[governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking

[Parminder]

> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the
> general public.
> 
> * Last mile unbundling
> 
> * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls
> 
> * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players
> 
> * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs
>    (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to)
> 
> * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources
>    (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point)
> 
> I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and
> depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs.
>

It is quite interesting that the same set of people (I am not referring to
any specific person here) who have claimed that IGF should not focus,
actually not even discuss ICANN/ RIR issues (the debates on this issue last
year) since these are not real IG issues, and claim that ICTs/ Internet for
development is the real governance issue for IGF, want a lot of people from
the ICANN/ RIR in IGF's MAG. 

If these are not real governance and IGF issues, why do we need these people
on the MAG and in IGF at all. 

And if Internet for development is the real governance issue do we not need
more 'development' experts in the MAG. That's the real 'technical' expertise
we should be trying to get into MAG, right.

I must clarify that I do think that ICANN/ RIR issues are real governance
and IGF issues, and therefore we must have ICANN/RIR etc people in the MAG.
I am only pointing to what to me appears a strange paradox. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:25 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Babatope Soremi
> Cc: Abi
> Subject: Re: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking
> 
> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the
> general public.
> 
> * Last mile unbundling
> 
> * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls
> 
> * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players
> 
> * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs
>    (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to)
> 
> * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources
>    (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point)
> 
> I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and
> depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs.
> 
> I do know various people are proposing workshops about these at the IGF.
> And these are issues that CS should get involved in, at an international
> level.  At least the RIRs do capacity building, groups like PCH help local
> ISPs set up internet exchange points .. some real work gets done.
> 
> 	suresh
> 
> Babatope Soremi [04/06/08 15:01 +0100]:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Its not just the cost of access that is prohibitive but poor quality of
> >service with no proper mechanism to deal with erring service provider.
> >
> >An example is the mobile telephony industry in Nigeria where quality of
> >service has failed to *significantly improve *and subscribers have no
> >effective outlet to address this.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance