Australia backs UN telco treaty changes
Australia backs UN telco treaty changes http://www.itnews.com.au/News/304210,australia-backs-un-telco-treaty-changes... James Hutchinson on Jun 8, 2012 1:38 PM (1 day 13 hours ago)Filed under Telco/ISPGlobal governments consider internet regulation. The Federal Government has issued public support for a contentious plan to revise the international treaty underpinning global telecommunications regulation. The International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR) treaty, governed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and last revised in 1988, will introduce provisions specific to potential regulation of the internet for the first time in a revision expected to be voted on in December this year. The revisions would require global governments acceding to the treaty to undertake the proposals. Though no documents relating to the proposals have been officially released by the ITU, claims of closed-door negotiations between countries on the revised treaty have led to a concerted effort by the US chapter of the Internet Society, along with founder and ordained "father of the internet" Vint Cerf, to rally against the treaty. They claimed the revised treaty would allow the United Nations, which oversees the ITU, and individual governments to more carefully regulate the internet. A spokesman for the Department of Broadband told iTnews this week that the Federal Government "supports updating the [regulations]". "In doing so, the Government aims to ensure that the revisions do not undermine the useful purpose the ITRs have had since their adoption," they said. The composition of Australia's delegation to the conference – to be held in Dubai in December – is yet to be determined. However, it is believed any local delegation is likely to be led by key Department of Broadband personnel. Internet control? Concerns around the treaty have grown in recent months, particularly as the ITU working group charged with drafting the proposed regulations prepares to finalise a revised treaty in Geneva at the end of the month. But ITU secretary-general, Dr Hamadoun Touré, blasted claims over attempts to control internet governance as "frankly ridiculous" in a speech to agency staff this week. "We are not going to send in the blue helmets of the UN peacekeepers to police IxPs! And we are certainly not ready to make a grab for global domination," he said. "I always compare this to roads, and cars and trucks. It is not because you own the roads that you own the traffic. And you may not be able to make the traffic flow smoothly. You need to know the height, and weight and breadth and be involved in designing some of the features so the bridges don't collapse ... we need to find a way to have a meaningful debate about this, without one taking over the other. "So the real issue on the table here is not at all about who 'runs' the Internet ... the issue instead is on how best to cooperate to ensure the free flow of information, the continued development of broadband, continued investment, and continuing innovation." Documents leaked from the working group ( pdf) claimed the new regulations would aim to support a "new IP interconnection ecosystem", including measures dictating global governments to closely negotiate terms on facilities and quality of service mechanisms. Key provisions are also being negotiated between countries on revisions to portions of the treaty that dictate financial settlement on termination of internet traffic between countries, a measure APNIC chief scientist Geoff Huston said was "unenforceable" if based on existing telecommunications provisions. Political drive Touré said the ITU was not a "politically oriented organisation" and that a decision to re-negotiate terms was driven by its membership, rather than the secretariat. However, sources close to stakeholders claimed the renegotiations were highly politically charged and focused around a desire by some – particularly those in Asia and some in Europe – to wrest control over internet systems away from the US and minimise the potential effect US-based legislation such as SOPA and PIPA could have on worldwide networks. Though the ITU has continued to enshrine access to the internet as a basic human right, some have claimed the revised treaty could lead to the restructuring of ICANN – the global domain name registration body – away from US control, and cement government-level regulation and control over the internet. Specifically, leaked documents show countries debating over a treaty proposal that would allow member states to "suspend the international telecommunication service" in that country at their will, provided it notifies other members. Cerf, chief internet evangelist at Google, said a successful renegotiation of the treaty would create "significant barriers to civil society participation", allowing governments to more easily regulate access to the internet at a country level. "Such proposals raise the prospect of policies that enable government controls but greatly diminish the 'permissionless innovation' that underlies extraordinary Internet-based economic growth to say nothing of trampling human rights," he said. In Australia, some have suggested the treaty could more easily allow the Federal Government to implement data retention and internet filtering mechanisms. Net fundamentals Major equipment vendors are also thought to oppose the treaty but none besides Google, through Cerf, have come out against it. A source told iTnews that organisations opposed the treaty "on the basis that they'll leave things in or allow governments to do things that will threaten the fundamental, underlying design of the internet". APNIC's Huston argued that the treaty would not necessarily change plans for greater regulation that weren't already planned by governments, but warned the polarity of the debate surrounding the treaty could lead to future issues for interconnection between countries."Almost everything we do, we never quite get it right all over the world; we always seem to stuff it up," Huston said. "Weirdly, almost by accident, the internet got it right – one technology across the world, coherent. The concern that I have is that we have just a disparity of opinion when the ITRs come up that we end fragmenting ourselves ... we end up with less than one internet; we end up with many private networks, national networks and we're back to a far worse world. "It's not that the ITRs will destroy the internet in terms of regulatory impost ... [the US] aren't going to sign anything too repressive, [but] on the other hand other governments might want a different world. If that's the case, the world's networks will break apart." Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.
