Thursday, January 22, 2009
Competition in data access services
How much competition counts as "enough" for data access services? I am using the term "data access service", because I don't think that we need to limit ourselves to internet access services.The internet is the interconnection of all these disparate access and backbone networks. Some parts are open; some parts are closed; some parts are public; some parts are private; some parts are managed; some parts are more of a free-for-all. The internet even interconnects to non-IP networks, such as for the purpose of VoIP calls or connecting to legacy financial data networks.
Remember early internet access services from AOL and other commercial services? They provided a special user interface to simplify service for the uninitiated. Those services were tightly managed and controlled, but they were internet access all the same, weren't they?
So how much competition is enough?
I think this could be a relevant question in discussions on net neutrality.
I keep hearing some folks whining about monopolies in internet access, even as people talk about their cable company and phone company offerings. Monopoly, duopoly. Let's not get too fussed about accuracy when whipping up the masses.
Let's not forget about the wireless industry. All of the mobile carriers are offering choice in data access services. Not a real substitute? Recall that the OECD considers mobile wireless in its broadband connectivity figures - that is why Korea has 20% of their households enjoying with no computer!
And there are more mobile wireless choices coming to Canadians later this year or early in 2010.
Most of us can select satellite service and many areas have fixed wireless alternatives as well. This is all on the side of facilities-based competition in retail internet services. We haven't started to look at resellers yet.
There aren't a lot of barriers to entry. So, how many competitors does it take to satisfy regulators that consumers have choice? If consumers are deemed to have adequate choice, then why is the CRTC even looking at the network management practices of a competitive industry?
We are looking at Building Broadband and Net Neutrality in two of the sessions among other topical issues being explored at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.
Have you registered yet? Early bird rates expire at the end of February!
Technorati Tags:
ISP, net neutrality, Canada, CRTC
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 1/22/2009 06:14:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
It's nice to see that I'm not the only person who thinks about this! *grin*
My perception is that a core issue surrounding 'competition' is that wholesaler ISPs are required to meet whatever regulations that top-tier ISPs force on their own retail customers. In the case of traffic management, it means that Bell, Rogers, Shaw, etc can set up rules for their network and retail customers that wholesale customers are then required to pass along to their end-users; in essence, the perception (however rights or wrongly) is that the wholesalers are often impotent, and that there aren't real 'options' to move to another provider given that offerings by ISPs are seen as very similar.
I'm sympathetic to the notion that there isn't a lot of competition in many of the key markets (to say nothing of the isolated ones), but at the same time the practical realities of capital investment that go into developing these networks is not insignificant. My (perhaps naive) hope is that the CRTC's examination of management techniques will begin a round to address some of these underlying questions so that the NN debate become more nuanced, and more specific. Ideally it will also open up a similarly nuanced discussion surrounding data access service generally.
I won't be at the telecom summit, however much I would like to - costs are terribly prohibitive!
Post a Comment
My perception is that a core issue surrounding 'competition' is that wholesaler ISPs are required to meet whatever regulations that top-tier ISPs force on their own retail customers. In the case of traffic management, it means that Bell, Rogers, Shaw, etc can set up rules for their network and retail customers that wholesale customers are then required to pass along to their end-users; in essence, the perception (however rights or wrongly) is that the wholesalers are often impotent, and that there aren't real 'options' to move to another provider given that offerings by ISPs are seen as very similar.
I'm sympathetic to the notion that there isn't a lot of competition in many of the key markets (to say nothing of the isolated ones), but at the same time the practical realities of capital investment that go into developing these networks is not insignificant. My (perhaps naive) hope is that the CRTC's examination of management techniques will begin a round to address some of these underlying questions so that the NN debate become more nuanced, and more specific. Ideally it will also open up a similarly nuanced discussion surrounding data access service generally.
I won't be at the telecom summit, however much I would like to - costs are terribly prohibitive!
Posted by 
: 2:12 PM, January 22, 2009
: 2:12 PM, January 22, 2009 << Home
Syndicate
