<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.balloontextchar0
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.emailstyle19
{mso-style-name:emailstyle19;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;
color:black;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I sit on both sides of this fence (yes, it is uncomfortable sometimes) and see a further issue of governance by proxy or even Potemkin governance. This cuts
both ways. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">On one side, in many MDCs (the opposite of LDCs) the regulatory relationship with (esp.) incumbent telcos has become corrupted (if that’s not too strong a term)
by a combination of acknowledge information asymmetry and the use of regulatory traction to encourage the telcos to provide a range of public goods like universal service… The latter may be ‘uneconomic’ (or the regulators may have become convinced that they
are). The central issue may be the conflation of the regulatory and public good provision roles of government, especially in countries without full regulatory independence (independent of government as well as of industry). The interests, evidence, analysis
and policies “produced” by governments and by dominant firms may not be distinguishable even to the participants. In addition, the closeness of these relationships may lead to one side getting the bulk of its information from the other, leading to a particularly
persistent form of capture. But this applies even to the ‘serious academic’ folks – if the reward for investigating questions of a contentious nature is access to otherwise unobtainable data and other evidence, and especially where contrasting data may not
be so easy to come by or may not even have been recorded, selection bias makes a mockery of scientific rigour. It is one thing to insist that all available evidence be taken into account – this does not help when the ‘other side of the story’ is not adequately
elicited or recorded.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">On the other hand, rejecting such analyses and the evidence on which they are based – rather than engaging with them initially on theoretical grounds and eventually
on the basis of better evidence – is equally ineffective. How can such evidence be collected? In some cases by conducting natural experiments – and many LDCs are ideally suited for these, especially if the costs are reduced by the value of improved basis for
policy decisions (and reducing the distortions due to ‘capture’). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I don’t like the persistence of monopoly or the attempts to parlay incumbency in natural monopoly settings into control over markets where the incumbents do
not have a particularly important role to play (e.g. sectors with weak recent and prospective innovation performance playing the innovation card in order to justify subsidy or policy influence in related sectors like the Internet). But I would not automatically
assume that there are no forces driving towards monopoly (even if they are only ‘tipping’ externalities) or that competition supported by policies that minimise such externalities is better than tough-minded utility regulation that captures them in the public
interest. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I also see no reason to love persistence in regulatory monopoly. That’s why I do love civil society participation. It can make the issues simpler – but hopefully
not too simple.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">J.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 11 October 2012 17:55<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC Perspective?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>michael gurstein</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I should say that both of these reports are very interesting and contain a wealth of good information, however, the problem that I have with them
and particularly the second report is that it so clearly starts off with its policy conclusion and builds a case to support this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] moan. Yes, indeed. This is a commissioned study, by a consultancy that is in the business of serving the interests of its clients.
The substance of the study is not terrible, it makes the standard case for the Internet model as we know it. But still, as someone who does real scholarly studies, I am always irritated by the fact that these kinds of paid-for pieces get 1,000 times more attention
than an honest, objective scholarly study, and that even purportedly critical scholars such as yourself seem to take them more seriously than real research simply because it’s easier to read and because it arrives on your virtual doorstep so easily and quickly
via a publicity machine that generates “buzz” <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">From what I am seeing (and Kende's report is as good a signal as any) the Internet biggies are running a bit scared (the term "moral panic" comes
to mind) as to what "madness" might come out of the WCIT meeting that the ITU is hosting in December in Dubai.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] As I have argued elsewhere, it is a bit of a panic, and one that has succeeded in stampeding a lot of public interest groups into
it as well.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">And they are pulling out all the stops in trying to derail any real discussion on how the costs and benefits might be allocated of improving/extending
Internet access in and into LDC's and within LDC's to the other 99% or so in those countries who currently have no possible means of access. This is of course because the ITU as the traditional venue for global telecom "governance" includes among its 195 or
so Member States a very goodly proportion, probably a majority, who are currently experiencing net costs (including many regimes who see these costs in terms of lost political control) from Internet access and paticularly if attempts at extending access to
rural and maginalized populations are taken into consideration, rather than net benefits and not surprisingly they are looking at ways of righting that balance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] The problem with your perspective, Michael, is that it does indeed represent the classic telecom monopoly perspective which is
often held by the governmental Ministries and national telecom monopolies in LDCs. Basically they see international traffic not as an industry that supplies goods and services that benefit the consumers who pay for them, but as a source of monopoly rents that
can be soaked to “distribute” wealth to their favored businesses and political causes. This concern with “equitable distribution” inevitably ends up both being massively inefficient and thus stifling growth, while not even achieving equity either, because
it will always be a few privileged, well-connected businesses and politicians who benefit from setting up the national toll booths.
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I myself am of two minds on this issue. I well recognize the value/benefits that could flow from Internet access even to the poorest of the poor
and the overwhelming benefits that Internet access provides to those for example in civil society who can take advantage of its more or less unlimited free flow of communications and information (including through undermining various repressive political regimes).
On the other hand, the unlimited unregulated policy environment advocated by reports like that of Kende and others of that ideological ilk would I think, lead almost directly to a further enrichment of the already stupendously wealthy and overall a signifcant
transfer of wealth and benefit from those with the least to those with the most.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] I am glad you are honest about this two-mindedness. Factually, there is just no way around it. The liberalization and deregulation
of telecommunications has massively increased access, decreased costs, increased diversity and innovation. The internet never would have happened without it. I know it provides cognitive dissonance for some people, but all you have to do is compare the penetration
and price of ICTs before and after liberalization and the contrast will be very, very stark. True, there have been pitfalls here and there, usually due to remnants of monopoly power or not handling the complex transition from monopoly to competition properly,
but on the whole the progress has been revolutionary. </span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>