Tag: Information Policy

About 16 months ago, I heard Ed Richards of Ofcom speak at a CITI conference at Columbia, and blogged about it here. I remember thinking that Richards didn’t seem to think that highspeed access to the internet was all that important. The market had to demand it, and the market wasn’t being demanding. Also, he wasn’t interested in government intervention to support highspeed access.

Even though I was in Seoul a little less than a month ago, I would be remiss if I didn’t take note of the nightly protests that were occurring there. For one thing, they were impossible to miss—the convention center where the OECD Ministerial was held had a small phalanx of orderly protesters and riot police outside it during the days—a scene mirrored in vastly greater numbers each evening downtown. But another reason for me to pay attention to the protests was an issue that touched on media and even copyright issues.

On June 18, the front page of the Korea Times covered a speech given by President Lee Myung-Bak at the OECD Ministerial. The headline?

For months, Comcast spokespeople have been deny, deny, denying that the FCC has the power to do anything about Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent traffic. Now, in papers filed as part of a class action lawsuit against Comcast, Comcast has gone the opposite direction, asserting that because “these issues are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the FCC, and because the FCC is actively investigating them,” the judge should put the suit on hold until the FCC renders a decision. The court has agreed, staying the case until the FCC acts.

Recently, I was in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

A few days ago, I picked on Chairman Martin’s speech at the plenary session of the OECD Seoul Ministerial. Among the various deregulatory policies Martin cited as enhancing competition (and thus the United States’ position in terms of broadband pricing and deployment) was the removal of unbundling requirements for broadband.

Martin used the removal of unbundling requirements as one of many examples in creating a (false, I think) dichotomy between competition and regulation.

For the past couple of days, I’ve been in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

The OECD Ministerial has ended with the signing of the Seoul Declaration, a document signed by the member nations of the OECD, as well as the European Community and observer countries Chile, Egypt, Estonia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Latvia, Senegal and Slovenia. The Declaration sets out the international organization’s general policies for ensuring the future of the Internet Economy—including policies they believe will encourage creativity, support convergence, and promote confidence online.

This is the first time I’ve been able to attend Supernova, and it seems like a fine conference. It’s all being made available online:

• Conversation Hub:
  http://www.conversationhub.com

• Live video stream:
  http://www.mogulus.com/supernova2008

• IRC Chat:
  irc://irc.freenode.net/supernova2008

• Twitter feed:
  http://twitter.com/supernova2008

• Yahoo Pipe:
  http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_id=055fe30a2c9cbcfc197e494d6db2885a

For the past couple of days, I’ve been in South Korea, attending the OECD’s Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. Rather than try to give a blow-by-blow account, I’ve tried to package some of my thoughts in a series of posts. Here’s one:

Late yesterday afternoon, Sirius and XM filed a letter with the FCC that lays out the “voluntary commitments” the companies will abide by in exchange for the FCC approving their merger. As I predicted yesterday, the commitment to provide 4% of channel capacity set-aside for noncommercial, educational and informational programming falls a good bit short of what PK and others have asked for. While we’re disinclined to fight over 1% of capacity (PK is asking for a 5% set-aside), there are other parts of this and other “commitments” that need change and clarification:

1. Channel capacity, not live, “full-time” channels, should be the metric for the non-commercial set-aside.

The news that Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T are all considering capping use of their networks — so that “overuse” would trigger a charge — has prompted intense discussion of just why these network operators are moving in this direction. One camp suggests that these operators have to do something to manage congestion, and because any protocol-specific discrimination plan raises howls of protest from the Net Neutrality side of the fence adopting bit-usage discrimination schemes is inevitable. It’s the least-bad approach, following this view.

The Net Neutrality side, for its part, points out that (1) each of us will fall into the 5% of “over-users” at some point or another, (2) the operators want to make sure that they remain the chief sources of video content, rather than allowing internet access to video undermine their business plans, and (3) it seems odd to manage to scarcity rather than invest in improved access for everyone. It’s as if the operators would prefer to keep internet access expectations at 2003 levels. And if you really wanted to manage congestion you’d charge differently for usage at different times. (Meanwhile, Korea.)

Video sharing sites hit mainstream a long time ago—by the time a technology is feted as part of a presidential debate, it's no longer got that same early-adopter cachet. That doesn't keep it from being useful, though.

Right now, for instance, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is asking for your input on a key meeting this month.