment, lack of information may entail an important market failure. Many of the potentially negative issues -even associated with an Internet structure that may allow for some kind of traffic shaping- could be addressed by better information disclosure and consumer protection rules.


The net neutrality principle could be much better protected in markets where Internet users can make informed choices between competing broadband providers and are free to change provider in the face of unwanted blocking or traffic shaping. A principle in consumer protection policies is that users need to know exactly what they are buying. Signing up for a broadband connection should not be an exception.

An expedite way to intervene in this issue is for regulators to encourage or require a better disclosure from network operators or ISPs on the types of traffic shaping (if any) they may use, including information when there are services that are blocked or degraded to an extent that performance could suffer.

In the face of broadband packet shaping policies regulators should implement safeguards that include encouraging or requiring broadband providers to clearly state real-life broadband speeds and what percentage of the connection could be used for best-effort service.

Despite the usefulness of this kind of policies, little can be achieved to preserve net neutrality in the absence of sufficient competition or high switching costs.

Competition in Broadband Access

Following the OECD work in the analysis of Internet traffic prioritization, fostering competition in the broadband access market has been the main policy recommendation for its members. The OECD believes that the risk of anticompetitive behavior typically declines as the number of effective competitors in a market increases and of course, in line with this organization philosophy, it would not entail a direct intervention that could distort markets even further.

Therefore, the level of competition in the broadband market appears to be the most important factor a regulator takes into account to assess the need to implement safeguards against anti-competitive traffic prioritization. Nonetheless, defining the market to determine the level of competition is not as simple in broadband markets since data services may be available over multiple platforms.

In due course, regulators need to undertake a careful market analysis to determine whether consumers have effective choices for substitutable broadband Internet access.

But not only should regulators evaluate the available supply of broadband access providers. Consumers may find that changing operator implies a high switching cost. That switching cost may be the result of the high cost a competitive provider faces to -for example- pay the incumbent for an unbundled line.

Other challenging issues may arise from trying to foster competition in the broadband market. We should remember that the telecom sector was considered a natural monopoly with the existence of a public company that provided the access to the last mile. Even though there have been deep liberalization processes in most countries, it still remain incumbents with a strong dominant position.

There are only a handful of countries with sufficient level of competition in the broadband access market that could provide enough safeguards to discourage carriers to use their power to block or prioritize traffic on the net. Moreover, it could take many casualties until regulatory policies can be enacted to promote a level playing field in this market.

The challenge to preserve net neutrality is indeed a big one. Perhaps policy makers should try to translate the separation of the platforms from the services they convey into meaningful regulatory instruments that allow the consumer to make their own choices regarding communications content, services and applications.

A word for Latin America

Although there have been some discussions in Latin American countries towards net neutrality, the real debate and actions are taking place in developed countries. Latin American governments are still dealing with very strong incumbents even to promote competition in basic fixed and mobile telephony.

As we have just analyzed above the net neutrality principle is at a higher risk when concentrated broadband markets are observed. Even in developing countries such as in the US there is no sufficient competition in the broadband access market. As Cerf stated:

“For the foreseeable future most Americans will face little choice among broadband carriers. Enshrining a rule that permit carriers to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of sources of services would place those carriers in control of online activity. Allowing broadband carriers to reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need.”

“Most American consumers today have few choices for broadband service. Phone and cable operators together control 98 percent of the broadband market, and only about half of consumers actually have a choice between even two providers. Unfortunately, there appears to be little near term prospect for meaningful competition from alternative platforms. As a result, the incumbent broadband carriers are in position to dictate how consumers and producers can use the on-ramps to the Internet”.


Concentration in Latin American markets is much more acute. Liberalization processes started until very recently (well not that near) and there are many regulatory projects such as competitive tariff policies, local loop unbundling or number portability that have not yet been enforced, not to mention all of the issues surrounding the Internet.

Despite there appear to be more challenges in the Latin American region to preserve the net neutrality principle there are also many opportunities that arise from the fact that governments in Latin American have not defined a strong position towards Internet governance issues. Moreover, Internet in Latin American is viewed as an instrument that may help national governments to “leapfrog” to achieve some public policy goals that could not be fulfilled with the legacy PSTN.

