Search form

Comments (5)

avatar

Sérgio Alves Jr. (not verified) September 07, 2012

Dear Vlada, Thanks for the text. It's very useful for those who are concentrated for WCIT. The idea of a business layer is a good sum of the proposal. One observation, to the extent of my knowledge, no country has supported ETNO's proposal until now, and Europe is opposed to it, as you mentioned. Don't you think it's stillborn? It seems to me that the chances of it being reflected in the ITRs are really low. Abraços, Sérgio
avatar

Jefsey MORFIN (not verified) September 07, 2012

The internet has already several ways to build formal and informal "externets" (i.e. "open closed garden" if you want to keep using the IETF language). The target of its commercial sponsors (cf. RFC 3869) is to keep it under their control, so multiples legal externets is something they oppose. The IUse (Intelligent Use) of the digital resources does not oppose global externets (i.e. specific terms of quality/price), but oppose local barriers within global externets (or the internet, if there is only one externet as in the case of the today internet). This is because globality is an internet services (plural) feature. In deciding that the Internet technology was to be "market accepted" and not "people centered" (as per the WSIS) ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C and IEEE have not left us with any other altenative that to use ITU to impose democracy in quality grades. The problem is the resulting pricing on quality rather than on best effort: the developped countries will make less money in poor countries (permitting them to invest). As everywhere it is short term corporates' against long term people's (and corporates'?) interest .
avatar

Vladimir Radunovic September 10, 2012

Sergio, very good point. ETNO is not a delegate and as such can not submit a proposal for ITR amendment. Yet, they can search for support of other countries. I tweeted your question to Mr. Gambardella of ETNO, and he responded: "We are promoting our proposal and we believe that a lot of countries will support us". Why are they confident? Net neutrality is just the part of the proposal; its much wider effect is a change in the internet economic model: a change from "peering" and "end users pay" (which thus far benefited to the US/west companies mostly and unfair for developing markets) to a more balanced system of "sending party pays" asking content providers to pay instead (that would benefit developing markets more). The proposed model certainly also has lots of drawbacks, but we can expect number of developing countries can support this substantial change - and thereby possibly the model of "multi-tier Internet" as well. And if they do, the opposition from US or EU would not mean much in their international agreements with countries that accept such a model! As I said, contemporary diplomacy is becoming very interesting! One other thing in this proposal is worth exploring more: economic model based on "value of bits" rather than "quantity of bits". Asks for a comprehensive analysis!
avatar

Hisham Aboulyazed (not verified) September 12, 2012

For better or for worse, the ETNO proposal projects a deeper problem that have developed and presided for some time...WCIT is just the weak spot in the lithosphere where things are finally allowed to erupt. There have always been tensions inside ITU between interests of the 'global south' and of the west-sponsored businesses (ITU-T Recommendation D-156 on Network Externalities is a clear very relevant example--ended up adopted in Johannesburg in 2008 with Reservations of 28 mostly western countries). But ETNO is not actually part of that global south, it is the European operators organization, not the African or Arab. Nor is it a regulation-loving government that wants to get more influence or leverage. I think the ETNO proposal has some good prospects being supported at the WCIT (in whole or in part) for it offers for the first time a business approach that also reflects the concerns of several countries...let's hope there is enough innovation at OTTs and Telcos to come up with new business models that would still preserve the integrity of the network.
avatar

Adela Danciu (not verified) October 02, 2012

I think the key issue here is the one you identified: new business model. As Huston also argued in the article referred to by Vlada, it all comes down to how to ensure the business sustainability and ultimately the profit. And it is not the role of state(s) and regulation to endorse business models, but rather to create the economic and social environment to allow for innovation, including in the way a company conducts its business, while safeguarding public interest (and not a particular economic interest).

Leave a comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Scroll to Top