T
An excellent articles drafted by our Team of Mumbai Multimedia Studio on current scenario and at the same time feels sorry for butchering Joseph Rudyard Kipling within the subject. But that actually was how investors, regulators, and consumers had seen tech companies and telecom companies for the last 20 years.
Telecom was once a horny, cutting-edge, cash spewing industry species. It controlled technology through its "walled gardens” and consumer wallets through its lucrative billing relationships. Being regulated and licensed ensured competition too was kept under control.
Then came the tech companies. ranging from their own niches—like look for Google, e-commerce for Amazon, or social networking for Facebook—they kept growing and growing. within the process, they threw up more users, cash flows, innovation, and products each year.
Till they became the enormous mega corporations that straddle the planet today, using their reach and power to expand into every segment from payments and communications to logistics and devices. Being unregulated meant they “evolved” during away more competitive environment, and into rather more dominance, and aggressive corporate species.
Sooner or later though, these 2 species were sure to run into one another.
The emergence of the web Technologies has brought new opportunities for people to exercise their rights but also new regulatory questions arise to manage the traffic, particularly with relevance telecommunications rules. In our first post in an exceedingly series on Over-the-Top (OTT) services, we gave a short introduction to the problems at stake in regulating these services. Here we explore why differences in technology and context matter when developing new regulatory models. Is it appropriate for lawmakers to use legacy telecommunications rules to new “OTT” internet services? this can bea crucial question for human rights. As we’ve previously argued, the style within which we regulate the platform and services we use for communicating and exercising our rights affects our enjoyment of them. If a government were to need a license for each “communications platform” to function, as an example, it might have a profound impact on our freedom of expression, since it might affect how we use any personal webpage, forum, or independent media venue that permits comments or the exchange of data.
To help lawmakers and telecom regulators considering the question, we explore below important differences between classic telecommunications technologies and internet services.
A broad assertion of “regulatory inequality” isn't a reason to control
A common argument in discussions on this issue is that there's currently “regulatory inequality“ among telecom networks and internet services, and corresponding alleged negative economic consequences for telecoms that has got to guide policy-making. Telecom service providers are often required to befits specific obligations around taxation or revenue share, contributions to universal service obligation funds, telecom network investment targets/mandates, pricing regulations, and must-carry obligations, while in many cases, internet services don't seem to be. Some within the telecom industry argue that policy should “correct” this inequality. However, “inequality” isn't the salient factor lawmakers should consider in policy-making. to form an aptly tailored regulatory regime for brand spanking new services, they must instead consider:
Technological differences. Telecom service providers offer voice calling and text messaging directly, while internet services run on the highest layer of the network as standalone services. The services are offered during a different context, whether or not they often serve the identical function for end users.
Differences in rationale for regulation. There are public interest reasons for the regulations applied to telecom service providers, arising from the actual fact that they're provided exclusive licenses, and obtain government permission to use public goods within the kind of radio-frequency spectrum and right-of-way. Public interest reasons for regulating internet services, however, is also different. Regulators mustn't fret about achieving some type of regulatory parity between telecommunications networks and internet services. Instead, they must worry about what regulations are truly suitable for every. Comparing the “playing fields” for telecom services and internet applications
Telecoms networks: exploit scarce resources, have “economy of scale” advantages, high barriers to entry, lack of competition...
As we note above, there are strong public interest reasons for regulating telecommunications services and imposing specific obligations (such as “must carry,” neutrality, regulated pricing, etc.) for example, telecommunications industries exploit scarce resources that belong to the “eminent domain” of states, namely telecommunications spectrum, and in some cases, infrastructure that was built by governments. This earlier thinking of “scarcity” in broadcast spectrum is essential to understanding the “must carry” regulations for telecommunications and cable TV, and also the “content quotas” imposed on audiovisual service providers. there's a public interest in protecting freedom of expression altogether its facets, yet as pluralism via “positive discrimination,” where private players are granted exclusive or semi-exclusive rights to use public resources like radio spectrum and customary telecom physical infrastructure.