While assessing risks and opportunities for the Latin America region to preserve the net neutrality principle we should consider the following:

• There is a risk to leave Latin-American governments to make inadequate public policy decisions without an appropriate understanding of what Internet governance should be (evangelize).
• Given the concentration in the different telecom markets in Latin-America, incumbent carriers have incentives to block or prioritize Internet traffic, jeopardizing net neutrality. Telecom regulators may appear as an ally for content providers in this particular issue (at least in Mexico).
• There is an area of opportunity to influence in Latin-American’s process to regulate (or not) the Internet.
• Internet is a “good guy” for governments in Latin-America since it is helping them to achieve some public policy goals.
• A revision of legal and regulatory frameworks (privacy, intellectual property, network regulation, content, etc.) in the region needs to be done, in order to assess whether new products or services available on the Internet are under a legal certainty environment.


If we do not pursue net neutrality the risk is that we may turn the Internet into a private network with centrally managed content which could only be uploaded or webcasted by major communication companies delivering the usual (very often bad quality) content we watch on open T.V., hence hampering innovation at the edges of the network.

Monday 9 August 2010

An Essay on Net Neutrality (Part 2)

...

This control, however, is limited to the user’s premises. Once it leaves the user’s modem the data flowing over the network will continue to be "best effort" with no service level guarantees.

At this point it may seem that “traffic prioritization” is not bad in itself. However, when it is used in an anticompetitive fashion it becomes problematic. So it really comes down to who should prioritize traffic in the Internet. According to what we have said it would be desirable to empower only the user to decide which applications should be prioritized. The question becomes then how to preserve net neutrality while improving the users’ experience on the net.

But the net neutrality debate is not limited to application providers and broadband access carriers. There is a more philosophical and enriching debate surrounding innovation and the Internet architecture itself. Recently, different views coming from the engineers that devised the software protocols of the Internet have emerged. Although they both coincide that the development of the net should have at its core consumer choice and innovation, they differ on the point where innovation should focus “on the net” or “at the edges of the net”. Cerf’s view:

“The remarkable success of the Internet can be traced to a few simple network principles –end to end design, layered architecture, and open standards- which together give consumers choice and control over their online activities. This “neutral” network has supported an explosion of innovation at the “edges” of the network, and the growth of companies like Google, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, and many others”.

Whereas Kahn:

“It is a slogan [net neutrality] […] what does net neutrality try to achieve? One model says that the network is just some transport vehicle of some sort and that all the important things take place in the boundaries […] organizations ought to be able to provide services and those services could include functionality that is provided within the net.”

I honestly believe that these views are not entirely incompatible; rather I would say that they are at some point complements. Kahn never argues against the end to end principle of the Internet but he is opposed of mandating that “nothing interesting can happen inside the net” meaning that experimentation at the edges shouldn't come at the expense of improvements elsewhere in the network. On the other hand, net neutrality advocates are not against improvements on the net itself but rather worried that changes in the original architecture of the Internet may hinder innovation on the edges or be used anticompetitively.

At the core of all this net neutrality debate is that -unlike other public interest issues that have arisen over the Internet- net neutrality advocates are claiming for some kind of government intervention to preserve the net neutrality principle. Say it again!! Government intervention in an Internet related issue?


Is there a need for regulatory intervention?

I recall reading or hearing "the private sector should lead". The reference was made by the Clinton Administration in 1998 for e-commerce but describing the progress made by Internet applications. Certainly, they were acknowledging that the Internet had flourished without any centralized promotion or regulation. This is not to say that the Internet was randomly created (rather it is the result of vision and initiative from many brilliant people). The point is that under a market economy, government intervention is only justified before a market failure and of course by 1998 no one had identified a market failure in the Internet.

But even before a market failure, how could national governments intervene given the global and open architecture features of the Internet? It is precisely this issue the main point of the discussion surrounding the Internet Governance debate worldwide. We do not attempt to discuss deeply Internet Governance in this paper, but we should highlight that defining government intervention in Internet related issues has not been an easy task.

For all of us who were trying to build a case for educated government intervention in the Internet, net neutrality provides fresh flesh for our analysis. Telecom regulators around the globe were systematically approached to take at least a public position on Internet Governance issues. In some of the issues, telecom regulators were endowed with sufficient powers (as mandated in their statutory documents) to address them, in others, there was a need to coordinate with one or more governmental agencies, and in others (perhaps the most) there was not (and still there is not) a public policy or clear mandate that could at least provide guidelines as to how governments should intervene.

