North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
- From: Tom Vest
- Date: Sat Nov 12 20:04:54 2005
On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Is cost-based regulation so bad for critical, non-substitutable
infrastructure? That's how the US market got flat-rate Internet access.
Are you suggesting a return to cost-based regulation? At one time
No, I'm not, actually I think that the answer to my question was: "All
prices were regulated based on air mile distance.
bits cost the same to push inside 'my' network" (where 'my' is
single entities network, and the cost is for that entity).
Is flat-rate the same thing as "making some people pay for more than
There no such thing as a market price for critical, non-substitutable
infrastructure. Most markets/regulatory jurisdictions around the
world don't have / never had any cost-based pricing requirements for
network infrastructure, and in most of those markets the "market
price" of infrastructure inputs is somewhere between 90-200% of the
projected revenue potential that the infrastructure creates. That's
why there are so few operators/ASNs in most countries -- there's very
little upside for non-telcos -- and one of the reasons that markets
like the US spawned so many infrastructure users.
MCI Friends & Family charged different rates for phone calls
good question, I think all of the examples though have on thing in
whether the person you called was also a MCI customer. Was MCI
interfering with people calling AT&T customers by charging a
rate? Level 3 charges different rates for "on-net" versus "off-net"
traffic. Is Level 3 illegally interfering with people accessing
other ISPs buy charging more? Many cell phone companies offer "free"
minutes when you call other people in your plan. Is Verizon
interfering with other cell phone companies by charging more? Or
of this cases, are they actually charging some people less? How
decide what is a "discount" or a "surcharge"?
all the 'discount' is on 'local' traffic (local to the network),
differential is applied to 'non-local' traffic. This sort of goes
point that inside a network bits all cost the same, its the external
places that cost more... Are the folks advocating making content
pay for 'access' to their customers willing to stand up competing
locally? (something to keep their customers who lose access to
really care about)
That may be where the Internet is headed in the absence of some major
trend shift, but is that where it should go, where we want it to go?