Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism

Steve is spot on.
V

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 09:53 Steve Song <stevesong@nsrc.org> wrote:

> Hi Amelia, Sonia,
>
> I agree this is a very interesting and timely debate and I would be happy
> to participate in a discussion on this.
>
> Universal service funds that involve (or in many cases are legally
> restricted to) giving money back to the incumbents to build out
> infrastructure has proven (over and over and over again) to be a terrible
> idea.  I hope we can agree that we should stop doing that.  For me the
> issue is about power and control and the way it is used to impede
> competition.  The cost of technology has plummeted in both fibre and
> wireless technologies.  In theory that should have been a boon for
> competition but high spectrum auction fees and licenses along with
> exclusive control of fibre backbones has created an almost impenetrable
> barrier to market entry.  Any government intervention in universal service
> should obliged to address the issue of market permeability as well as
> ownership of and access to core networks.
>
> Cheers... Steve
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 at 07:07, Sonia Jorge <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/
>> <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>
>> 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 <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 <gaia@irtf.org>>
>>
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    --
>>
>>    Mallory Knodel
>>
>>    Head of Digital :: 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 <gaia@irtf.org>>
>>
>>    https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> +1 902 529 0046
>>
>> stevesong@nsrc.org <mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org <stevesong@nsrc.org>>
>>
>> http://nsrc..org <http://nsrc.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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 mailing list
>> gaia@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>
>
>
> --
> +1 902 529 0046
> stevesong@nsrc.org
> http://nsrc..org <http://nsrc.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>