Public Interest Considerations on
Next Generation Networks
ITU Workshop, What Rules for IP-enabled NGNs?
23-24 March 2006
William Drake
Director, Project on the Information
Revolution and Global Governance
Graduate Institute for International Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
President, Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility
drake@hei.unige.ch
www.cpsr.org/board/drake
On the “Public Interest”
•30 years ago, fair degree of consensus on its meaning
•Today far less consensus, & some view the term as
quaintly archaic
•Views vary widely among and within various groupings,
e.g. ideological, professional, scholarly disciplines
•Variable geometry of political alignments per issue
•NGO perspective offered here
•Irrespective of one’s views on them, public interest
concerns will be raised and could become politically
salient as NGN roll-out and policy making accelerate
•Better to address now than to settle for post hoc
reactions; dialogue & constructive engagement needed
The Current Political Context
•Concerns about regulatory/legislative capture and
industry concentration are common
•Citizens groups, aka civil society organizations
increasingly attentive and mobilized in many countries
•Merging of computing and communications
environments, Internet, personalization of technology,
etc. have empowered users, altered their expectations,
increased their sense of being stakeholders whose
freedoms are impacted by government and industry
decisions => digital rights
•Aspects of NGN development will be seen through
these prisms
Some Potential Hot Spots
•Market power, vertical integration, competition
•Universal service & universal access
•Interconnection, settlements
•Charging
•New digital divides
•Interoperability & open standards, proprietary platforms
& walled gardens (where real choice is absent)
•Net neutrality & QoS
•Freedom of speech & access to diverse information
•Privacy protection vs. public/private sector surveillance
•Intellectual property restrictions
•Consumer protection
Networked Globalization
•Many of the above issues have transnational dimensions
•In which cases do asymmetric national policies matter?
•Some issues may require new international frameworks
–Bilateral, plurilateral, regional, multilateral
– Intergovernmental, private sector, multistakeholder
•In parallel, some specifically international issues, e.g.
cross-border trade
–Content without frontiers, cultural and linguistic
diversity concerns
–domestic regulation of content services (educational,
medical, gambling, etc.)
•Jurisdiction & choice of law
Open Questions: Relationship to the Public Internet
•Some lack of clarity in discussions to date
•Conflict, coexistence, or convergence?
•Is the Internet really broken? For whom? Are we at an
inflection point?
•If it is broken, are NGNs as currently envisioned the
optimal fix?
•Any potential risks to the medicine?
•Will preserving the widely valued aspects of today’s
Internet require more regulation, or less?
A Tale of Two Networlds: Disconnects…
•Beyond the IETF, many stakeholders in the Internet
environment seem unaware of NGN developments
•Ex: While NGN potentially of direct relevance, little
mention in the global Internet governance debate, e.g. in
WSIS, WGIG, ICANN nexus, other relevant forums
•Ex: 8 March 2005 OECD Workshop on The Future of
the Internet; ITU presentation the only mention
…and Misconnects
•Among the Internet mavens who are aware of NGN,
widespread uneasiness & even distrust
•Viewed through the prisms of old “nethead” vs.
“bellhead” divide as an ITU-based telco “power grab”
•Press coverage and Internet “buzz” a factor
•Some of this may be more instinctive than thought
through, mid-1990s mindsets locked in place
•Nevertheless, many unanswered questions, ambiguities;
information & perceptions tend to fill vacuums
•And in some cases, these may indeed be legitimate
ground for public interest concerns
A Cautionary Tale?
•33 years ago, ITU participants began to develop the
concept of Integrated Services Digital Networks (ISDN)
•Within ITU and PTT/telco circles, viewed positively as
comprehensive, forward-leading platform for voice/data
•Outside those circles, ISDN often was viewed as a
response by threatened monopolies to the growth of
private leased circuits, networks; => derided as
“Innovations that Subscribers Don’t Want”
•Issue became contentious; controversy and subsequent
market liberalization + technological change significantly
decoupled implementation from the initial vision
Hence, a Need for Transparency & Inclusive Dialogue
•ITU & other relevant bodies should provide free & open
access to information on NGN work, e.g. standards,
contributions & reports
•Initiate dialogue with concerned stakeholders in the
Internet environment, including diverse business
constituencies & civil society organizations
•Interested parties should anticipate and address up front
potential concerns
•Absent this, probability of increasing divergence that
could become salient for market plans and policy
discussions later on, per ISDN yesterday, or the “net
neutrality” debate today
Conclusion
•“First, do no harm” to the Internet people have come to
know and value, e.g. the “right to tinker” at the edges
•Supplier solutions to suppliers’ problems will not be
inspiring to users if perceived as being at expense of their
current capabilities
•Think of empowered citizens, not just consumers
•Transparency & inclusive dialogue on the full range of
policy issues in everyone’s interest