Too bad it doesn't say what the Ozzies are supporting, there are literally hundreds of different provisions of the ITRs!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:53 PM, <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Australia backs UN telco treaty changes
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/304210,australia-backs-un-telco-treaty-changes...
James Hutchinson on Jun 8, 2012 1:38 PM (1 day 13 hours ago)Filed under Telco/ISPGlobal governments consider internet regulation. The Federal Government has issued public support for a contentious plan to revise the international treaty underpinning global telecommunications regulation.
The International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR) treaty, governed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and last revised in 1988, will introduce provisions specific to potential regulation of the internet for the first time in a revision expected to be voted on in December this year.
The revisions would require global governments acceding to the treaty to undertake the proposals.
Though no documents relating to the proposals have been officially released by the ITU,
claims of closed-door negotiations between countries on the revised treaty have led to a concerted effort by the US chapter of the Internet Society, along with founder and ordained "father of the internet" Vint Cerf, to rally against the treaty.
They claimed the revised treaty would allow the United Nations, which oversees the ITU, and individual governments to more carefully regulate the internet.
A spokesman for the Department of Broadband told
iTnews this week that the Federal Government "supports updating the [regulations]".
"In doing so, the Government aims to ensure that the revisions do not undermine the useful purpose the ITRs have had since their adoption," they said.
The composition of Australia's delegation to the conference – to be held in Dubai in December – is yet to be determined. However, it is believed any local delegation is likely to be led by key Department of Broadband personnel.
Internet control?
Concerns around the treaty have grown in recent months, particularly as the ITU working group charged with drafting the proposed regulations prepares to finalise a revised treaty in Geneva at the end of the month.
But ITU secretary-general, Dr Hamadoun Touré, blasted claims over attempts to control internet governance as "frankly ridiculous" in a
speech to agency staff this week.
"We are not going to send in the blue helmets of the UN peacekeepers to police IxPs! And we are certainly not ready to make a grab for global domination," he said.
"I always compare this to roads, and cars and trucks. It is not because you own the roads that you own the traffic. And you may not be able to make the traffic flow smoothly. You need to know the height, and weight and breadth and be involved in designing some of the features so the bridges don't collapse ... we need to find a way to have a meaningful debate about this, without one taking over the other.
"So the real issue on the table here is not at all about who 'runs' the Internet ... the issue instead is on how best to cooperate to ensure the free flow of information, the continued development of broadband, continued investment, and continuing innovation."
Documents leaked from the working group (
pdf) claimed the new regulations would aim to support a "new IP interconnection ecosystem", including measures dictating global governments to closely negotiate terms on facilities and quality of service mechanisms.
Key provisions are also being negotiated between countries on revisions to portions of the treaty that dictate financial settlement on termination of internet traffic between countries, a measure APNIC chief scientist Geoff Huston said was "unenforceable" if based on existing telecommunications provisions.
Political drive
Touré said the ITU was not a "politically oriented organisation" and that a decision to re-negotiate terms was driven by its membership, rather than the secretariat.
However, sources close to stakeholders claimed the renegotiations were highly politically charged and focused around a desire by some – particularly those in Asia and some in Europe – to wrest control over internet systems away from the US and minimise the potential effect US-based legislation such as SOPA and PIPA could have on worldwide networks.
Though the ITU has continued to enshrine access to the internet as a basic human right, some have claimed the revised treaty could lead to the restructuring of ICANN – the global domain name registration body – away from US control, and cement government-level regulation and control over the internet.
