<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16443"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>---------- Forwarded message ----------<BR>From: <B>Bob Frankston</B>
<BR>Date: Saturday, May 5, 2012<BR>Subject: Re Speech by ITU Secretary-General -
Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association Wireless Antenna Sitting Forum :
Closing Keynote Speech<BR>To: <A href="mailto:dave@farber.net"
target=_blank>dave@farber.net</A></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV lang=EN-US vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">“</SPAN>Everyone
wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few seem willing to
pay for it – including both the over-the-top players, who are generating vast
new demand through their applications, and consumers, who have become accustomed
to unlimited packages.”<SPAN class=026115214-06052012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">This
is a classic problem we see when the old guard confronts a new framing. The ITU
may want to reconcile with the Internet but they are living in the wrong
paradigm. This is not about whether we are willing to pay for infrastructure,
it’s about how we pay for it. This is like listening to a railroad magnate
trying to figure out how to pay for roads and sidewalks because people aren’t
willing to buy a ticket each time they take a walk.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">This
is not about capital markets as such. It is simply foolish for anyone to invest
in a for-profit telecommunications infrastructure. There may be exceptions, just
as there are private roads, but limiting commerce in order to make a roads a
profit center make no sense. Today we have a regulatory system which supports
profligate redundancy rather than providing capacity but the problems cited show
that that model isn’t really working for us.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">The
answer is painfully obvious – don’t do that. Don’t charge for “bits” as if they
had value. Instead pay for common infrastructure like we pay for sidewalks. By
funding the whole out of the value to society we solve the problem of mapping
value to payments.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Without
the need to keep capacity locked away simply to create billable events we will
not only discover that capital markets will open up, we’ll find that we have far
less need for capital because we can take advantage of the vast capacity already
available within the gated world of telecommunications.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">But
how can the ITU find solutions when those solutions challenge their members’
business models?</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>