<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Communications Insights: Trends and Cool Stuff &#187; Network Neutrality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/tag/network-neutrality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff</link>
	<description>The Musings of an Expatriate in European Communications</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:07:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Defining the Open Internet</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this week I was contacted by Seth Johnson who was organizing a response to the FCC’s Further Inquiry into Two Underdeveloped Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding.  Seth asked if I would consider signing on in support of joint comments which urge the FCC to consider appropriate distinction between the open Internet and “specialized services” in light of changes in the market. As I said in previous Cool Stuff, both basic packet Internet and specialized services are important components of a robust and diverse market place.  I jointed the statement along with 31 other distinguished experts in this field.

Both the open Internet and specialized services exist in the market, and have for some time.  However, this is an important juncture to define: 1) where one begins and the other ends and 2) what are the appropriate measures necessary to preserve competition and fair play.  I joined on the comments because it does not advocate a particular policy outcome.  Rather, we urge the FCC that by “addressing this distinction in itself enables the analysis and pursuit of policy goals to proceed with a profound new level of clarity.”  This is of particular national importance.  The Internet is an American invention.  It is and will continue to be an important ingredient to economic development and global competitiveness.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>That’s not the Internet</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/that%e2%80%99s-not-the-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/that%e2%80%99s-not-the-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Access]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have continued to think about a tiered Internet as considered in the Google Verizon proposal on Network Neutrality.  I conclude that managed services already exist in the market place, but it is not the Internet. The Internet is an interconnected, end-to-end, packet switched network. There is nothing inherently anti-competitive about broadband service providers marketing managed services.  There is also nothing new about it.  However, it would be false advertising to claim it is the Internet.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/that%e2%80%99s-not-the-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taking the Roof off of the Internet</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verizon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent legislative proposal on Network Neutrality proposed by Google and Verizon would "allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today." Some critics have argued that that the deal would create a two-tiered Internet, one upper tier for differentiated services and one lower tier for commodity packets.  Google Verizon proposal is not so much a threat to network neutrality (lower case) as it is to network economics.  Part of this is the public face of a private bargaining game. Players in the value chain are using the political and regulatory process as they struggle to gain a larger share of that chain.  It is not evil, merely self-interested.  That is fine.  At some level, Google and Verizon should be lauded for working towards a compromise and to move things forward.  In the end, either competition or regulation must constrain this self-interest.  And, private actors they should not get to make public policy.  That is the exclusive domain of Congress and the FCC.  The FCC should take those views into account then offer its own independent decision to impose regulation or not.

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Solving Network Neutrality</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/solving-network-neutrality/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/solving-network-neutrality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unbundling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Much has been said in regard to the recent Google-Verizon proposal on Network Neutrality and the collapse of talks at the FCC.  The rough consensus is that the deal would create a two-tiered Internet.  If a two-tiered Internet is a good thing, then a competitive market will support it.  However, there has been a reduction of competition in Internet access in the US.  This follows from a series of FCC decisions which basically eviscerated its local competition rules (mostly in the form of unbundling) in favor of “market solutions”.  There is now a unique opportunity to move beyond the Network Neutrality debate.  The FCC should take this opportunity to revisit its unbundling rules to craft rules which can enable competition in Internet access networks while mitigating disincentives to invest.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/solving-network-neutrality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Network Neutrality and the Samurai</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/01/network-neutrality-and-the-samurai/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/01/network-neutrality-and-the-samurai/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The sankin kōtai laws of the Tokugawa Shogunate imposed a rule of prioritization on the Tokaido and Nakaseido roads between Edō and Kyoto, as well as on other "kaido" emanating from the capital.  Access to Japanese roads was prioritized by social status, with only the Samurai class having access to the center of the road as their procession called a daimyo gyoretsu passed.   We think it is unfair to give preferential treatment to certain customers.  At the same time, we also think it is economically inefficient to mandate a single Internet access options for everyone, including those who are willing to pay more for premium services.  When the network (or Tokkaido Road) is congested, prioritization can make users better off.  Prioritization can be accomplished based on economic characteristics, arrival order, processing load, urgency, or even social status.

