Kenneth R. Carter

A Comparison of Network Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, and the European Union

In this paper, we compare and contrast the regulatory approaches to addressing Network Neutrality in three countries which represent three roughly different approaches. In the United States, which has suffered the most obvious Network Neutrality problems, the national regulator has promulgated a set of four policy principles aimed at preserving the open characteristics of Internet. These principles ensure Internet users the rights to: access lawful content; run lawful applications; attach lawful and non-harmful devices; and to have competitive alternatives. The U.S. FCC is currently considering extending those policy principles with two new ones. However, it has had significant problems attempting to codify and enforce actionable, legally binding rules. In October 2007, the Japanese MIC introduced Network Neutrality principles as an amendment to the “New Competition Policy Program 2010”. The policy requires that IP networks be accessible to content, to terminal equipment, and equally to all users, at reasonable prices. Network Neutrality also includes the concept of utilizing IP networks with the proper allocation of costs, and without discrimination. This is similar in concept to the “reasonable network management” exception embodied in the U.S. approach. In addition, a working group of four telecom business associations was created in September 2007 to develop a “Guideline for Packet Shaping”. The guidelines cover basic conditions for when packet traffic shaping is permitted, including measures to cancel heavy users’ contracts. Packet shaping should only be allowed in exceptional situations. The guidelines include the basic concept that ISPs should increase network capacity in line with increases in network traffic. As opposed to crafting ex-ante rules which describe the contours of permissible network practices, EU policy seeks to constrain market power by creating sector-specific rules designed to stimulate competition. The intention behind the EU approach is that competition will punish anticompetitive deviations from Network Neutrality.We observe two approaches which seek to ex ante determine the bounds of permissible conduct by IP-based networks and one approach which eschews direct intervention in the problem. We analyse these three approaches, identifying the relative strength and weaknesses of each in the body of this paper.

Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Spectrum Use by the Public Sector: Lessons from Europe

Huge strides have been made in enhancing the efficiency of spectrum use by private commercial users over the past two decades, but only scant improvement in the methodologies and technologies associated with spectrum use by public sector users (including the military, emergency services, and aeronautical and maritime transport.This paper assesses the applicability of a number of emerging European ideas and practices to public sector spectrum management in the United States. Two relevant studies were been completed in 2008, one by the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (the RSPG, an advisory group to the European Commission), the other a consulting study by led by WIK-Consult and conducted on behalf of the European Commission. Both studies examined spectrum management practices in the Netherlands (where periodic re-justification of spectrum assignments is required) and in the UK (where market-inspired techniques are being applied to the management of public sector spectrum).

Safety First: Reinvesting the Digital Dividend in Safeguarding Citizens

Public Safety and Security (PSS) service responders provide us with indispensable police, fire and other emergency services. Each individual in our society has the growing expectation of, if not the right to, emergency services. In turn, society expects that its government will expend the necessary resources to aid those in emergency need. The provision of emergency services extends beyond the social contract and invokes a moral obligation to protect life, welfare, and property. In order to fulfil this obligation to save lives and property, PSS organisations and their personnel require wireless access not only to voice and simple data services (narrowband) but also increasingly to broadband data services. The ability to utilise broadband services requires more spectrum than the two 5 MHz-wide blocks currently harmonised across Europe. Already some countries have had to provide access to further spectrum to support voice services. Calculations show that approximately two additional 15 MHz-wide blocks are required but the question is where this spectrum can be found that can economically support the longer ranges needed to provide geographic coverage in rural areas. One possible solution is to allocate spectrum from the transition to digital terrestrial television, the so called Digital Dividend. In this White Paper, we examine the social welfare gained through the reallocation of Digital Dividend spectrum to PSS mission critical networks. We marshal the arguments for further dedicated spectrum for mission critical PSS communications, as well as provide a detailed view of the technical and operational characteristics of next generation PSS radio systems. The Digital Dividend can fulfil this necessary communications role, within the timescales needed by PSS users and provide a clear evolution path for essential day to day wireless mission critical communications.