There are two reasons that make net neutrality appealing for telecom regulation. The first one is that broadband access markets competition status involving licensed facilities-based carriers and ISPs fall within the remit of regulators; the second one is that perhaps for the first time regulators are expressively asked to intervene. But let’s not jump into any misleading conclusions and put this request of intervention in to perspective.

Advocates of net neutrality do welcome deregulation of telecommunications they only claim that legal and regulatory frameworks must preserve restricted elements of openness and non-discrimination:

“Google supports tailored, minimally-intrusive safeguards to promote net neutrality”.


When assessing what sort of government intervention should be applied to preserve net neutrality we can find a range of possibilities, from directly intervening by enacting laws or regulatory instruments that prohibit traffic shaping from anyone but the final user, to indirectly intervening and guarantying a level playing field that may assure an optimal functioning of markets, hence eliminating incentives to block or prioritize Internet traffic.

It looks like that directly forbidding blocking or shaping is not what a liberal government would follow for three main reasons. The first one is that this kind of intervention is not economically-correct. It is not the kind of policy that regulators usually pursue, since it does not seem as a market oriented mechanism to deal with a market failure. The second one is that, even if governments wanted to intervene directly by banning blocking or traffic shaping, enforcement mechanisms will not be efficient enough to assess whether a broadband provider is effectively complying with the mandate or acting anticompetitively.

The third one is that direct intervention could risk being incomplete or incorrect. As Cerf puts it for the US case:

“Both drafts include provisions requiring broadband providers to allow consumers to access content, applications, and services, and to connect devices. Both versions also contain a number of important exceptions to those duties, related to elements like value-added services and enhanced quality of service. Unfortunately, as written the exceptions in each of these bills are so broad that they undermine the underlying neutrality requirement.”


Furthermore, from the observed experience (mainly in developed countries) it does not seem to be a consensus in implementing policies to preserve net neutrality. Some governments, such as the UK, prefer to remain “neutral”. In November, 2006 OFCOM Chairman Lord Currie of Marylebone declared to leave content providers to negotiate premium deals with access providers if they want, while giving them the option of using competition law if they feel they are being turned over.

“…the crucial point is whether providers are attempting to force content providers to pay. A content provider going to a service provider and asking for a guaranteed level of service is OK. Access providers strong arming content providers into paying, is not OK.”

Friday 30 July 2010

An Essay on Net Neutrality (Part 1)

I wrote this essay a couple of years ago and published it in COFETEL's Bulletin (it was in Spanish though). I have divided it in three parts... Here is the first one:

NET NEUTRALITY

The Concept

Net Neutrality, what exactly does this mean? Well, it may suggest many different things. Perhaps at first glance it proposes that the Internet should be neutral. Neutral to whom or what? Geographically neutral? Language neutral? Open sourced? It may also imply that the Internet should be technologically neutral. Neutral to protocols? Neutral to the broadband access technology? DSL? Cable? FTTH? WiMAX? BPL? Neutral to the device. Laptop? Desktop? Smart-phone? Neutral to the content or application provider? Neutral to the communication it conveys? We are getting closer.

Well, it is simpler than it appears (at least for definition purposes). It is about preserving the end to end principle that has characterized the Internet. Net neutrality is about leaving the final user to freely choose the content available on the web. After all, the Internet has been by definition and architecture "neutral” and one need not seek permission from any carrier to publish anything on the web and make it available to users.

The end-to-end principle is meant to define the interactions between the network and its end points and it may have its origins back in 1981 in a paper called "End-to-end arguments in system design" by Saltzer, Reed and Clark. In this paper, a model is proposed where the intelligence and processing power of a network reside at the outer edges while the inner network itself remains as simple as possible.

More formal definitions attempting to describe the net neutrality concept state that all information networks should aspire to treat all content, sites and platforms equally, or that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first serve basis, without regard for Quality of Service (QoS) considerations. The opposite of network neutrality could be defined as network discrimination.

This principle, however, is not new for telecommunications. Carriers are not allowed to listen to your telephone conversations or decide who you should call or who you should not; calls are established as you dial. This may also go even before the telephone was invented. In the age of the telegraph there was some kind of regulation that mandated that messages should be neutrally transmitted in a first come first serve basis.

“...messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority.”

To grasp this concept better perhaps the best thing to do is to follow this link for a very didactic video from Public Knowledge I found in YouTube (of course, if your broadband service provider allows you to do so!).


The Debate

Even though defining the concept was not a difficult task (I hope) understanding the different views and positions towards net neutrality could be really complex.

Embracing the idea of an open Internet is almost a paradigm. Nonetheless, if we analyze in depth what an open Internet means to different stakeholders and how new Internet applications may threat legacy commercial interests, we may well be in front of a very vibrant debate in the core of the digital age.

Some claim that although technological innovations and increased bandwidth have allowed Internet users to access a great new variety of enhanced services and applications, the “best-effort” feature for carrying packages may be insufficient to provide the required QoS. In other words, the supporters of this argument regard differentiated levels of service as an opportunity to build QoS into networks and provide superior quality connectivity for time-sensitive applications such as voice and video.

Following this argument, new technologies that allow for traffic shaping may improve the users' experience on the web by improving QoS. For example, a user may want to prioritize Internet gaming traffic, instant messaging or VoIP over other type of content that is not time-sensitive.

On the other hand, net neutrality advocates stress that analyzing or shaping traffic before it gets to the final user -making changes to the current architectural model- may jeopardize the stability of the business models that have been successful on the Internet or worse, encourage anti competitive behavior for Internet service providers to block or degrade certain types of competitive traffic. And indeed traffic shaping within the network may jeopardize innovation and hamper the development of “the” tool to advance an information and knowledge society.

Tools to prioritize Internet traffic through home routers are also available. These traffic shaping technologies can be an effective tool towards improving QoS on a broadband connection, particularly if they are under the user’s control.

This equipment allows users to establish bandwidth priority levels for common applications and services. These devices are particularly popular with gamers and VoIP users since they allow certain applications to have priority through the router and out to the modem, particularly over other time-insensitive Internet traffic.

Sunday 25 July 2010

How to move from telecom to the Internet world..

For many understanding telecommunications is a requirement to getting acquainted in the Internet world. For others, not necessarily. The telecomm is becoming "legacy" and the IP world is ruling. So in the near future telecomm may become a thing of the past.

I believe the OECD has been capable of linking both but at the same time leaving each with its own special characteristics.

I suggest this link to follow the OECD work on Internet Governance and other relevant resources.

Friday 23 July 2010

IP addresses allocation vs Spectrum allocation

Here is a suggested paper for Internet economists:

It is called "Economic Factors in the Allocation of IP Addresses" and it is written by Dr. Milton Mueller. It draws upon the tragedy of the commons which I used previously to analize spectrum allocation mechanisms. Actually, there are many similarities and of course differences.

Pay special attention to "scarcity" and "private property rights"... in both, IP addresses and spectrum frequencies there may be inefficiencies from underexploitation of both...

Also, in the case of IP addresses there is IPv6 and in the case of spectrum there are new technologies that call into question the "scarcity" principle.

Hope you like it.

Monday 25 June 2007

ICANN Fellows

Here I am at the ICANN meeting in San Juan explaining what am I doing here.

Interesting thing: I am trying to build an educated public policy towards internet governance issues.

Wednesday 4 April 2007

Internet Governance



Mmmm perhaps looking for loosers and winners is not the best choice. Rather it seems to me that it is time for some forward looking approach to envision a new form of government intervention: lighter, democratic, inclusive, transparent and accountable. Try reading this article (it is in Spanish though and under page 5).

Tuesday 3 April 2007

Mobile Future



To make this happen a deep reform is needed in spectrum allocation mechanisms. See Werbach, Noam and Coase. There is a strong debate questionning traditional means to allocate spectrum. Coase did in fact solve the problem of pricing spectrum through competitive auctions (tragedy of the commons). However, technology has evolved and what may have characterized the spectrum: "scarcity", may no longer be the case.

There are many issues surrounding this discussion, but I will say that 2 main elements should be deeply analysed. The first one is "flexibility". When a user is granted spectrum frequencies, those are subject to specific services, and again technology may be capable of making those frequencies availabe for providing many wireless services different from those stated in the license. The second one is "exclusive property rights". Granting spectrum licenses to a particular firm gives such a company the exclusive right to exploit the frequencies in question, but what if technology provides for a more efficient use of those frequencies? what if those frequencies are under-exploited? This may lead to the "tragedy of the anticommons".

If you are interested in this debate follow this link here. If you speak spanish try reading this number of REGULATEL's publication.

Monday 2 April 2007

Fair Use



This gives "food for thought" on how intellectual property rights should evolve to allow innovation. Other questions arise: How to disseminate knowledge using ICTs? Should legal and regulatory frameworks change to foster innovative means to make information available to all?