Simple legislative language for Tariff Rebate Passthrough
One of the best features of Tariff Rebate Passthrough is that, even with pricing flexibility, it can be implemented using simple legislative language. There only have to be three stipulations:
- Pricing of internet services to consumers will be based wholly on technical characteristics such as volume and quality of service, and not on the identity of the information provider, the content of the information, or the equipment (hardware or software) used by the consumer to consume it. (Actually, the telecom providers may yelp at the “hardware” clause.)
- Pricing of “last-mile” delivery to information providers will be based on those same factors only, and be in the form of standard per-byte tariffs only. Pricing will not discriminate in any way among information providers, nor among types of application.
- Telecom service vendors can’t charge two parties for delivering the same byte.
I think that’s it. Maybe I’m missing something – I’m surely no regulatory lawyer – but those three provisions seem to incorporate the essence, and the benefits, of Tariff Rebate Passthrough.
| Categories: Net neutrality, Public policy and privacy | 1 Comment |
Tariff Rebate Passthrough – achieving pricing flexibility
I’ve thought more about the one weakness so far in the Tariff Rebate Passthrough plan – pricing flexibility. Contrary to what I implied a few hours ago, I now believe that Tariff Rebate Passthrough (TRP) is fully compatible with the kinds of service pricing flexibility providers and consumers are used to or would want. To see that, let’s consider the basic kinds of telecom service pricing:
| Categories: Net neutrality, Public policy and privacy | 2 Comments |
How Tariff Rebate Passthrough would work
Dave Siegel posted a challenge to my Tariff Rebate Passthrough net neutrality proposal, claiming that technical implementation would be unduly burdensome, and also touching on the fact that consumers generally prefer flat-rate to metered pricing. I think the best response would be to spell out, in a little more detail, how it would work. Along the way, I think I can answer Dave’s (and anybody else’s) concerns. Read more
| Categories: Net neutrality, Public policy and privacy | 6 Comments |
Intel on the comeback trail
My gut feeling is that Intel is coming back from its multiyear product inferiority vs. AMD. This ZDnet article lays out the case in much more detail than I could, but I have two observations to add:
1. There’s no reason Intel shouldn’t be able to leapfrog AMD. Permanent loss of market leads tends to be due to factors such as platform shifts or incurable code bloat; none of those seem to be present in the case of microprocessors.
2. For a while, I’ve been dealing with software and appliance vendors that like Intel because they’re paid to like Intel, via various kinds of marketing arrangements. But over the last few months, the liking has begun to sound a lot more sincere.
Disclosure: Intel is a co-sponsor of two of my white papers. Wiseasses might suggest that my point #2 above is therefore actually somewhat recursive in its reasoning.
Why I feel qualified to pontificate about public policy
Maybe I should explain why I feel motivated and qualified to hold forth at such length about public policy issues such as net neutrality, free-world privacy, authoritarian censorship, economic development, and so on.
If you’re reading here, you’re probably familiar with my software industry credentials — top-ranked stock analyst, top-tier product analyst, sometime entrepreneur, etc. If not, there’s always my official bio. But I also have some non-trivial public policy and economics chops. I spent two years at the Kennedy School of Government after getting my Ph.D. Then, turning down an assistant professorship at the Kellogg School of Management as well as research jobs at RAND and IDA, I went to Wall Street — which is, if one chooses to make it such, one heck of a further education in economics. And then in the mid/late 90s, Linda and I actually got active in the internet services market, analyzing, consulting, etc. Indeed, we even (re)wrote a few speeches for Steve Case of AOL, including some Congressional testimony.
Bottom line: Yes, I actually have some idea what I’m talking about. 🙂
| Categories: About this blog, Economic development, Net neutrality, Online and mobile services, Privacy, censorship, and freedom | Leave a Comment |
Great debate on net neutrality
The Save the Internet folks report on a wonderful net neutrality debate. And what they have to say is totally compatible with my Tariff Rebate Passthrough proposal.
Key points:
- Prioritizing one KIND of application, like telemedicine or video downloads, over others is OK.
- Charging for that prioritization is OK.
- Favoring one PROVIDER of the SAME kind of application over another — e.g., Mayo Clinic vs. Johns Hopkins in telemedicine, or Google vs. Yahoo in search — is NOT OK.
Technorati Tags: net neutrality
| Categories: Net neutrality, Public policy and privacy | Leave a Comment |
Dave Kellogg on Paris as Silicon Valley
Dave Kellogg has a long, interesting post based on his own experiences with the attempts to make Paris into a Silicon Valley (at Business Objects, of course). He comes out very negatively. Reasons include:
1. Worker culture — people don’t have the same entrepreneurial, hard-working drive in France as they do in the US. Based on what I know of Business Objects and also of Dave’s tenure there, my gut reaction is to say this is 2/3 justified, 1/3 Dave just being Dave.
2. A lack of specific skillsets. Also, a lack of connection to the most important market, the US. I agree completely, except that these considerations apply more strongly to well-established industries than they do to truly new ones.
3. A wealth tax that drives rich people, including previously successful entrepreneurs, out of France. Ouch.
| Categories: Economic development, Public policy and privacy | 1 Comment |
The false dichotomy of net neutrality, and the Tariff Rebate Passthrough solution
The hot technology-related public policy issue right now (at least in the US) is of course net neutrality. Here’s my take on it:
Both sides are being too extreme, and are painting a false dichotomy. But the proponents of net neutrality are much closer to being right than the laissez-faire telecom industry advocates. The principle that should guide net neutrality policy is Tariff Rebate Passthrough. What that means is:
- Telecom providers should be allowed to charge for superior QOS (Quality of Service).
- Information providers should be allowed to subsidize those charges for consumers, e.g. as part of a general subscription, or to induce them to view advertising.
- Telecom providers should not be free to cut their own deals with information providers. They should simply pass the QOS tariff rebates through to consumers on the information providers’ behalf.
| Categories: Net neutrality, Public policy and privacy | 6 Comments |
Layer 7 stateful deep packet inspection — the privacy threat is more serious than we thought
I’ve been reading up on net neutrality, and was just hit by an unhappy realization.
The technology that’s kicked off the whole debate is Layer 7 stateful deep packet inspection. This a feature of telecom equipment, originally found only in high-end firewalls, but now evidently found throughout Cisco’s (and surely also its competitors’) product lines. In IP telecom without this feature, the equipment just sees packets of data, and perhaps header information, but can’t look at the data’s content. However, when you’re looking at Layer 7, the equipment is looking at what the application sees. Everything is visible — every record, every word. And if Cisco’s marketing materials are to be believed, all that technology exists today.
The dangers this presents in terms of privacy and censorship, whether in the basically free countries or the basically authoritarian ones, should be obvious. Fighting for freedom is more urgent than we previously realized.
Outsourcing differences by country
Stan Gibson asserts a significant cultural difference in Russan vs. Indian outsourcing. Basically, he characterizes the Indians as compliant servants, while the Russians are argumentative team members, although one quote acknowledges there are exceptions in both countries. Based on this, it appears that some companies are happier doing serious product development in Russia than in India.
At best, he greatly overstates the case. Much more product development has been done by Indian outsourcers than Russian ones, going all the way back to Release 1 of Microsoft Visual Basic. Even so, it’s a distinction worth thinking about if you’re trying to kickstart an outsourcing business (or considering using an outsourcer) in a less-commonly-used outsourcing country.
| Categories: Economic development | Leave a Comment |