Search Results for: itsworld

Allocating spectrum, the radio waves on which wireless technologies depend, is a multifaceted challenge for policy makers across the globe.

Each determination requires a balancing of interests: who should get to use radio frequencies; in what areas; for how long; for what purpose; under what conditions. Spectrum policy must consider consumer and corporate interests, and national economic policy.

Governments taking too much of a “hands-off” approach could lead to interference across spectrum bands, undermining valuable uses of wireless technologies; too much intervention could stifle innovation and competition by artificially raising prices, or allocating spectrum to operators with insufficient incentives or abilities to invest.

A couple of weeks ago, I noticed that New Zealand had once again decided to allocate mid-band spectrum to its 3 national mobile operators at no charge in order to help drive more rapid deployment of 5G. Two years ago, New Zealand cancelled its planned auction of 3.5GHz spectrum and simply assigned 40 MHz to Dense Air, 60 MHz to Spark, and 60 MHz to 2degrees. New Zealand’s approach stands as an interesting contrast to the multi-billion dollar spectrum auctions in so many other jurisdictions.

The International Telecommunications Society is hosting its final webinar of 2022, Driving Digital Transformation: International Comparisons of Spectrum Policy [pdf, 143KB] on November 15, 2022 at 9:30 am (Eastern).

Spectrum policy requires taking stock of international experiences to expand the pool of knowledge and identify global best practices. While no two jurisdictions are entirely alike, drawing on the global experience in the design of spectrum is critical to ensure that nations can benefit fully from their spectrum resources. Featuring four international experts, this webinar will compare international spectrum policies, including assignment mechanisms, deployment conditions, and governance frameworks. In doing so, these global experts will reveal lessons for governments and others involved in spectrum policymaking, as well as the implications for the global digital transformation.

The speakers are:

• Dr. Helaina Gaspard, co-founder and Director, Governance & Institutions, of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at the University of Ottawa. Her work centres on key actors of fiscal ecosystems, while leveraging relationships with partners such as the World Bank, the National Governors Association, the OECD and the International Budget Partnership. The IFSD recently completed a report for comparing spectrum assignment mechanisms across countries.
• Dr. Marja Matinmikko-Blue, Research Director of Infotech Oulu Institute and Director of Sustainability and Regulation of 6G Flagship at the University of Oulu. She coordinated the writing of twelve 6G White Papers that were published and led the development of the White Paper on 6G Drivers and the UN SDGs. Marja has published over 170 scientific papers.
• Dr. Petrus Potgieter, Professor in Decision Sciences at the University of South Africa and a researcher at the Institute for Technology and Network Economics. He conducts research on the impact of new technologies to the economy, policy and society. Petrus is a board member of the ITS, and editorial board member of the Journal of Telecommunications Policy.
• Ms. Janette Stewart, senior spectrum expert at Analysys Mason, with 25 years’ experience in radio engineering, wireless technologies, spectrum policy and spectrum management. Prior to 2001 she worked for the UK Radiocommunications Agency (now Ofcom). Janette’s expertise lies in mobile, wireless and broadband technologies and markets.

Registration for the webinar is free.

Is re-imagined competition law the answer to concerns about Big Tech getting to be just too big?

That is the subject of an upcoming webinar hosted by the International Telecommunications Society (ITS). In a recent LinkedIn post, Stephen Schmidt, Vice-President Telecom Policy & Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel at TELUS, and Chair of ITS, writes:

Over the past decade, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have become the most valuable companies on the planet. These platforms have transformed our economic and social lives, enabling e-commerce, teleworking, video streaming, virtual healthcare, and more. Notwithstanding these benefits, this meteoric rise has raised concerns that Big Tech has become too big.

He asks if competition law, applied to Big Tech, might be a way to protect consumer privacy, enforce data protection, and ensure freedom of expression.

To that end, on September 15 now rescheduled to take place on October 20 at 10am (Eastern), ITS will host Big Digital Tech and the International Application of Competition Law. Registration is free.

Dr. Robert Picard, a senior fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, will consider the potential and trade-offs for applying competition law to control big tech. Professor Picard is considered to be a world-leading specialist on media economics and government media policies. Drawing on global experience and international variations in the application of competition law, the webinar will consider mechanisms for intervention, overlaps with other areas of regulations, and possible obstacles to a more ambitious use of competition law to promote and protect digital rights.

As I have highlighted before, I have taken advantage of continuing education opportunities from the International Telecommunications Society, and I have promoted many of these webinars on these pages. ITS serves as “a global platform for industry, policy makers and regulators to create a 360-degree view of an issue from the perspective of different regions and jurisdictions.”

