[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
From ISOC
- To: Multiple recipients of list <epc-l@iucr.org>
- Subject: From ISOC
- From: Howard Flack <Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:46:17 +0100 (BST)
3. PUBLIC POLICY By David Maher, Vice President, Public Policy, dwmaher@ibm.net For most Internet users, one of the major obstacles to getting connected is the cost of telephone service to a service provider or other network connection. Whether you're on a network or connecting by modem, telephone charges are a subject of considerable interest. A recently updated report, from OECD, on costs of access to the Internet provides some very useful data for residents of OECD countries (OECD has 29 country members in Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific area). The report also provides background for news on two hotly contested issues involving connection charges. The Internet Society has always strongly favored a fair and reasonable access system for Internet users. In general, the Society believes that users should not be required to pay for access time measured by the minute (or second or hour), although reasonable charges for total usage over a longer period (e.g. a number of hours per month) are not unfair to users. This ideal is not generally attained throughout the world, however. In the words of the OECD report: "The predominant model for pricing local calls in the OECD area is measured service. In other words, the cost increases in proportion to the duration of the calls. The main exceptions are Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States." http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/cm/stats/isp-price99.htm In the United States, most residential users have unmeasured local rates for Internet connection, while in Australia, users pay a flat rate per local call, irrespective of the duration. In France, "online time is purchased in advance and users pay additional charges if they exceed this amount." In many developing countries, measured rates are the norm, and the end result is that Internet connection is economically constrained in the very countries that are most in need of advanced communication systems. Of course, the type of call charges bears no necessary relation to the total amount of these charges, whether by the second, minute, hour or month. For most users, a very small charge per minute may be preferable to a very high flat rate per call or a very high rate for monthly unlimited service. This leads us to two interesting public policy questions that have been in the news this month. One is an issue of global interest, the question of who covers the cost of international Internet traffic. The other is a more parochial issue relating to telephone charges as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the United States government. The World Telecommunications Standard Assembly (WTSA) has been meeting in Montreal, Canada. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) as a participant in the meeting has floated a proposal recommending that each country of the world be reimbursed for the cost of carrying Internet traffic generated by users in other countries. Without going into detail, what this means is that US Internet backbone providers would be required to compensate non-US telecoms for carrying U.S.-generated Internet traffic, since the vast majority of countries outside the U.S. are net "importers" of Internet traffic. It is not surprising, then, that the Clinton administration is actively opposing the ITU proposal. A lot of money is at stake; one estimate is that the non-US telecoms are paying up to US$5 billion per year to the US companies. The issue is extremely complex, and the US argument is not simply based on financial self-interest. There is a very serious question whether the old-fashioned model of reciprocal compensation for voice telephone calls should be applied to the Internet, where there is still no accepted model for measuring traffic. The FCC has released a report which urges that market forces, not international interconnection regulations, are the best way to promote universal connectivity through competition among backbone providers. A purely local concern in the United States involves a pending bill in the US Congress. The bill is deceptively simple - it would reclassify telephone calls made by users to service providers (ISPs) as local and not long distance. Because of "reciprocal compensation" arrangements, the current system requires local telephone carriers to compensate the carriers that serve ISPs for termination of calls as if they were long distance. The pending bill (H.R. 4445) would relieve local exchange carriers of all obligations "to make any payment for the transport or termination of telecommunications to the Internet or any provider of Internet access service." The financial effect on ISPs would be substantial. Some estimates are that average user costs in the US would be doubled. US telecoms argue that they are currently being forced to subsidize the operations of the service providers, but one of the curious arguments being made to support the pending bill is that the present situation "encourages excessive use of the Internet". This hardly seems like a valid reason for change. -- Howard Flack http://www.unige.ch/crystal/ahdf/Howard.Flack.html Laboratoire de Cristallographie Phone: 41 (22) 702 62 49 24 quai Ernest-Ansermet mailto:Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland Fax: 41 (22) 702 61 08
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Prev by Date: [Fwd: ]
- Next by Date: [Fwd: Of interest to US Members??]
- Prev by thread: [Fwd: Of interest to US Members??]
- Next by thread: From ISOC
- Index(es):