By "edges" I mean "products" for the most part, products offered to consumers 
and products available to other operators.

Way back regulation was technical. Then it became more economics based - all 
the discussion about markets and SMP (significant market power) - and so the 
emphasis on products.

We still have regulation involving shared technical resources, whether spectrum 
or ducts or masts.

But we have had push-back, at least in spirit, on CPE from the days following 
the Terminal Equipment Directive. And also more recently on local loop 
unbundling - because fibre is so different to copper?

What I sense is that now they leaning towards getting deeper inside networks - 
and on the internet side and not on the specialised side.

This is a good thing or a bad thing? i would hope people talk about it. I 
wonder though if all those people who wanted network neutrality will be happy 
with how it will be enforced in detail.

From a few years ago:

http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/network-neutrality-law-–-step-forwards-or-step-backwards

By the way many people, even those who have questions about BEREC, seem to 
think their local regulator is actually quite good on all this. So I wonder 
where the gap is.

Anyway I am trying not to "do the analysis". I am trying encourage people to 
read at least some of the BEREC material - there is lots! - so they can discuss 
it here / make their own mind up.

Gordon

On 20 May, 2014, at 14:36, Wout de Natris <[email protected]> wrote:

> Gordon,
> 
> Weren't regulators in telecoms in the late 90s meant to go in straight 
> through the front door and break open the market? (Where necessary.) Make 
> interconnection and special access possible by forcing access and setting 
> prices, etc.? In those days I was not under the impression to be working on 
> "the edges".
> 
> What I get from your analyses, the main point BEREC's stating, is not so far 
> beside what happened in the late 90s, at least in NL. New developments should 
> be supported, but not through harming other/traditional services. And isn't 
> that what the concern is about?
> 
> Wout

Reply via email to