Tuesday 2nd October, London
Global
Communications Society
Broadband
Revolution vs. a Narrowband Government
Michael
Potter, US Telecoms & Internet
Entrepreneur
Michael Potter argued
that BT has been engaged in abusive
anticompetitive behaviour. He pointed to
allegations that BT has an internal regulatory
strategy entitled, "Walking Backwards
Slowly." Potter pointed to the recent
European Commission raid of the Cellnet
offices, on suspicion of price fixing, as an
example of abuse. Other examples of
anticompetitive behaviour included delays in
unbundling, delays with Carrier Pre-Selection
(CPS), obstruction and overpricing with the
Calls & Access product, as well as recent
Oftel crack-downs on over-charging for leased
lines and for mobile interconnection. He
declared that Oftel was an incompetent
organisation. The primary argument for the
dysfunction seems to come from David Edmonds
himself, who argues that a new entity would be
more competent at managing the industry.
Potter slammed Oftel and Edmonds for using
weasel terms such as "regulatory
stability" and "proportionate
regulation." "These terms have been
used to justify a regulatory structure that
resembles lies built upon lies." He said,
"Oftel acts as it believes it only has a
nuclear option at its disposal....the removal
of BT's Public Telephone Operators (PTO)
license, so Oftel has been frozen into
inaction since this is thought to be
politically unobtainable." As an
organisation Oftel has no vision. Oftel has
not executed. They spend all their time,
energy and resources threading through legal
minefields. This seems to be both their means
and their ends." "Oftel should give
BT a choice, to compensate consumers and new
entrants for damages it has caused to the
industry, or the government should confiscate
BT's basic copper network and sell it, and use
the proceeds for compensation." On the
credentials needed for an effective Director
General, Potter argued "that the digital
economy is probably the most important
economic driver in the entire UK economy. You
need an individual who has the talent and the
track record to effectively grow this part of
an economy. Oftel should almost be seen and
judged as a separate revenue enhancement
entity for the nation."
Glenn
Manoff, Ebone
Glenn Manoff began his
presentation by suggesting that governments
are using the right rhetoric (e.g. "eEurope",
"eEnvoy", "Broadband
Britain") but are entirely ineffective at
creating the right market conditions. In
justifying his statement he argued that there
is no culture of clear responsibilities and
accountabilities, and that the government is
too focused on the consumer market and not focused
enough on the business and wholesale markets.
Furthermore, he suggested that there is no
continuum between the end and the means,
perhaps arising from the governments not
understanding the local access issues clearly
enough, not prioritizing it highly enough, or
not being willing to 'make the tough decisions
required to turn their well intentioned
rhetoric into reality'. He continued to state
that a broken regulatory process exists,
wherein regulators are ineffective, have an
unclear mandate and objectives, are
disconnected from government objectives, have
no clear targets on which to be measured and
have no real accountability.
Ian
Scales, Advanstar
There's a real and
present danger that the difficulties
surrounding unbundling in both US and Europe
is interpreted as proof that the CLEC business
model (in all its variety - including
wholesale, consortia etc) is unsustainable.
There is an obvious agenda here from
incumbents (Chris Ernshaw from BT did a job on
unbundling at the TEN meeting the other
night), but there's also a temptation for
executives (ex executives and so on) from the
competitive side of the business to reinforce
this by 'blaming the model', which is the easy
way out in the circumstances. It's harder to
make the more complex argument that not only
are business models which rely (or part rely)
on unbundling copper sustainable given the
right circumstances, but that they're crucial
for the next stage in the development of the
industry as the financial markets start
breaking up the likes of BT.
We risk playing into the
hands of the BTs of the world too, if we
aren't careful about how we go forward in
urging government intervention on bb access
(subsidy, public procurement and so on) since
this can so easily resurrect the idea that the
access network is a natural monopoly and has a sort of genetic pre-disposition
for a cross-subsidy of some sort (if it's not,
why does it need government help?). The access
network is NOT a natural monopoly and it
doesn't need subsidy for broadband - it just
needs the wreckers to get out of the way.
Stephen
Murphy, Earthlease
Broadband for the Masses
- the Earthlease Solution
As a result of the EU
sponsored legislation on Local Loop
Un-bundling (LLU), Earthlease believes that
the Loop should be managed and developed as an
"open platform" regulated utility
legally separated from the incumbent operator.
This creates a clear enabling platform
for new and existing service providers to
offer broadband applications to consumers
(business and residential) and a logical
investor to expedite the development of new
access technologies for the "last
mile".
Earthlease believes that
the creation of an incentivised, single
purpose entity, fully regulated in the public
interest will accelerate the LLU process and
increase the level of accountability and
transparency in the provision of network
access for all users.
Clearly progress to date
has been disappointing and a transaction as
proposed by Earthlease and with governmental
and regulatory support is urgently needed to
secure the benefits of broadband access in the
interest of all.
|