PTC09: Policy
This is the fourth and final day of my coverage of this conference. The information for this morning (today) is here.
The first session this morning is on Policy. Walda Roseman is moderator for speakers Rob Frieden, Heather Hudson, Francis Pereira, and Laura Sherman.
Walda Roseman: Broadband Mobility: Matching Promise with Performance in Asia
Wireless and mobile platforms in delivery of broadband.
Promise in this region: all Asian citizens will have access by 2015, mobile and wireless platforms and advanced user devices will provide access to a full range of services in next few years, and medium and low income countries (wireless is access to info and services) will be able to share in benefits. No commonly accepted definition of what broadband is; working definition is whether or not wireless access on fully loaded system can support services comparable to ADSL.
Asia-Pacific Broadband Opportunity and challenge: Asia has “a yawning broadband divide” with half of economies having highest penetration, many least served areas are also Asian. ITU chart: highest income economies have access, 31 lower income countries with low or no access.
Observations: most systems cannot maintain broadband speeds when network is fully loaded. Usage of mobile systems varies. Much of data needs are being served on mobile platforms.
Is Asia ready? short answer: no, maybe not for a long time. Nationwide, service is out of reach, quality of service is low.
Government policy as driver of mobile broadband: first step is strong political and regulator will, legal framework, and responsiveness by government to market needs and expectations. Foremost is partnership between government and industry. Need to promote quality of service, availability of spectrum, equipment, and global interoperability.
Problems: Asia falls way short of meeting needs, gov support is required.
Heather Hudson: Overcoming the Challenges of Isolation (Small Islands)
Quote from last August indicating complete drop of access. Region is highly diverse, has severe challenges because of isolation and small populations. (Also includes landlocked countries who depend on transport thru another country.) Most areas have low and lower middle income countries.
Importance: disaster communications, imports, experts, tourism, distance learning, development of back offices for information work. Example: Bits for Borneo: broadband in the jungle, diversifying gross national happiness, University of SOuth Pacific for distance education.
Regulatory policies: most have competition in mobile, few in fixed line. Trends to better devices. Mobile growing: more than 60% of phone subscribers in some areas, competition in some areas, prices higher than average.
Bad news: Internet access is limited in speed, less than 3 subscribers per 100 people, some countries <1 in 200. Availability of broadband: price high (150% of gross national income, in wealthier countries: 2%. of GNI). Monthly use prices also very high (in relative GNI and absolute $ terms).
International connectivity: generally getting cheaper, most islands served by satellite, high transit rates and tarriff proxies (e.g., Skype-out: over $1 per min, compared to $.02 to Singapore and Hong Kong).
Strategies to bridge the connectivity gaps: increase competition, recognize demand, limit periods of exclusivity, extend access through resale, and reduce local barriers. Think about community access as first priority. Universal service funds must be open to all providers. Perhaps a universal (targetted?) broadband fund for Pacific Islands?
Rob Frieden: The Spin in Broadband Statistics: How the FCC makes False Assessments of Next Gen Network Deployment in the US
Check the book.
Absent market failure, should govs stimulate broadband investment, subsidize service, or become a carrier? FCC (for a number of reasons) hasn’t really been telling the truth in terms of broadband penetration. In policy process, may be incentive to skew. “Incentivize” is common term. National goal for broadband, “mission accomplished.” $7B subsidiary to incumbents, delivery poor or non-existent to certain areas. FCC statistics say we’re doing great, based on 200k bits/sec definition. Penetration goes to 77% of all zip codes, with 4 or more broadband choices. FCC tells us (by zip) by numerical figure in internal charts (considered “trade secrets” which are confidential). However, wireless carriers don’t claim the trade secret exemption and willingly disclose coverage maps.
US ranks 15th among OECD nations in household penetration. Lags most nations on basis of per capita.
Whose statistics are most credible? State department was outraged at cooked books. Most options don’t exceed 200 kbps, but FCC shows increase in coverage.
Case study: Port Matilda PA. Current strategies and statistics not working. Erates have achieved modest goals, wi-fi mixed, incumbent has right of first refusal (not optimal).
Need to use better statistics, adopt best practices (other nations).
