Transcript REFINEMENTS ON A LAYERED MODEL FOR …

REFINEMENTS ON A LAYERED MODEL FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY
Douglas C. Sicker, Ph.D.*
University of Colorado (Boulder)
* Based on work with Joshua Mindel, a Ph.D. student at CMU.
Layered Policy Models
• Several layered policy models have been proposed.
• While a layered model is a logical approach in its
consistency and modularity, there are concerns.
• These concerns include
– Sufficiently defining the terms and concepts
– Ensuring that the desired policy goals are achieved
– Describing a transition strategy
• We will discuss these concerns and propose a
framework for examining future policy needs.
• This framework isn’t proposed as a model for regulation,
but as a tool for considering the relationships among the
providers, particularly in terms of interconnection.
Definitions
• Openness
– This is a vague and subjective term; one used rather
loosely by policy makers and in the literature.
– Openness of what?
• Architecture,
• Interconnection,
• Interoperability,
• Directories,
• Code,
• Content…
– Are these technical, legal, policy or business issues?
• Probably all of the above
• This is what makes openness so subjective, in that
everyone has their own perspective.
Definitions
• Openness
– Why is the Internet “open”?
• Is it the design, the protocols, the market driven standards
process, the business relationships, the lack of dominance,
or the regulatory structure?
– IP-based networks do not equate to the Internet
• We could design an IP-based networks that is not part of the
globally accessible Internet
• Thus, just because it’s IP-based doesn’t make it open.
– Is the Internet really open?
• Access, backbone, addressing, and content issues
– As we add players and new services to the mix, how
do we ensure that the “open” nature of the Internet
does not erode?
Definitions
• Layers
– Where do we draw the lines?
• Combining all of the physical elements may ignore the significant
differences of these elements in terms of architecture, business and
policy.
– Who decides on (and regulates) the divisions?
• A layered model will require considerable coordination among
numerous government agencies.
• Unified layers may make it more difficult to treat the inconsistencies
within those layers.
• Interface
– What is an interface?
• The interface will vary as we proceed up the “stack”, moving from
something more technical to something more contractual.
– In what detail should an interface be described?
– And again, who decides?
Ensuring the Policy Goals
• How do we create definitions that can stand the test of
time (i.e., the test of technology and business change)?
• What if we define openness, the layers, and the
interfaces?
– Does providing “openness” of the interfaces ensure that a
provider will connect?
– If they do connect, how do you ensure that a dominant doesn’t
price competitors out of the market?
• Can we really move away from rate and interconnection
regulation?
– Does describing the network, the services and the content in
new ways (based on new models) address the problem of
market power?
– Possibly we should refrain from regulating based on the
service/infrastructure and focus on market power as a threshold
for rate and interconnection regulation.
Transition
• Shifting from a title-based model to a layered model may
create some growing pains.
• Some things to consider
– Diversity of existing technology and architectures
– The disparity among the market segments
– The strong dependency (and influence) of existing
policy
– The opportunity for concentration of market power
• A transition strategy must recognize the strong influence
of the existing structures.
• Is there a precedent for a layered model?
– Basic/Enhanced
– Telecommunication/Information
– ONA
– Section 256 (for interaction with standards bodies)
A Framework
• We propose a framework for evaluating the relationships
among the players and services.
• Our framework has the following elements:
– Providers of Access and Transport Services
– Providers of Applications Services
• Directory Services
• Middleware Services
• End user Services
– Providers of Content
– Providers of Telecommunications Services
• This framework was designed specifically with
consideration of the network design, the business
relationships and future policy. A framework must be
realistic in what it attempts to frame.
Alternate Framework
Emerging IP
Infrastructure
Content
Content
Emerging IP
Infrastructure
F
Application
Application
Content
Content
Service Provider
Service Provider
E
Service Provider
Application
Application
Service Provider
Transport
Transport
Service Provider
Access
Access
D
Transport
Transport
Service Provider
B
Access
Access
Service Provider
C
A
Any of these layers may require further divisions. For example, directory services
will likely need to be treated differently from end user applications.
Based on unpublished work by Sicker, Mindel, and Cooper, 1999.
Alternate Framework
Emerging IP
Infrastructure
Content
Content
Application
Application
Legacy PSTN
Infrastructure
Service Provider
PSTN
PSTN Voice
Voice
Service Provider
G
Transport
Transport
Service Provider
Access
Access
Service Provider
Service Provider
PSTN
PSTNTransport
Transport
It is important to ensure that the highly interconnected and interoperable nature of
voice service is maintained. Therefore, one of the most important issues will be
understanding the requirements of emerging to legacy interconnection.
Conclusions
• For a model to be useful, it must address the details of the
problem (but not get lost in them).
– A model must be rooted in sound policy goals.
– The policy/regulation should be general in nature - to be applicable
as technology and business changes.
• A model should consider the transition strategy.
– This transition strategy should take into account the existing network
design, the business models as well as the evolving policy.
– This transition strategy should also consider what aspects of the
existing regulation should remain and what should change.
• While some of the existing regulation may remain, we
should stop regulating based on service/infrastructure and
focus on market power as a threshold for rate and
interconnection regulation.