Specifically, leaked documents show countries debating over a treaty proposal that would allow member states to "suspend the international telecommunication service" in that country at their will, provided it notifies other members.
Cerf, chief internet evangelist at Google, said a successful renegotiation of the treaty would
create "significant barriers to civil society participation", allowing governments to more easily regulate access to the internet at a country level.
"Such proposals raise the prospect of policies that enable government controls but greatly diminish the 'permissionless innovation' that underlies extraordinary Internet-based economic growth to say nothing of trampling human rights," he said.
In Australia, some have suggested the treaty could more easily allow the Federal Government to implement data retention and internet filtering mechanisms.
Net fundamentals
Major equipment vendors are also thought to oppose the treaty but none besides Google, through Cerf, have come out against it.
A source told
iTnews that organisations opposed the treaty "on the basis that they'll leave things in or allow governments to do things that will threaten the fundamental, underlying design of the internet".
APNIC's Huston argued that the treaty would not necessarily change plans for greater regulation that weren't already planned by governments, but warned the polarity of the debate surrounding the treaty could
lead to future issues for interconnection between countries."Almost everything we do, we never quite get it right all over the world; we always seem to stuff it up," Huston said.
"Weirdly, almost by accident, the internet got it right – one technology across the world, coherent. The concern that I have is that we have just a disparity of opinion when the ITRs come up that we end fragmenting ourselves ... we end up with less than one internet; we end up with many private networks, national networks and we're back to a far worse world.
"It's not that the ITRs will destroy the internet in terms of regulatory impost ... [the US] aren't going to sign anything too repressive, [but] on the other hand other governments might want a different world. If that's the case, the world's networks will break apart."
Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dogwallah%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Yes it is not clear from the article what the Australians are supporting. It's a pity this process WCIT and the ITR's seem to be attracting so much propaganda rather than balanced discussions on the various provisions and the reviews being proposed. Best Alice On 09/06/2012 22:36, McTim wrote:
Too bad it doesn't say what the Ozzies are supporting, there are literally hundreds of different provisions of the ITRs!!
Fwiw, In the CWG- WCIT meetings I've attended, the interventions by Australia have been reasonable. I've not seen (m)any written contributions from au. Chip On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Yes it is not clear from the article what the Australians are supporting. It's a pity this process WCIT and the ITR's seem to be attracting so much propaganda rather than balanced discussions on the various provisions and the reviews being proposed.
Best Alice
On 09/06/2012 22:36, McTim wrote:
Too bad it doesn't say what the Ozzies are supporting, there are literally hundreds of different provisions of the ITRs!!
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
It is precisely this sort of opaqueness by the ITU that is causing everyone to have ulcers.... If the intentions on both sides were clear then we will have a basis to soberly comment and make judgements without being subjected to all this intrigue. Ali Hussein +254 773/713 601113 Sent from my iPhone® On Jun 10, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Chip Sharp <chsharp@cisco.com> wrote:
Fwiw, In the CWG- WCIT meetings I've attended, the interventions by Australia have been reasonable. I've not seen (m)any written contributions from au. Chip
On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Yes it is not clear from the article what the Australians are supporting. It's a pity this process WCIT and the ITR's seem to be attracting so much propaganda rather than balanced discussions on the various provisions and the reviews being proposed.
Best Alice
On 09/06/2012 22:36, McTim wrote:
Too bad it doesn't say what the Ozzies are supporting, there are literally hundreds of different provisions of the ITRs!!
