[afnog] Re: Request for input: The Working Group on InternetGovernance

[Chip Sharp]

Hmm.  is this thread moving off-topic?
:-)

***Disclaimer***
The opinions expressed below are mine and do not necessarily reflect 
the opinions of my employer, Cisco Systems.


At 11:25 AM +0100 11/18/04, <Robert.Shaw at itu.int> wrote:
>
...snip...
>Watch what they do and not what they say... Remember when Powell said they
>wouldn't let Worldcome collapse. And now that VoIP threatens a US 
>multi-billion
>dollar intercarrier compensation scheme, rural subsidies, etc. it'll be it a
>real litmus test for those who argue they are free market absolutists. But
>the reality of political compromise necessary to shift to a new FCC 
>legislative
>regulatory framework in the US (e.g. this congressman wants rural subsidies)
>pre-assures that the outcome will be not be the liberalization dream that some
>people think it will be...
...snip...

Agreed in principle... we (in the US) are watching a number of 
proceedings before the FCC. For example, they just ruled that Vonage 
is not subject to (some) state regulations.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-267A1.pdf
They have yet to rule on the more general "IP-enabled Services" 
(federal regulations).

>e.g., see
>http://www.yankeegroup.com/public/home/research_showcase.jsp?ID=11788

This seems to be the current common wisdom, replacing last month's 
common wisdom. :-)
...snip...

>But there are also those who are now saying that the origins of the
>current telecom debacle and the oceans of red ink lies in the historical
>trend of deregulation put into place during the last 20 years. The
>belief was that a golden age of competition was going to emerge
>where prices would fall, innovative services would be quickly
>deployed, and there would be plenty of competition and profits
>for everyone. The critics are contending just the opposite has
>happened. They are saying that telecommunications deregulation has
>failed to live up to its promises, just as it has in the airline,
>banking, and energy industries. Instead of liberalization and
>privatization, it has produced cartels or oligopolies. Instead of
>competition, it has produced cooperation and consolidation. Remember
>after the US 1996 Telecom Reform Act, the US had eight local phone
>companies; how many are there today? four? three?

It depends on what you call a local phone company.  The US did have 
8-9 large Local Exchange Carriers (RBOCs, Sprint & GTE).  But it also 
had several hundred smaller, independent LECs. Four of the 8 large 
companies are still around.  There are still several hundred small, 
independent LECs.  There are also a number of mobile wireless 
companies that people are using for local phone service (given, many 
of them are ultimately owned by the remaining RBOCs). The cable MSOs 
are offering local phone service (e.g., Time Warner, Comcast, Cox). 
Companies like Vonage, AT&T, etc. are providing local phone service 
over customers' broadband Internet connections (see 
http://www.searchbug.com/related.aspx/local-phone-service for more, 
or just Google on "Local Phone Service" AND USA).  And long-distance 
charges have dropped to the point where long-distance is now 
basically a bundle option on top of local service.

And this doesn't include the multitude of end-to-end IP options 
(e.g., IM Voice Chat, peer-to-peer VoIP, VoIP on gaming systems, 
etc.).  As broadband becomes more ubiquitous, people find they don't 
necessarily need a "local phone company" to talk to each other.

[And speaking of airlines, several new airlines with new business 
models are growing and are profitable (e.g., Southwest Airlines, 
JetBlue) while the "major" carriers are struggling to change business 
models.]

This is doubtless a painful and messy process.  Who will survive and 
become profitable?  If I knew I'd be buying their stock ...:-).  Your 
comment above about regulation is still true.  Regulation is an 
unknown variable in the equation.  One extremely important role the 
ITU can take (and is taking) is supporting education.  Many 
regulators (& government officials) don't know enough about IP or the 
Internet to make informed decisions. Witness some countries' attempts 
to block certain ports at their boundaries to stop VoIP or SPAM. 
Many of these folks see the ITU as a trusted advisor.

The WSIS (& WGIG) was something dreamed up by ITU Member States 
(i.e., governments), not the private sector interests (Sector 
Members). I can't imagine anything coming out of WSIS or WGIG that is 
going to help the Internet run more smoothly or scale better.  If you 
have some ideas, please let me know and I'll support it. [The 
education work is one possible area]

Maybe I'm dreaming, but I think the Internet needs less Governance 
and more Stewardship, from whatever group is involved.  To extend a 
list from a posting from Randy (referenced in this thread), there 
seem to be only a few basic functions that are needed
	- coordinate allocation of address space to the RIRs
	- maintain the DNS root zone file
	- Maintain number assignment registries, e.g.,
		* Port Numbers
		* Protocol IDs
		* etc.


Chip