Comments on: Europe’s Choice http://bennett.com/blog/2008/10/europes-choice/ A personal blog Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:57:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andrew Orlowski http://bennett.com/blog/2008/10/europes-choice/#comment-5729 Andrew Orlowski Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:08:03 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/?p=5041#comment-5729 That was my impression too, Brett - broadband regulation has been captured as a "consumer issue" by politiicians and bureucrats. Last November the European Commission announced that it wanted to be a telecomms regulator itself, establishing a new authority. It's currently engaged in a turf war with national telecomms regulators (NRAs), such as OFCOM in the UK. In the spring it proposed a "slimmed down" (100+ staff) authority. And so "pipe regulation" (at the packet level) has bled onto the agenda because it suits both the EC's mission creep, and politicians who may fear being ambushed. The thing is, there's no one to ambush them here. I n the UK, we're throttled and metered up the wazoo, and we do what the British do best in such circumstances. Grumble. That was my impression too, Brett – broadband regulation has been captured as a “consumer issue” by politiicians and bureucrats.

Last November the European Commission announced that it wanted to be a telecomms regulator itself, establishing a new authority. It’s currently engaged in a turf war with national telecomms regulators (NRAs), such as OFCOM in the UK. In the spring it proposed a “slimmed down” (100+ staff) authority.

And so “pipe regulation” (at the packet level) has bled onto the agenda because it suits both the EC’s mission creep, and politicians who may fear being ambushed.

The thing is, there’s no one to ambush them here. I

n the UK, we’re throttled and metered up the wazoo, and we do what the British do best in such circumstances. Grumble.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://bennett.com/blog/2008/10/europes-choice/#comment-5728 Richard Bennett Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:06:57 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/?p=5041#comment-5728 It's interesting that the Internet is the only communications network to undergo continuous improvement since its deployment, and is also the least regulated. Forcing it into the mold of regulatory stasis - with the consent and approval of the watchdogs - doesn't strike me as step in the right direction. It's interesting that the Internet is the only communications network to undergo continuous improvement since its deployment, and is also the least regulated. Forcing it into the mold of regulatory stasis – with the consent and approval of the watchdogs – doesn't strike me as step in the right direction.

]]> By: Brett Glass http://bennett.com/blog/2008/10/europes-choice/#comment-5727 Brett Glass Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:31:46 +0000 http://bennett.com/blog/?p=5041#comment-5727 It's not just the regulators who are looking to save their jobs; it's the "consumer crusaders." They used to do a brisk business by railing against the telephone companies. Now that we're seeing a digital convergence, they are turning their attention to the Internet. This has caused them to take steps to promote a duopoly (they can't justify their positions as Davids unless there are Goliaths to fight, and so they are actually pushing regulations that will drive the little guys out of business, leaving a duopoly). They then need to impose complex regulations which require constant vigilance to enforce, so that they can be "watchdogs." This is the REAL reason why the Washington lobbyists (e.g. Free Press, Public Knowledge, etc.) are pushing for "network neutrality." It's not about consumers. It's about keeping their jobs, growing their staffs, and getting contributions. (If consumers are not dissatisfied, these lobbyists won't get money, so it is vitally important for them to bring about consumer dissatisfaction.) It's not just the regulators who are looking to save their jobs; it's the “consumer crusaders.” They used to do a brisk business by railing against the telephone companies. Now that we're seeing a digital convergence, they are turning their attention to the Internet. This has caused them to take steps to promote a duopoly (they can't justify their positions as Davids unless there are Goliaths to fight, and so they are actually pushing regulations that will drive the little guys out of business, leaving a duopoly). They then need to impose complex regulations which require constant vigilance to enforce, so that they can be “watchdogs.” This is the REAL reason why the Washington lobbyists (e.g. Free Press, Public Knowledge, etc.) are pushing for “network neutrality.” It's not about consumers. It's about keeping their jobs, growing their staffs, and getting contributions. (If consumers are not dissatisfied, these lobbyists won't get money, so it is vitally important for them to bring about consumer dissatisfaction.)

]]>