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
Found this piece interesting with regard to the ITU Regulatory moves. http://tinyurl.com/6r5g64e The Author actually turns the whole debate around with this sentence: "...But it would be wrong, and a bit silly, to talk about the ITU “taking over” the Internet (**this has been my view all along**) . It is, rather, the Internet that is taking over the world of telecommunications, setting more and more of the terms and conditions under which the ITU and its operating entities function." Interesting. walu. ~~~ June 7, 2012 Threat analysis of WCIT part 2: Telecommunications vs. Internet To understand what is really happening at the International Telecommunication Union’s WCIT, one must return to an old question: is the Internet “telecommunications” or is it something else? That seemingly obscure definitional question has been at the center of communication and information policy since the mid-1960s and it – not a “UN takeover of the Internet” – should be the point of departure for understanding WCIT. More than 50 years ago, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission decided that basic telecommunications (which in the 1960s-70s was dominated by the AT&T monopoly) needed to be strictly regulated, while “enhanced” services (i.e., the emerging networked computer services industry that relied on the public telephone network) needed to be opened up and deregulated. To facilitate this policy goal, the FCC created a regulatory distinction between “basic” and “enhanced” services. Telecommunication was straight transmission of signals while “enhanced service” added some “information processing” to telecommunications transmission. At that time traditional telecommunication (layers 1 physical and 2 data link of the OSI model of data communications), was provided by highly restrictive, protected and usually state-owned monopolies known as PTTs (postal, telephone and telegraph monopolies). By placing information services in a separate regulatory/legal category, information service providers could (when other countries agreed) ride unmolested on that telecommunications infrastructure, without being subject to all the entry restrictions and gatekeeping regulations of the telephone companies and/or their governments. During the 1980s and 1990s, many countries were more than happy to open up that tiny “information services” market a bit in exchange for continued protection of their gigantic voice telephony markets from foreign competition. The separation of “telecommunications” and “information services” paved the way for an open, economically and politically free Internet. Internet protocol was basically software, and thus could be considered an “information processing” or “enhanced” service. And so when the Internet went viral in the early 1990s, it spread like rhizomes into the global path cleared for it by the international deregulation of information services. From the 1980s on, layer 1-2 telecommunications services were liberalized as well. New competitors were allowed to enter the market worldwide. The public infrastructure became more diverse. State-owned PTTs were privatized. Many prices and features were deregulated. Mobile networks became substitutes for fixed networks. As the industry became more diverse and competitive, maintaining a clear, simple distinction between telecommunications and information services became complicated. The combination of Moore’s law and expanding bandwidth allowed the application layer to provide services “over the top” that were substitutes for the offerings of traditional telecommunications and broadcasting networks, such as Internet telephony (VoIP), video streaming, or instant messaging. Instead of a single monopoly platform hosting thousands of services, we got multiple telecom platforms with multiple services. It was difficult if not impossible to keep the service providers out of telecom platforms – and vice-versa. The ensuing debate between those favoring a free market, contractually-based, deregulated Internet model and those who wanted regulators to preserve the Internet of the 1990s by treating ISPs as regulated common carriers turned – once again – on the telecommunications-information distinction. The distinction was reaffirmed in 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Powell FCC’s classification of cable modem Internet as an “information service.” Net neutrality advocates in the U.S. hated that decision, because classifying ISPs as “information services” instead of “telecommunications” released them from common carrier-style regulation. But it did keep network operators exempt from many potentially debilitating forms of political and regulatory intervention, especially around interconnection arrangements. So what does all this have to do with the WCIT and the ITRs? It is this: the ITU’s attempt to update the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) is a new attempt to negotiate the boundaries between telecommunications and information services. Just as in the Brand X case, if certain things are defined as telecommunication they can be subject to certain (in this case, weak) forms of control under international regulations designed to support traditional telecommunications. The targets of most ITR amendments are the interconnection arrangements among ISPs. Because it comes from the ITU, this effort is driven in large part by the interests of foreign telecommunication incumbents and by developing country administrations who feel bypassed or marginalized by the burgeoning Internet economy at layer 4 and above. In that respect, it is somewhat reactionary and threatening. But it would be wrong, and a bit silly, to talk about the ITU “taking over” the Internet. It is, rather, the Internet that is taking over the world of telecommunications, setting more and more of the terms and conditions under which the ITU and its operating entities function. The Internet-based services’ growth in revenue has far outstripped that of the telecommunication operators. A fabulous new economy has emerged on