Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism

Hi all, interesting debate indeed, and happy to join a further call on
this, or even work in a document where we can consolidate these
discussions.

After having engaged with several regulators, and managers/officials from
universal access agencies in Africa this year, my main take away is that
they keep on using USO to incentivize incumbents to go to rural areas
because that's the only way they know. Once they are presented with
alternative models like the ones mentioned by Leandro, they are very open,
in principle, to explore them. They are the ones who know how ineffective
the current models are, but in most cases they are, as Steve points out,
constrained by frameworks that only allow to use the fund to those who
contribute to it.

I think, at least in Africa, there is a very interesting opportunity to
work together with USAF managers/officials to discuss an potentially
implement innovative ways of using them. Consolidating the knowledge in
this discussion and others in a working document, with the different
advocates in the region speaking proposing the same thing, could contribute
a lot in this direction.

best,

carlos

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 at 19:29, Leandro Navarro <leandro@ac.upc.edu> wrote:

> Agreed, but the sad thing is that practice (country policy) goes in the
> opposite way in the few cases I know where USO is a form of subsidy or tax
> deduction to benefit the incumbent only, before a legal monopoly. The
> typical government argument is that USO is paid by industry, that reflects
> this privilege or new form of monopoly/subsidy in favour of the incumbent
> only (everyone pays the king operator in the feudal metaphor). In
> consequence, the incumbent does the minimum required to justify receiving
> the funds to preserve the pool of unconnected as a source of future USO
> income (the serfs of the feudal system).
>
> For example, one fibre community network but can be any alternative
> operator to the incumbent, 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
> <https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/11/b4rn-fear-10mbps-uk-broadband-uso-may-hamper-rural-ftth-rollout.html>
>
> That’s why USO as implemented can be counter effective. Alternative models
> of distribution, radically different, are needed, where all the funds are
> not given to a single operator (and deter investment by others), but to
> every citizen that qualifies (to free the serfs). Bottom-up (people
> centred) instead of top-down (incumbent centred). Something along those
> lines may contribute to increase alternatives and not just be used to
> mainly reinforce the de-facto monopoly of largest operators (for example:
> https://b4rn.org.uk/b4rn-service/gbvs/ ) Otherwise USO policies are
> mainly a form of public subsidy, a form of monopoly, to reinforce the
> incumbent, with the excuse of the underserved and unconnected.
> Leandro.
>
> On 21 Oct 2018, at 18:15, Vint Cerf <vint=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>
> --
> Leandro Navarro
> http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro  http://dsg.ac.upc.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>

-- 
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
"Community and Local Access Networks" Project Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/local-access-networks-can-unconnected-connect-themselves
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym