tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post9049591278999783787..comments2024-03-20T22:57:03.923+00:00Comments on Dean Bubley's Disruptive Wireless: Telecoms Regulation and the mythical "Level Playing Field": A Flawed AnalogyDean Bubleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-20950271595328573072015-10-09T19:58:24.624+01:002015-10-09T19:58:24.624+01:00There are immutable and standard laws and objectiv...There are immutable and standard laws and objectives that all of these (should) abide by. To the extend software is different from hardware, or edge from core, or upper layers from lower layers, yes, there are differences. And how they are perceived from a supply and demand perspective, there are differences. (I would say that your article appears slanted more to a supply than demand perspective).<br /><br />But how information flows from top to bottom (and vice versa) and left to right (and vice versa) in the "informational stack" ends up holding all actors to these same standards and objectives. Things like transport and access, things like addressing and controls, things like pricing and onboarding. At the end of the day all of these "different" players are all impacted by these issues in one way or another.<br /><br />The playing field is leveled when the government regulators understand their role in mandating interconnection (at various horizontal layers and across vertical boundaries) and guiding/fostering market-driven settlements that recognize that universally inexpensive access should be a goal taking into account that value in networks is concentrated at the core and the top of the informational stack. The only reason we have edge monopolies (silos) is that we don't have mandated interconnection when it comes to unique rights of way (and frequencies). The reason that we have core monopolies is that the IP stack replacing the PSTN has no price signals and incentives.InfoStackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07551031808515532198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-70118315603391817002015-07-12T09:45:01.267+01:002015-07-12T09:45:01.267+01:00No, in most cases they don't directly substitu...No, in most cases they don't directly substitute or even intentionally compete. <br /><br />For instance, Whatsapp is functionally different to SMS in many ways (eg "last seen online", blue ticks etc), and is optimised for group chat. iMessage is a more direct equivalent, although that too has been hugely enhanced since its first introduction and can now do many other tasks.<br /><br />The problem is that the so-called "core telecom services" were old and near-obsolete, with virtually zero effort expended to improve them incrementally over the years. SMS and telephony have been sitting ducks, or dead men walking. (See? Analogies are powerful...)<br /><br />Why should regulators protect laziness & complacency?Dean Bubleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-82501729935329004352015-07-11T21:36:09.622+01:002015-07-11T21:36:09.622+01:00All well n good, but you completely ignore the fac...All well n good, but you completely ignore the fact that these so called OTTs substitute the core telecom services thus eating in to their revenues. To quote your analogy, fan of Premier League is completely different than a fan of American Rugby or whatever! <br /><br />Having said that, its Telcos fault not recognizing OTTs as threats early days (look whats happening at traditional taxi industry because of Uber!) and workout their pricing models accordingly - some markets have done it successfully and kind of immune to OTT penetration, its very market specific!<br /><br />On the other hand - over regulating OTTs hinders innovation. That's where regulators should play the role which so far no regulators have done anything about it.<br /><br />End customer is winning, that's all matters now!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com