top of the telecommunications platform. The issue is primarily the economics of interconnection; i.e., the revenue sharing (or lack thereof) involved in taking and sending traffic. It is not in the slightest about taking over the IETF, ICANN or IP address registration. WCIT is also a clash between a transnational regime based largely on privately negotiated contracts and the permissionless service provision created by a globally interoperable, distance-insensitive Internet protocol, and the nation-state system of hierarchical regulation and bordered gatekeeping which was built up around telephone companies. The most important battleground in the WCIT is not censorship or security, but interconnection and the flows of funds among carriers attendant upon interconnection agreements. If you want national regulatory authorities to have more collective control over ISPs generally, and American ISPs and Internet services specifically, you should support the WCIT effort. The ITU and its members are, as usual, in reaction mode, a step behind. The current ITRs were defined in 1988, before the public internet as we know it even existed. They have numerous archaic references. They still talk about telex, for example. If you think there should be ITRs at all, it is absurd not to update them. But that raises an interesting question that no one else seems to be asking: should there be ITRs at all? Why do we need them? The existence of treaty-based telecommunication regulations administered by an intergovernmental organization made sense in a world where telecommunications were provided by state-owned monopolies. Negotiating telecommunication interconnection across national authorities was very much like negotiating a mutual passport/visa recognition agreement. Also, many governments had their own incompatible technical standards and a single, national telecommunication standards body as well, so having an intergovernmental organization around to negotiate international compatibility made sense. The world of the Internet is very different. It is a world of liberalized trade in services, of transnational services and corporation, of dozens if not hundreds of private-sector voluntary technical standards forums, a world of multiple, competing private network operating entities, most of them no longer state-owned, and millions of Internet-based services riding on and crossing over those multiple platforms. So why are we treating governance of this sector as something that should be happening through treaty negotiations among governments? Why do we need a special set of international telecom regulations at all? Every country has its own national regulations regarding interconnection, privacy, antitrust, consumer protection, and so on; compatibility across platforms and services is much easier technically than it was in 1930 and tends to get worked out in the market. International telecommunications is a form of trade in services, and the WTO agreements already provide a sufficient regulatory basis for foreign or multinational providers to enter national markets with different regulatory regimes, and to offer transnational services. Another missing fact from the debate is exactly how weak the ITRs and the ITU are. If you don’t follow a duly passed FCC regulation, you can get fined or you can get your license pulled and put out of business. The ITU doesn’t have any police. The ITRs are just a bunch of verbal commitments from “member states” that they will agree to do something. If the member state doesn’t agree, or chooses not to enforce what it agreed to, the words are meaningless. I hope this re-framing of the WCIT helps observers to understand better what the general context is. In the next post, we look at the specific language of proposed ITR revisions and explain the degree to which they do or do not create a threat to Internet freedom.
Walu Very informative and provides a good historical timeline to the issues at hand. It would do the ITU alot of good to bring themselves upto speed on the competitive environment that is the Global Telecoms and Internet space. I do suspect however that they are already aware of this but it being largely an inter government body they are finding it very difficult to maneuver around (abit like herding cats I suspect). Whilst I do sympathize with one aspect of this fight (the case of providing a soft landing for some national telcos) I shudder to think what would have happened if Safaricom was still a division of KP&TC (For those of you who are young enough :-) not to remember that acronym it stands for Kenya Posts & Telecommunications Corporation). I wonder whether Safaricom would have grown much more from where it used to be - A hole in the wall at Extelcoms House. The perceived issue here of control and censorship need to be addressed in the open and the countries supporting this route named and shamed. I believe there can be a middle ground where the current general environment that fosters innovation and universal access to information is maintained. Regards Ali Hussein On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Found this piece interesting with regard to the ITU Regulatory moves.
The Author actually turns the whole debate around with this sentence:
"...But it would be wrong, and a bit silly, to talk about the ITU “taking over” the Internet (**this has been my view all along**) . *It is, rather, the Internet that is taking over the world of telecommunications,*setting more and more of the terms and conditions under which the ITU and its operating entities function."
Interesting.
walu. ~~~ June 7, 2012 Threat analysis of WCIT part 2: Telecommunications vs. Internet
To understand what is really happening at the International Telecommunication Union’s WCIT, one must return to an old question: is the Internet “telecommunications” or is it something else? That seemingly obscure definitional question has been at the center of communication and information policy since the mid-1960s and it – not a “UN takeover of the Internet” – should be the point of departure for understanding WCIT.
