clinton east

Martin Geddes has in his typically insightful way, has begun pulling apart the changing nature of our markets . It is interesting to think about what might motivate changes in the rules that govern those markets.

Rules, and the law in general, are about resolving conflict. Changing laws usually imply new ways of thinking about conflict. There is really no doubt that who is legally right on many issues has changed over the years, despite the fact that we might like our moral compass to point in the same direction, always. Regulation of telecommunications is then just another means of balancing a conflict; in this case between those outlaying a capital investment (and expecting a return) and those who wish to use a service.

While Martin’s example of regulation is a good example of conflict, let’s consider the actors in the picture a little differently. In addition to the user, A, and the carrier, C, let’s introduce a new user, B. It’s not hard to what B’s role might be in this; B could be selling something using eBay to A. Or B may be a fellow MySpace user with A. If A is a music consumer, B could be anybody from the record label, distributor, or even the original artist. It’s not then, just A and C that find themselves in conflict; it’s also B and C when C decides to alter the jitter and loss of a switch path, or block a port. After all, that action can effectively shut B out of dealing with A.

What’s really happened is that folks have different, new means of competing interests. But at it’s root, conceptually we find regular, ordinary conflict between what people want. It might be that C wants A to use C’s proprietary voice-over-ip offering to speak to B, and in doing so charge more money than a competitor.

Two points so far;
1. If C acts to enforce it’s interest, it comes into conflict with B, and also A. This changing conflict is really just a result of our changing society and the law needs to adapt to take it into account.
2. Network neutrality is properly understood as a network which prevents C’s interests from coming into conflict with A and B’s interest.

I have a couple of things to say about this;

a) Resolving a conflict between competiting interests is fundamental to making a differentiated product. Why? Think about it using the old language of dis/re-intermediation. If the two parties don’t have a conflict to resolve, what’s the mediation appliance actually doing? How is it different from a wire? And if it’s not different from a wire, then it’s carriage. And carriage isn’t something that’s easy to differentiate. That’s how we’re ending up with blocked ports and slow switch paths.
b) It’s not surprising that Martin is thinking a layered approach might work well. What’s really important is making B and C able to compete on some footing for A’s business. What is less clear is what advantage C should rightly be given for having outlayed the capital. But it might be fun to throw a few ideas around!

I’ll pick these two ideas up in later articles.

Martin Geddes has in his typically insightful way, has begun pulling apart the changing nature of our markets . It is interesting to think about what might motivate changes in the rules that govern those markets.

Rules, and the law in general, are about resolving conflict. Changing laws usually imply new ways of thinking about conflict. There is really no doubt that who is legally right on many issues has changed over the years, despite the fact that we might like our moral compass to point in the same direction, always. Regulation of telecommunications is then just another means of balancing a conflict; in this case between those outlaying a capital investment (and expecting a return) and those who wish to use a service.

While Martin’s example of regulation is a good example of conflict, let’s consider the actors in the picture a little differently. In addition to the user, A, and the carrier, C, let’s introduce a new user, B. It’s not hard to what B’s role might be in this; B could be selling something using eBay to A. Or B may be a fellow MySpace user with A. If A is a music consumer, B could be anybody from the record label, distributor, or even the original artist. It’s not then, just A and C that find themselves in conflict; it’s also B and C when C decides to alter the jitter and loss of a switch path, or block a port. After all, that action can effectively shut B out of dealing with A.

What’s really happened is that folks have different, new means of competing interests. But at it’s root, conceptually we find regular, ordinary conflict between what people want. It might be that C wants A to use C’s proprietary voice-over-ip offering to speak to B, and in doing so charge more money than a competitor.

Two points so far;
1. If C acts to enforce it’s interest, it comes into conflict with B, and also A. This changing conflict is really just a result of our changing society and the law needs to adapt to take it into account.
2. Network neutrality is properly understood as a network which prevents C’s interests from coming into conflict with A and B’s interest.

I have a couple of things to say about this;

a) Resolving a conflict between competiting interests is fundamental to making a differentiated product. Why? Think about it using the old language of dis/re-intermediation. If the two parties don’t have a conflict to resolve, what’s the mediation appliance actually doing? How is it different from a wire? And if it’s not different from a wire, then it’s carriage. And carriage isn’t something that’s easy to differentiate. That’s how we’re ending up with blocked ports and slow switch paths.
b) It’s not surprising that Martin is thinking a layered approach might work well. What’s really important is making B and C able to compete on some footing for A’s business. What is less clear is what advantage C should rightly be given for having outlayed the capital. But it might be fun to throw a few ideas around!

I’ll pick these two ideas up in later articles.