Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism
"Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia@gmail.com> Sun, 21 October 2018 01:55 UTC
Return-Path: <mike.oghia@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB516130ED3; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y3RHbT9s8hCI; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8704130DD0; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id k132-v6so3642693ybc.2; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u8aB+ocuC2F2O9Qy8sYTmdtIvlss1tRDUNxSDfSUMfI=; b=PwUceKCNXSh5MGBhwccNGrZ+Nf208DzGQB5YlQzMbI9gyZi7kZFG0DWW8bftXYLTkQ LcsOjYzdg94aFrVrPYROY2ijtOnckAAnCdaJBkb7JQ06Rk9A+AuMztYM7uay4+7Irfxe sfVBZ8V7cDRKi1GW8nAEAq3CFo4OGCt1YLTeYIbLrClza9Z051FfXAGhCRr3kKonolQu 6rTwmL82qgcI/aX6Vyun430ZLjvjeWTA9g1E6f0sBVkdghLstsOFNhIEsFop0jS5TNnh wo/j6xqC7s+YTQr4G2N4fmNsGuFb43sZTM9Rn9yAHrSM0OAbnefdEEu/He8YwdW5mHgH Odig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u8aB+ocuC2F2O9Qy8sYTmdtIvlss1tRDUNxSDfSUMfI=; b=X5rIx0e/OKDO0oIJrZDKHkpdVkG9nebXOjkQST6VMZqkImo2E0131NCQbjoTTPvNOy /pURNfZVss8vwPtyXM0JGTTkuDzfgi5ctpKqF7U0Snm53qfl/Go98cnufVI7WuB9vU2m MuocOoBRM7jaOFG3fcAw0jvNih70AcY7XKhnxilSupWoC0Q/Szzs0+IUJzaCVqwPD2dH eqAvBwt6bNcueNt9Gi4UTPIFfY3vqIRJEewR96uFwAJa5WIM9fskRsm8QcieaZUz5Aic k4xUnVgi06kuXzhfKKG4361viaFTV+TR30L8h2uFHkoo24PJFN8FuL7ye9ILJ+KOSDRz 1QWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLf+XKjY6u4TXTyIMZHAxwuyRYylroPb81TQSv4gH51kXYpFH3T S+zmW4dRVDSSyC/yItNM24ghAFWhjSl4/xagQG4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5f33DklL0wR+TPkfiTPMBMjNLHBu1OP/Clgwc9BviH3IcyniF2DBK4tehJvUxsUwmutLSH4F1uNyyoQbcLh78k=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:9345:: with SMTP id g5-v6mr1496641ybo.101.1540086912753; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD_CWO2=WS0E5HSrLmxPaMtESV5CVe+oKWDCDst6K8=7i=UpTA@mail.gmail.com> <b88433a6-873d-2333-ee40-8011d0c7d145@article19.org> <CAD_CWO1aHsQh-Rmq0Pd7J5Hc35Qfs5+A--y9MCy3kHt_Qsz0AA@mail.gmail.com> <2e2991e8-e44b-d90f-5411-9e2c2fadddba@article19.org> <770B9455-BAC5-4131-A871-0678B949F61D@webfoundation.org> <CAMCMt7qTdChXg7u2Ag1xBcWh-W+176kxjEXj_2gxPCBTbnqXVg@mail.gmail.com> <2899a801-f595-ceaa-ccba-8860fc3c18fb@pangea.org> <3ee64859-50b9-8bf9-2f41-da7434b2fa50@article19.org>
In-Reply-To: <3ee64859-50b9-8bf9-2f41-da7434b2fa50@article19.org>
From: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 21:54:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMCMt7pe4yOOt1rXPMDBU5K7K1gX+wdW+QAejwmYsFAQMt00Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: amelia@article19.org
Cc: hrpc@irtf.org, GAIA list <gaia@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005ba5eb0578b36d71"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/BCGH3A6k2hxTKXZtFULnclLQQB0>
Subject: Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 01:55:18 -0000
Thanks for this Amelia. I hope to meet you one day and continue this conversation. Best, -Michael On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:22 PM Amelia Andersdotter <amelia@article19.org> wrote: > On 2018-10-20 19:18, Leandro Navarro wrote: > > > > Hi all, interesting discussion, > > > > On 20/10/18 13:30, Michael J. Oghia wrote: > >> Hi Amelia, Sonia, all: > >> > >> Forgive my ignorance, but I'm quite surprised to hear that USO/USF > >> within the EU context. I find it a bit disheartening, honestly. For > >> much time now, I've seen USO/USF as a positive policy option to > >> encourage network diversity and especially help small networks or > >> networks working in rural/remote areas (e.g.., CNs). > > > > USO in my limited understanding usually works against small networks, > > and nearly always only in favor of the largest "universal" (national) > > telecoms. The funds are given to a single (e.g. BT in UK, Telefonica > > in ES) national operator in exchange of connecting more of the > > unconnected users with a minimal service under a cost threshold. > > > > For instance, the UK recently has been revising the USO policy: > > > > > https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8146#fullreport > > > BEREC has made a study here: > > https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/6973-berec-update-survey-on-the-implementatio_0.pdf > > Among the six countries that have no USO in the EU, only Germany doesn't > have great infrastructure and three have very OK infra (EE, SE and RO). > US provisions can work out OK, but the problem is in the information > asymmetry: the big companies will be much better placed to argue with > regulators that funds should go to *them*. A USO strategy needs to take > into account this information asymmetry/power imbalance at the > regulator/regulatee level (can it be countered? how?). > > best regards, > > Amelia > > > > They are targeting a cost threshold of £3,400 per connection (limit > > from the total cost of implementation of several billions of GBP) to > > provide 10/1 Mbps connection. BT is the only USO provider (KCOM in a > > specific area for curious reasons). As you can see the focus is > > bringing more "customers" matching a minimum of quality by "feeding" > > the largest (most capable?) operator in that country. > > > > > https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/03/government-details-final-10mbps-for-all-uk-broadband-uso-design.html > > > > For instance, one fibre community network fears the effect of that: > > > > > https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/11/b4rn-fear-10mbps-uk-broadband-uso-may-hamper-rural-ftth-rollout.html > > > > However there can be alternative models, where the funds are not given > > to just one operator, but to every citizen that qualifies. Bottom-up > > instead of top-down. That may contribute to increase alternatives and > > not just reinforce the largest operators (at the exchange of moving to > > a more "feudal" model): https://b4rn.org.uk/b4rn-service/gbvs/ > > > > We also have/had a related discussion in the IRTF GAIA WG, and > > probably will reappear in the next IGF in the presentation of the next > > Global Information Society Watch report around community networks: > > > > > https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/es/content/igf-2018-apc-giswatch-launch > > > > Cheers, Leandro. > > > >> > >> Given my lack of experience with actually building networks, though, > >> perhaps this is just naivety and wishful thinking on my part. I'm > >> glad that Sonia replied, though, because I had A4AI's 2018 paper > >> < > https://webfoundation.org/docs/2018/03/Using-USAFs-to-Close-the-Gender-Digital-Divide-in-Africa.pdf > > > >> on USO/USF in mind when drafting this email – though models (and > >> their outcomes) differ based on country policy, regional context, > >> politics, the amount of incumbent operators, etc. etc. I also > >> appreciate her qualification that, traditionally, USO have been more > >> effective in poorer countries (which is in line with my thought). > >> > >> So, thank you for clarifying @Sonia, and I'd be very interested in a > >> webinar on this. Please share the 2018 report next week when it's > >> published (I'm really interested in the policy implications > >> surrounding connectivity). > >> > >> Best, > >> -Michael > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 6:07 AM Sonia Jorge > >> <sonia.jorge@webfoundation.org > >> <mailto:sonia.jorge@webfoundation.org>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Interesting discussion here. One that might warrant a > >> webinar/conference call among interested people? Steve, what do > >> you think? I would be happy to join a stimulating discussion on > >> the topic, starting with your blog and the Access Model. > >> > >> Amelia, can you point me to some evidence or a paper (anything > >> you may have) that shows that relationship between USO and > >> quality of infrastructure? I find that very difficult to believe > >> but open to be proven wrong. > >> > >> Something important to keep in mind is that countries where USO > >> have been more instrumental are also countries that have > >> traditionally been poorer and behind in terms of infrastructure > >> development; this is certainly the case in some Southern European > >> countries and maybe Eastern European ones as well. So the level > >> of economic development overall is a key variable. > >> > >> As for Africa and/or infrastructure investments, I could share a > >> lot here, but for now let me call your attention to some reports > >> we produced and that can add to the discussion. > >> - A4AI’s annual Affordability > >> Report: https://a4ai.org/affordability-report/report/2017/. Note > >> that the 2018 report will be launched and published on Tuesday > >> and addresses key questions relevant to this discussion, > >> specially on costs associated with infrastructure investment > >> - a recent blog on infrastructure costs and > >> challenges: > https://a4ai.org/affordable-internet-access-the-cost-challenge/ > >> - For those interested in USFs in Africa, > >> see > https://a4ai.org/universal-service-and-access-funds-an-untapped-resource-to-close-the-gender-digital-divide/ > >> > >> Best, > >> Sonia Jorge > >> Executive Director, A4AI > >> Head of Digital Inclusion, Web Foundation > >> 1-617-905-7819 > >> > >> On Oct 20, 2018, at 05:33, Amelia Andersdotter > >> <amelia@article19.org <mailto:amelia@article19.org>> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> It might be helpful to know that EU countries where Universal > >>> Service > >>> Obligations have been extensively used and applied, also > >>> typically have > >>> worse infrastructure than EU countries where USO wasn't well > >>> applied. > >>> Applying USO means you put the government in a position where it > >>> faces > >>> off with the service provider under USO in a negotiation. The > >>> service > >>> provider has information advantage and typically a better > >>> relationship > >>> to its consumers than the government has to its citizens (so a > >>> communications advantage too). I lack experience of the African > >>> markets > >>> and their regulators, but in broad strokes those are the issues > >>> faced in > >>> various European jurisdictions with USO and I'm assuming similar > >>> difficulties would arise in the African setting. This is a bit > >>> theoretical, and I'm just curious how to avoid these information > >>> asymmetries? > >>> > >>> As it is described by Steven, the current feudalism (operators > >>> A, B and > >>> C all collaborate as soon as they own physical fibre networks) also > >>> incentivises many actors to get into the infrastructure market. > >>> That's > >>> fundamentally a good thing: it means not all the last-mile is > >>> owned by a > >>> few big actors who need to be regulated by a regulator who is > >>> fundamentally at a disadvantage compared to the big actors. It's > the > >>> main criticism targetting the Local Loop Unbundling reform of > >>> 1999 in > >>> the EU as well - challengers don't invest enough in last-mile > >>> infrastructure (except in those EU markets where many different > >>> actors > >>> have had regulatory incentives to build their own networks, or > where > >>> there has been purposeful public investment in last-mile). Or am I > >>> misunderstanding something? > >>> > >>> best regards, > >>> > >>> Amelia > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2018-10-04 20:52, Steve Song wrote: > >>>> Hi Mallory, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for that! I think you are on exactly the right track in > >>>> terms > >>>> of thinking about economic models. Thanks to Erick Huerta of > >>>> Rhizomatica, I am very taken with the thinking of French economic > >>>> historian, Fernand Braudel. Braudel argues that the world has > >>>> three > >>>> economies not one. A global economy which is the well-known > >>>> capitalist economic model where monopoly is the perfect end-game > in > >>>> theory for every player. Google, Colgate, Coca-Cola, all the > usual > >>>> suspects form part of this economy. The second economy is the > >>>> Local > >>>> Economy where services are specific to the city/community where > you > >>>> live. This might be your local butcher, baker, plumbers or even > >>>> larger service provider which offers services that grow out of > >>>> local > >>>> demand and which serve local needs in more unique ways than the > >>>> Global > >>>> Economy. The third economy is the Subsistence economy where > market > >>>> forces may not operate because there is not sufficient traditional > >>>> capital to make it work. This is the world of the informal > economy > >>>> with barters, cooperatives, community initiatives that directly > >>>> contribute to the overall economy but are largely unmeasured by > >>>> traditional statistics. And woven among these are both > >>>> commercial and > >>>> commons models, which can operate with varying success at the > >>>> different levels. > >>>> > >>>> When viewed through this lens, it is easy to see how regulation > has > >>>> only enabled the global economy in telecommunication and that > >>>> there is > >>>> a need for enabling regulations to nurture telecom initiatives > >>>> in the > >>>> Local and Subsistence economies. > >>>> > >>>> For me this also highlights a key flaw in models like the World > >>>> Bank's > >>>> Access Gap model > >>>> < > http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/the-gaps-model-and-universal-access>. It > >>>> is not so much that the model is wrong, it is just > one-dimensional; > >>>> assuming that successful global capitalism is the best of all > >>>> possible > >>>> outcomes. > >>>> > >>>> Writing more about this shortly. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers... Steve > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 10:57, Mallory Knodel > >>>> <mallory@article19.org <mailto:mallory@article19.org> > >>>> <mailto:mallory@article19.org>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Steve, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for sharing. I read it last night and I really > >>>> enjoyed it.. I > >>>> think the metaphor is solid economically. And politically, > >>>> well, that > >>>> could be another post in and of itself. > >>>> > >>>> The agrarian commons would of course be ideal, but what we > >>>> have is a > >>>> sort of old-world economic structure that politically > >>>> controls and > >>>> profits from (what should be) the commons. This sets you up > >>>> nicely to > >>>> call for modern economic models ranging from squarely > >>>> capitalist to > >>>> socialist, and even (back to) the commons! > >>>> > >>>> I'm CCing HRPC because it might be of interest to those who > have > >>>> raised > >>>> issues of centralisation on the list in the past. > >>>> > >>>> -Mallory > >>>> > >>>> On 04/10/2018 15:30, Steve Song wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> This is a reflection on the current state of terrestrial fibre > >>>>> infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa (but I think applies just > >>>>> about > >>>>> everywhere). > >>>>> > >>>>> https://manypossibilities.net/2018/10/fibre-feudalism/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Curious to know how apt you feel the metaphor is or any other > >>>> reactions > >>>>> you may have. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks..... Steve Song > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> gaia mailing list > >>>>> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mallory Knodel > >>>> Head of Digital :: article19.org <http://article19.org> > >>>> <http://article19.org> > >>>> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 > >>>> BD3C C780 > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> gaia mailing list > >>>> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> +1 902 529 0046 > >>>> stevesong@nsrc.org <mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org> > >>>> <mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org> > >>>> http://nsrc..org <http://nsrc.org> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> hrpc mailing list > >>>> hrpc@irtf.org <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org> > >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Amelia Andersdotter > >>> Technical Consultant, Digital Programme > >>> > >>> ARTICLE19 > >>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org> > >>> > >>> PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> gaia mailing list > >>> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gaia mailing list > >> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hrpc mailing list > >> hrpc@irtf.org > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hrpc mailing list > > hrpc@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > > > -- > Amelia Andersdotter > Technical Consultant, Digital Programme > > ARTICLE19 > www.article19.org > > PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 > > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia >
- [gaia] Fibre Feudalism Steve Song
- Re: [gaia] Fibre Feudalism Mallory Knodel
- Re: [gaia] Fibre Feudalism Steve Song
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Amelia Andersdotter
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Sonia Jorge
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Michael J. Oghia
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Amelia Andersdotter
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Amelia Andersdotter
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Michael J. Oghia
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Steve Song
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Sonia Jorge
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Vint Cerf
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Leandro Navarro
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Carlos Rey-Moreno
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Kurtis Heimerl
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Arzak Khan
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Mallory Knodel
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Jane Coffin
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Steve Song
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Sonia Jorge
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Jane Coffin
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Steven G. Huter
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Jane Coffin
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Adam Burns
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Sonia Jorge
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Jane Coffin