More than 50 years ago, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission decided that basic telecommunications (which in the 1960s-70s was dominated by the AT&T monopoly) needed to be strictly regulated, while “enhanced” services (i.e., the emerging networked computer services industry that relied on the public telephone network) needed to be opened up and deregulated. To facilitate this policy goal, the FCC created a regulatory distinction between “basic” and “enhanced” services. Telecommunication was straight transmission of signals while “enhanced service” added some “information processing” to telecommunications transmission.
At that time traditional telecommunication (layers 1 physical and 2 data link of the OSI model of data communications<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/103884>), was provided by highly restrictive, protected and usually state-owned monopolies known as PTTs (postal, telephone and telegraph monopolies). By placing information services in a separate regulatory/legal category, information service providers could (when other countries agreed) ride unmolested on that telecommunications infrastructure, without being subject to all the entry restrictions and gatekeeping regulations of the telephone companies and/or their governments. During the 1980s and 1990s, many countries were more than happy to open up that tiny “information services” market a bit in exchange for continued protection of their gigantic voice telephony markets from foreign competition.
The separation of “telecommunications” and “information services” paved the way for an open, economically and politically free Internet. Internet protocol was basically software, and thus could be considered an “information processing” or “enhanced” service. And so when the Internet went viral in the early 1990s, it spread like rhizomes into the global path cleared for it by the international deregulation of information services.
From the 1980s on, layer 1-2 telecommunications services were liberalized as well. New competitors were allowed to enter the market worldwide. The public infrastructure became more diverse. State-owned PTTs were privatized. Many prices and features were deregulated. Mobile networks became substitutes for fixed networks. As the industry became more diverse and competitive, maintaining a clear, simple distinction between telecommunications and information services became complicated. The combination of Moore’s law and expanding bandwidth allowed the application layer to provide services “over the top” that were substitutes for the offerings of traditional telecommunications and broadcasting networks, such as Internet telephony (VoIP), video streaming, or instant messaging. Instead of a single monopoly platform hosting thousands of services, we got multiple telecom platforms with multiple services. It was difficult if not impossible to keep the service providers out of telecom platforms – and vice-versa.
The ensuing debate between those favoring a free market, contractually-based, deregulated Internet model and those who wanted regulators to preserve the Internet of the 1990s by treating ISPs as regulated common carriers turned – once again – on the telecommunications-information distinction. The distinction was reaffirmed in 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-277P.ZO>the Powell FCC’s classification of cable modem Internet as an “information service.” Net neutrality advocates in the U.S. hated that decision, because classifying ISPs as “information services” instead of “telecommunications” released them from common carrier-style regulation. But it did keep network operators exempt from many potentially debilitating forms of political and regulatory intervention, especially around interconnection arrangements.
So what does all this have to do with the WCIT and the ITRs? It is this: the ITU’s attempt to update the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) is a new attempt to negotiate the boundaries between telecommunications and information services. Just as in the Brand X case, if certain things are defined as telecommunication they can be subject to certain (in this case, weak) forms of control under international regulations designed to support traditional telecommunications. The targets of most ITR amendments are the interconnection arrangements among ISPs. Because it comes from the ITU, this effort is driven in large part by the interests of foreign telecommunication incumbents and by developing country administrations who feel bypassed or marginalized by the burgeoning Internet economy at layer 4 and above. In that respect, it is somewhat reactionary and threatening.
But it would be wrong, and a bit silly, to talk about the ITU “taking over” the Internet. *It is, rather, the Internet that is taking over the world of telecommunications,* setting more and more of the terms and conditions under which the ITU and its operating entities function. The Internet-based services’ growth in revenue has far outstripped that of the telecommunication operators. A fabulous new economy has emerged on top of the telecommunications platform.
The issue is primarily the economics of interconnection; i.e., the revenue sharing (or lack thereof) involved in taking and sending traffic. It is not in the slightest about taking over the IETF, ICANN or IP address registration. WCIT is also a clash between a transnational regime based largely on privately negotiated contracts and the permissionless service provision created by a globally interoperable, distance-insensitive Internet protocol, and the nation-state system of hierarchical regulation and bordered gatekeeping which was built up around telephone companies. The most important battleground in the WCIT is not censorship or security, but interconnection and the flows of funds among carriers attendant upon interconnection agreements. If you want national regulatory authorities to have more collective control over ISPs generally, and American ISPs and Internet services specifically, you should support the WCIT effort.
