30 September 2005
"The European decision to back the rest of the world in demanding the creation of a new international body to govern the Internet clearly caught the Americans off balance and left them largely isolated at talks designed to come up with a new way of regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century.
"It's a very shocking and profound change of the EU's position," said David Gross, the State Department official in charge of America's international communications policy. "The EU's proposal seems to represent an historic shift in the regulatory approach to the Internet from one that is based on private sector leadership to a government, top-down control of the Internet."
Do you think the locus of control should be private and based in the US?
28 September 2005
- How would the draft telecommunications bill (or alternative ideas, such as those proposed by the PFF) help?
- Should Verizon have more flexibility (and less friction) to carry out this business plan?
ZD Net noted the following:
"Maybe Google Ads, tied to mobile presence?
"Say they know you are in NYC's Bryant Park. Bryant Park is right next to the main branch of the New York Public Library. That's a place frequented by lots of educated readers, computer users, researchers - and hmm, Google users, too.
"OK, let's think about it some more. Maybe if I am a Google salesperson in the NYC office, I visit nearby merchants and sell them Google AdWords?
"Google AdWords or Google AdSense tied to mobile presence? Definitely.
26 September 2005
I find it ironic that, after a decade of privatizing communication networks throughout the world, that this tred exists.
22 September 2005
20 September 2005
I am doubtful about this claim, because backbone providers are willing to peer with others only when traffic flow is symmetric. Going to a separate network, as these articles suggest, would enable Google to bypass backbone providers entirely for at least a portion of thie search. Is this a reasonable strategy? Is this a way for Google to leverage network economics to its advantage? Would Google be able to offer new services? Is this effectively a replay of the Western Union/AP deal of the 1860s?
19 September 2005
16 September 2005
Here is the PFF's first response.
15 September 2005
I would like to draw your attention to an ongoing review of Canadian Telecommunications Policy. The second round comment period ends today. The submitted comments are all available on line.
I would like to point out some procedural elements that are noteworthy. First, the publication of a consultation paper. Second, the publication of terms of reference. Third, the availability of two comment periods -- one for initial comments and the other for clarification/rebuttal. Why and how are each of these elements useful and important? You might also take a sampling of some of the submitted comments; do they reflect the positions you might expect? Were you able to think of a viewpoint that was not represented?
14 September 2005
The FCC has created a website to facilitate recovery efforts.
The report in theURL points to growth in GSM use in Latin America due to the decline in TDMA. The last paragraph of the report is significant, and why both AT&T wireless and Cingular (prior to their merger) independently chose to migrate to GSM from TDMA (and not CDMA) -- cheaper handsets. This is primarily because GSM is a simpler technology, therefore cheaper to implement. Scale economies also play a role, as GSM has the larger market share worldwide by a large margin (over CDMA).
The primary advantage of migrating from TDMA to CDMA is that the migration to 3G is less disruptive and (potentially) less expensive for the service providers.
13 September 2005
Another interesting question is what the wireline carriers should do in response to this trend. Should they abandon their infrastructure and write it off (eg. shrink as a company)? Should they transform their infrastructure in some way? If the latter, how?
12 September 2005
The report at this URL is of interest to you as students in this course.