Francis Pereira: The Effectiveness of Government Policies in Broadband Deployment: An Assessment of Select Asian Countries
Broadband penetration and adoption rates vary across countries (globally). Various plans for ubiquitous, ultra high speed, or advanced ICT apps and services deployments (diff countries use diff strategies).
Sinapore’s gov initiatives: TradeNet, One Broadband Network incentives to conduct e-commerce, GeBiz (gov site), and iN2015. Singapore and Hong Kong (TradeLink) chart, different priorities and reasons for services. Singapore’s TradeNet iniative processed 99% of all trade declarations w 2400 companies, reduced processing time, etc.
Korea’s eVision: knowledge government priority. General challenges: no definition of impacts, statistical approaches, to attribution, nature of ICT.
Some evidence for hourly compensation for production costs in manufacturing, inward FDI stock as % of GDP (chart), and employment, total assets and other measurements. Singapore: 95% of biz obtained info did so electronically at least once in last year. 94% transacted at least once, and 80% were satisfied w transaction. Korea: evidence of standard of living, effectiveness of policies, new methods of assessing contribution of ICT to society, and new business models for broadband deployment (funding last mile).
Laura Sherman: Advancing Broadband in Singapore: From Monopoly to Competition
Represents Iridium Satellite LLC (disclosure). Will use Singapore as model. Statistics: 1997 monopoly wireless, now different. Sector reform process: restructuring and limited competition: First phase (‘92-’94): separated regulator and operations. Second phase (95-98): duopoly in mobile, ended Singtel’s monopoly, added a third mobile license.
Facilities-based and WTO commitments, less limitations. Dramatic changes between 1999 and 2003, changed regulation process, now unlimited competition allowed (over 50 present in fixed and mobile). Connectivity is the impetus in driving growth.
Current Code of Practice for competition: looks at true competition, will deregulate as market changes. Facilitated thru tech-neutral licensing, nominal fees, no foreign ownership limits.
New regulatory phase, five year plan. Lessons learned: connectivity is key, limited political interference, transparent reg process, competition at all levels of value chain, tech-neutral licensing and fees.
Question: definition of broadband based on speed delivered (esp in light of deep packet and other internal routing processes)? Rob: Yes, extent for carriers to throttle and other network neutralities is second level of process, first is transparency of process and fact finding, statistics compilation. Gov should require parity between promised and delivered bit rates. Heather: pricing models haven’t moved, is another important metric. Also Canada as example: some countries have done better at serving remote areas (Canada is good!) Walda: also some countries are better at measuring throughput, dropped calls, sound quality, data… especially compared to what’s advertised.
Q (speaker from Nepal): concentration on all countries not equal.
Q (from island representative): comment about undue bias in competition: does not work in rural areas. In New Zealand and Australia, 5-10% unserved, but Islands 80% unserved. Way to go forward: define universal service development and how we pay for it. Another person disagrees: way to facilitate is thru new operators.
Quote from FCC outgoing chair warns of excessive intervention (see article from FT.com). Heather: voice service is important, competition is coming to mobile if (?) is willing to pay. Community level access in some levels might be appropriate. Laura: Malaysia throws a lot of money at connectivity but has huge licensing fees. Rob: agrees to a point with outgoing FCC Chair, but his FCC overstated and prevented competition, boxed in facilities to incumbent services.
Q: how to pay for terminal, tech support, etc? Rob: eRate top heavy (wiring), (no?) support for digital literacy. Heather: competitive subsidy system for schools in US. Need to operationalize it to serve operational, health and other services. Francis: re: who’s going to pay – what are advantages? Islands have special zones for access to certain people, is growth area. Strategic areas served first: build to rural areas vs building new hospital. Society pays because of net return on investment. Walda: India’s software zones.
Q: re lack of transparency and gaming aspects that to be considered in Austral-Asia, Is there a role for US or other that can model universal service? Walda: yes, it is being looked at for policy and operational levels, share best practices, Africa is where it is most effectively being done. Heather: liberalization is not same as deregulation. Need to set rules of the game. Enforcement in many countries is difficult for various reasons. Additionally: quality of service is critical, not enough attention to monitoring. What about a sub-regional approach? Look at EcTel (?). Laura isn’t sure it’s working. Objective isn’t being met. Walda: Quality of service: she wouldn’t blame anybody right now, first push is expansion, only after that has succeeded should one question quality.