Since all messages on an IP-based network travel at the same speed (the speed of light), in discussions of Network Neutrality, it is never who gets to go faster, rather which packet, or which samurai, gets to go first.  Such prioritization must be done in a way which is socially permissible and economically desirable. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/01/network-neutrality-and-the-samurai/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Japan Communications&#8217; New Business Model</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:16:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Communications Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JCI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RCS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spectrum policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wholesale Access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wireles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Japan Communications Inc. just launched a new product for Hewlett-Packard. HP will now sell netbooks in Japan which come with 100 minutes of mobile wireless connectivity. Consumers can buy connectivity on a pay-as-you-go basis from Japan Communications, but branded as an HP service. While Japan Communications negotiated with DoCoMo to get on its network, it was only able to do so because the Japanese Ministry for Communications and Information created which rules opened the networks of three largest wireless operators to wholesale.

This created for Japan Communications a really cool new business model with implications for carriers, devices manufacturers, and application service providers around the world. It remains to be seen whether the Europe and the US should follow suit.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stefano Merli&#8217;s Net Neutrality Paradox</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/05/stefano-merlis-net-neutrality-paradox/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/05/stefano-merlis-net-neutrality-paradox/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 09:29:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paradox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wisdom of Crowds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=95</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This past week, I gave a keynote speech in Rome on Network Neutrality.  At lunch afterwards, I had a lovely conversation with Italian researcher Stefano Merli.  He presented me with the following paradox:  The theory of Network Neutrality is that we impose rules to ensure openness and, more importantly, freedom of use on the Internet.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/05/stefano-merlis-net-neutrality-paradox/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Neutralità della rete e aspetti socio-economici</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/05/neutralita-della-rete-e-aspetti-socio-economici/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/05/neutralita-della-rete-e-aspetti-socio-economici/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 18:12:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keynote]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=75</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The conceptual foundations and the economics Network Neutrality Remarks as Prepared for Delivery Good Morning and thank you for that warm introduction.  It is truly a pleasure for me to speak to you this morning.  Before I begin, I would like to thank Stefano Quintarelli for inviting me and the Fondazione Ugo Bordoni for hosting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/05/neutralita-della-rete-e-aspetti-socio-economici/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>T-Mobile&#8217;s G1 Android and Apple iPhone: market power or just marketing?</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/02/t-mobiles-g1-android-and-apple-iphone-market-power-or-just-marketing/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/02/t-mobiles-g1-android-and-apple-iphone-market-power-or-just-marketing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G1 Android]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Market Power]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=67</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is not necessarily unfair competition for T-Mobile to be the exclusive source for both the G1 and the iPhone in Germany.  The fact that T-Mobile is now marketing phones based on both open and proprietary software suggests that neither approach is the Holy Grail of business models. T-Mobile initially launched the G1 in the US in order to compete with AT&#038;T which is the exclusive sources for the iPhone there. The decision to sell the G1 in Germany probably embraces economies of scope and scale, more then the question of openness.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/02/t-mobiles-g1-android-and-apple-iphone-market-power-or-just-marketing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Network Neutrality in Europe and the Ski Lift Line</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/01/network-neutrality-in-europe-and-the-ski-lift-line/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/01/network-neutrality-in-europe-and-the-ski-lift-line/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:13:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation in Europe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=62</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think that the two most important and far-reaching aspects of our report are the taxonomy of network relationships we created and the way we describe end-to-end latency in IP networks.  In order to describe the nature of relationships in an interconnected-multilateral-all-IP network world, we characterize relationships among network participants and service providers as being one three dimensions: vertical, horizontal, or diagonal.  I am also very pleased with how we use ski lifts to explain of queuing and link delays in end-to-end latency.  It is my hope that these two approaches will make the debate more objective and approachable, and help to reduce the ever-present hyperbole.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/01/network-neutrality-in-europe-and-the-ski-lift-line/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