The ITU and its members are, as usual, in reaction mode, a step behind. The current ITRs were defined in 1988, before the public internet as we know it even existed. They have numerous archaic references. They still talk about telex, for example. If you think there should be ITRs at all, it is absurd not to update them. But that raises an interesting question that no one else seems to be asking: should there be ITRs at all? Why do we need them?
The existence of treaty-based telecommunication regulations administered by an intergovernmental organization made sense in a world where telecommunications were provided by state-owned monopolies. Negotiating telecommunication interconnection across national authorities was very much like negotiating a mutual passport/visa recognition agreement. Also, many governments had their own incompatible technical standards and a single, national telecommunication standards body as well, so having an intergovernmental organization around to negotiate international compatibility made sense.
The world of the Internet is very different. It is a world of liberalized trade in services, of transnational services and corporation, of dozens if not hundreds of private-sector voluntary technical standards forums, a world of multiple, competing private network operating entities, most of them no longer state-owned, and millions of Internet-based services riding on and crossing over those multiple platforms. So why are we treating governance of this sector as something that should be happening through treaty negotiations among governments?
Why do we need a special set of international telecom regulations at all? Every country has its own national regulations regarding interconnection, privacy, antitrust, consumer protection, and so on; compatibility across platforms and services is much easier technically than it was in 1930 and tends to get worked out in the market. International telecommunications is a form of trade in services, and the WTO agreements already provide a sufficient regulatory basis for foreign or multinational providers to enter national markets with different regulatory regimes, and to offer transnational services.
Another missing fact from the debate is exactly how weak the ITRs and the ITU are. If you don’t follow a duly passed FCC regulation, you can get fined or you can get your license pulled and put out of business. The ITU doesn’t have any police. The ITRs are just a bunch of verbal commitments from “member states” that they will agree to do something. If the member state doesn’t agree, or chooses not to enforce what it agreed to, the words are meaningless.
I hope this re-framing of the WCIT helps observers to understand better what the general context is. In the next post, we look at the specific language of proposed ITR revisions and explain the degree to which they do or do not create a threat to Internet freedom.
-- *Ali Hussein|Managing Partner* * *Telemedia Africa Azania Technology Group Chaka Court, Argwings Kodhek Road P O Box 14556-00100 Office: +254 737 751409 Cell: +254 773/713 601113 *Nairobi, Kenya* Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo "You generally hear that what a man doesn't know doesn't hurt him, but in business what a man doesn't know does hurt.". - E. St. Elmo Lewis, member, Advertising Hall of Fame
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
It is precisely this sort of opaqueness by the ITU that is causing everyone to have ulcers....
If the intentions on both sides were clear then we will have a basis to soberly comment and make judgements without being subjected to all this intrigue.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/block-net-neut... is a pretty good summary. It's about money. Big telcos/carriers want to make money from content providers in addition to the revenue they get from their downstream customers. It's the old "but Google is using our pipes for free" argument, which IMHO is carries no weight. So for example, Safcom makes money from each of their customers who subscribe to their Internet services. Would they like to be paid by Google and others for delivering content? I am sure they would, but then they would be getting paid twice for delivering the service one time! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Precisely Ali Hussein +254 773/713 601113 Sent from my iPhone® On Jun 11, 2012, at 6:48 PM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
It is precisely this sort of opaqueness by the ITU that is causing everyone to have ulcers....
If the intentions on both sides were clear then we will have a basis to soberly comment and make judgements without being subjected to all this intrigue.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/block-net-neut...
is a pretty good summary.
It's about money. Big telcos/carriers want to make money from content providers in addition to the revenue they get from their downstream customers. It's the old "but Google is using our pipes for free" argument, which IMHO is carries no weight.
So for example, Safcom makes money from each of their customers who subscribe to their Internet services. Would they like to be paid by Google and others for delivering content? I am sure they would, but then they would be getting paid twice for delivering the service one time!
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
participants (6)
-
Ali Hussein -
Alice Munyua -
alice＠apc.org
-
Chip Sharp -
McTim -
Walubengo J