Light Reading had a story last week called “How will telcos avoid me-too TV”, that seems to agree with statements that I have made about the need for telephone companies to differentiate their IP-TV products from cable TV offerings.
For example, last October, I asked “Will telcos use such disruptive approaches to video, or choose to do battle on the cable companies’ home turf with broadcast TV?”
Last August, I suggested that telcos might try a disruptive approach:
There is another way. Change the rules of the game. Think of Captain Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Faced with an no-win scenario in the Star Fleet academy, then cadet James Kirk found a way around the test by reprogramming the simulation, thus changing the conditions of the contest. In doing so, Kirk defeated the Kobayashi Maru scenario, and went on to fame as a Starfleet captain.
We will be looking at IP-TV during a special break-out session on Monday June 11 at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit. I wonder if any of the panelists will refer to Captain Kirk.
As I mentioned in my posting last Monday, the first day of the Executive Development Program at University of Toronto featured network neutrality presentations by Lawson Hunter of Bell and Professor Andrew Clement of U of T’s Faculty of Information Studies.
Both speakers expressed concern about the loaded nature of the terminology – and the definition itself. Net Neutrality is a term that evokes images of mom and apple pie: who could oppose it?
But there are definitional challenges – is there even a common understanding of what is meant by the term “net neutrality”?
Professor Clement rejects the view by some that net neutrality carries with it a requirement to treat all packets equally. He favoured a Lessig/McChesney definition set out as “like content must be treated alike.”
Andrew suggested principles for a neutral internet:
Basic broadband service
Broadband network operators should provide “Basic Access Broadband,” a meaningful, neutral Internet connectivity service, capable of handling all major application classes. Beyond providing this level of service, operators would be free to determine all service parameters.
Common carriage
Broadband network operators should maintain a strict separation between network carriage infrastructures and the content and services offered over them. They must ensure nondiscriminatory access and interconnection to competitors, including municipalities and public utilities, as well as data and content service providers.
Open
Network infrastructures at all layers should be based on open architectures, standards and protocols, especially for interconnection and interoperability with other networks and devices.
Transparent
Network operators should make available to customers, citizens and oversight bodies in clear and understandable terms their service offerings, prices, terms of inter-connection and peering agreements, as well as other aspects of their operation of vital public interest. Where operator actions may impair service, they need to provide clear notice and justifications.
Privacy protective
In keeping with legislative requirements and common carrier principles, network operators should keep personal information secure and under customer control. No ‘back-doors’ and deep packet inspection. Surveillance activities should be strictly limited in scope and demonstrably lawful.
Accountable
Network operators should be held accountable to legitimate and effective public bodies charged with promoting the public interest. Any regulations developed should be clearly justifiable for meeting core societal goals, including affordability, universality, equity, safety and national sovereignty.
Thoughts? There was quite a lively discussion on Monday at the EDP.
Some even suggested that the network equipment providers couldn’t or wouldn’t handle all these requirements, such as the requirement for adherence to open standards at all layers.
It reminded me of a time in the early 1980’s that equipment providers suggested that equal access wasn’t possible – the US didn’t buy that argument then. Let’s face it. If policy makers dictate certain capabilities as a mandatory requirement, then suppliers will develop the equipment accordingly or new suppliers will be found.
The issue is more fundamental – why should these requirements be imposed by regulation?
Each principle can and should be examined separately – why can’t market forces continue to drive internet development?
In my view, the internet has flourished without imposing limitations on degrees of freedom for service providers and equipment suppliers. Why risk regulating that which has flourished without?
As Lawson Hunter subtitled his presentation: is Net Neutrality “A Questionable Solution in Search of a Problem.”
Presumptive regulation interferes with market forces [and] therefore should only be used where/when proven necessary.
A couple months ago, I wrote about Stanford’s Clean Slate initiative to look at how the internet should be redesigned, if we started all over again.
Saturday’s Globe and Mail had a story by Christopher Dreher that followed up on the initiative. Untangling the World Wide Web dares to put forward what it acknowledges is a heretical question:
Should we throw out the Web and start over?
Why do we need to revisit the current architecture of the internet? Among other reasons, the public internet has too many variables, including security issues and blips in connectivity. According to Nick McKeown, the project leader of Clean Slate:
If air-traffic control were run over the public Internet, then I wouldn’t fly.
Repeating my question from last March: Who will lead Canada’s participation in examining a clean slate for the internet?
With the federal government’s new science and technology initiative announced last week, perhaps Canada can focus some attention on this kind of important fundamental research.
Today’s posting veers a little off the telecom path, and returns me to my statistics roots. I hope you will grant me a little indulgence. After all, it is a holiday weekend – and a beautiful one at that.
Spending so much time last week on campus at University of Toronto made me reminisce about my youthful enchantment with mathematical statistics.
He directed my attention to an interesting statistical tool newly available through Google: Gapminder’s Trendalyzer. Gapminder is a non-profit venture that has been developing free software to help visualize various factors in human development.
Gapminder and Google share an enthusiasm for technology that makes data easily accessible and understandable to the world. Gapminder’s Trendalyzer software unveils the beauty of statistics by converting boring numbers into enjoyable interactive animations. We believe that Google’s acquisition of Trendalyzer will speed up the achievement of this noble goal.
It is a powerful presentation tool that enables animated graphic representations of global population development data.
Play around with it. I found it especially interesting to look at pairings of countries and play the yearly trend views over time. Check out plots of personal income with China and India isolated to get a perspective on their growing impact.
Last Thursday, the Prime Minister, accompanied by Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, the Finance Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, announced Canada’s new national science and technology (S&T;) strategy, Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage.
The strategy is designed to boost private sector investment in research and development and enrolment in university science and engineering programs
Our new strategy will create high quality jobs in the science and technology sector, improve our standard of living and quality of life, and build a stronger economy and a stronger Canada for future generations
We may hear more details when Industry Minister Maxime Bernier will be the closing speaker at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit on June 13.