I hope to see you at the September 15 session.

A number of times over the past two years, I have promoted the webinar series from the International Telecommunications Society. There is a very special session coming up in a few weeks, and I encourage you to register early.

Vint Cerf, one of the leading creators of the earliest foundations of the internet, will be speaking about “The Future of the Internet”, looking at policy issues that have arisen with the growth of the internet and its new applications, and looking ahead to the future impact and implications of the online world.

The session is being hosted by TELUS and Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

The future of the internet is the future of humanity. What was once a tool, is now an inescapable part of our lives and livelihoods. It is ever more ubiquitous and complex, consistently creating challenges for which there are no easy answers. From fake news and deepfakes to privacy and data protection, the internet has created wicked problems alongside its immense potential to continue transforming humanity.

Where once the job of an internet evangelist may have been to persuade people of the value of getting online, now their job is to persuade us that the torrent of online challenges is not only surmountable, but that the answer is more connectivity, not less.

The one hour session will take place at 9:00am (Eastern) on April 12, 2022 and there is no charge. Register today!

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic period, I have taken advantage of continuing education opportunities from the International Telecommunications Society (ITS), and I have promoted many of its sessions on this blog. ITS serves as “a global platform for industry, policy makers and regulators to create a 360-degree view of an issue from the perspective of different regions and jurisdictions.”

I want to highlight another webinar coming up in just over 3 weeks (November 22, at 8 am Eastern). It is especially timely as the new government in Canada prepares to reintroduce legislation to regulate “Big Tech” and internet content.

The role of digital platforms and how to regulate them has become the new frontier for regulators and policy maker around the world. There is a tension between competition, choice, and consumer protection on the one hand, and innovation, investment incentives and entrepreneurial freedom on the other.

“Digital Policies – an East-West Perspective” will discuss approaches to digital platform regulation in the US, Canada, Europe, South Korea, and Japan. This webinar will highlight the most important aspects of this topic:

• Alexandre de Streel, academic co-director of CERRE and professor at Namur University, will present a European perspective;
• Seongcheol Kim, Director and professor at the School of Media and Communication, Korea University, Seoul, will share insights into the discussion in South Korea;
• Seiji Ninomiya, Director General of the Telecommunications Bureau at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), Tokyo, will present Japan’s approach; and
• Michael H. Ryan, Principal at MHRyan Law (London), will provide insights on how digital policy compares in North America and Europe.

The session will be moderated by Georg Serentschy, a past chair of BEREC, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications.

Michael Ryan is a familiar name to the Canadian regulatory scene, having literally written the book on Canadian telecommunications law. It is certain to be an interesting session, of relevance to Canadians who are watching for the government’s digital legislation.

Registration is free.

The International Telecommunications Society met in Perth, Australia earlier this week. Last year’s conference was in Montreal. There was an interesting paper [ pdf, 57KB] examining wireless payment models presented by Sandy Levin, co-authored by Stephen Schmidt of TELUS.

The paper contrasted the benefits of Wireless Party Pay (WPP) models (in use in the US, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore) with Calling Party Pay (CPP) models (in use in most of the rest of the world).

CPP was put in place to encourage the adoption of mobile phones. A mobile phone owner could get a phone and keep it on and receive unlimited calls at no charge. The calling party paid, and the calling party, rather than the receiving party, would decide if the call was worth the price. This did encourage the adoption of mobile phones, but it required a separate mobile code so the calling party knew he was being charged.

The paper notes that CPP has resulted in high rates, especially for call termination, because service providers were permitted to exploit the market power resulting from their call termination bottleneck.

For whatever reason, regulators may have correctly found retail service to be competitive and as such, they did not regulate the prices of retail service. However, regulators in CPP countries have only started to turn their attention to the price of call termination even though it was a bottleneck giving the service provider exploitable market power.

The paper also has an observation about super-normal mobile penetration rates:

What is measured is the number of SIM cards. Partly because of high pricing, many customers in these countries have more than one SIM card. A visitor to a country who purchases a SIM card is also counted. All of this serves to overstate penetration rates in these countries, evidenced in part by suspiciously high “penetration” rates, often over 100%. The significantly lower penetration rates in the U. S. and Canada, where SIM cards are less common and where individuals generally have only one mobile telephone number, are a more accurate measure of actual penetration because it is closer to a measure of the number of individuals who have mobile service than in countries that count SIM cards.

The paper ends with an interesting conclusion. In countries that retain CPP, call termination rates will need on-going regulation because, even though mobile service might competitive at the retail level, mobile service providers can exploit the call termination bottleneck.