Additionally, the exploitation of public resources by telecommunications operators implies an economic advantage that's there from the start which justifies regulations entailing investment quotas, universal service obligations, social tariffs, etc. This advantage is economy of scale. as an example, during the telecommunications deregulation within the 1990s in Latin America, telecommunications operators acquired privatized essential facilities that formerly belonged to the state, and were provided long-term concessions and territories for his or her exclusive exploitation. This led to competitive advantages in several countries. This is particularly true today when “triple-play” or “convergent” operators are appearing throughout the planet. Not every company are going to be ready to offer such efficient communications “bundles” or “packs”; meaning that the telecommunications markets have high barriers to entry and thus are susceptible to cartelization (caring) and concentration (lack of competition).
Internet services: abundance of resources, low barriers to entry, high competition
Meanwhile, internet applications involve a special context. Firstly, the web is defined by abundance, not scarcity. albeit there are services and protocols which will sometimes serve an equivalent function as telecommunications technologies (instant messaging, voice IP, video on demand, etc.), the explanations for regulating their use are different. The case has not been made for licensing-style regulatory intervention within the name of supporting either diversity or competition. On the web, anyone who has access to the network can enjoy its neutral and open characteristics. Freedom and consumer choice determine what quite content or service is popular. Moreover, since there are not any fixed quotas or quantitative limitations for content, actors who have difficulty getting their own media outlets, or whose dissident or minority viewpoints deter broadcasters, can reach interested communities on the web. This includes, but isn't limited to: indigenous populations, citizen journalists, LGBTI collectives, localized / multilingual content creators, artists outside the copyright-driven production scheme.
In conclusion, the barrier of entry to the communications “market” on the web is low enough that nearly any interested party can operate a communications service or a media outlet, effectively supporting democratization of speech by enabling any reader or user to even be a content creator.
Should regulators regard internet services and telecom services as competitive “substitutes”?
The short answer is not any. In theory, economic actors “compete” to sell products or services which will offer similar value, and will function substitutes for each other. However, users are migrating within their choice of technologies instead of in the use of products or services; telecommunications services and services supported internet protocols are so different that they might barely be considered competing “substitutes.” Consider SMS vs. internet messaging apps like Viber, Signal, WhatsApp, or Snapchat; their business models are different (metered consumption and billing vs. data exploitation); the technology they use is different; the barrier of entry to the market is different (and therefore the offering of alternatives is different); and their degree of availability to the general public is different (there are messaging platforms that are open for everybody to use while others are closed or exclusive). Not having access to at least one of them doesn't imply endangering the proper to communication; while not having access to SMS or basic telecommunications services (including access to the web, for instance) leaves the user with little or no available substitutes.
Human rights are in danger
A plain adaptation of pre-existing rules and obligations to new internet services could harm users’ rights - for instance, it'd entail the requirement to register any site that deals with user interaction as an information intermediary. Last year, Argentina’s National Communications Entity issued a group of principles for the regulation of convergent telecommunications. Principle number 13 proposes the requirement to register “inter mediation applications” with the govt. this is often would chill free expression since any service that permits for user comments would be forced to comply. Similarly, there are obligations associated with data retention for telecommunications services in some countries (like Peru) that ought to not automatically be transplanted to online services. Mandatory data retention in tele-communication services is already harmful for privacy rights. Requiring an equivalent for internet intermediaries, especially without nuances, would increase the risks exponentially, since internet services would be required to stay even more data about us that they already do. This is why special rapporteurs on freedom of expression at the United Nations have said that rules governing traditional media shouldn't be directly transferred to the web, but rather got to be specifically designed for it.
In our next post, we'll explore how countries round the world are responding to those regulatory debates impacting the open internet.
Stay tuned, Be with MMS Mumbai Multimedia Studio - review the blogs and articles on current niche and scenario faced and used by World Humanitarian as necessities for their livelihood & Standard of life.
Comentários