There is a lot of discussion following a piece in the Telegraph this weekend about the UK government's proposed upgrade to its current data retention / interception system, nominally to enable continued capability in a changing communications environment — in other words, retention of data and interception relating to over the top services, such as Facebook chat sessions, private tweets and Skype conversations.
The Telegraph article is here, and the official CCDP webpage is here.
I gave a paper on this subject (critiquing the current system, and discussing the reform proposals) at a conference last year; my slides are rather basic, but I shall dig out what I have in case anyone is interested. (The presentation attracted quite a lot of interest, because of the rather invasive nature of the proposals...)
Monday, 20 February 2012
Friday, 17 February 2012
Mobile termination charges
The Competition Commission has this month published the latest (possibly the last) in a long series of rulings in a dispute between BT (and also the smallest mobile network, 3) and the other mobile operators with the Regulator OFCOM caught in the middle . You can find the lengthy ruling here.
OFCOM is obliged under the Communications Act (and EU legislation) to conduct market reviews with the view to determining whether they need to impose a range of controls, including price controls. The issue what has been rumbling on for a number of years has related to the prices which the main mobile networks have charged for allowing other operators to connect calls to their subscribers (a call termination charge). The issue involves a great deal of economic and accounting theory (which i don't understand) but the basic argument has been that these termination charges are higher than the actual cost of processing the calls. between the main mobile networks, calls in (for which they get paid) and calls out to other networks (for which they pay) roughly balance out (and their consumers pay) . For BT and also for 3, the argument is that there is an imbalance in traffic and that these networks are essentially subsidising the mobile networks.
In 2011 OFCOM issued a determination requiring that termination rates be reduced over a period of years. BT (and 3) claimed too little to late, the mobile networks claimed too much, too fast. The Commission have now ruled in favour of BT and prices will be required to come down quickly and steeply. Good news for consumers? Maybe. You might look at this article and this one
Essentially, the business model of UK networks has been to subsidise the cost of handsets and recoup the money from higher call charges. this has perhaps been best seen in the market for prepaid (pay as you go) phones. It is apparent if you go to other EU countries, I've been particularly struck in Germany, that handset prices are much higher than in the UK - and calling charges much lower.
Which is best? I don't pretend to know. You will see in some of the articles that the change is likely to impact upon the poorer elements of society who typically use prepaid phones. We are perhaps moving close to discussions of universal service which we will consider later in the semester.
Any thoughts?
OFCOM is obliged under the Communications Act (and EU legislation) to conduct market reviews with the view to determining whether they need to impose a range of controls, including price controls. The issue what has been rumbling on for a number of years has related to the prices which the main mobile networks have charged for allowing other operators to connect calls to their subscribers (a call termination charge). The issue involves a great deal of economic and accounting theory (which i don't understand) but the basic argument has been that these termination charges are higher than the actual cost of processing the calls. between the main mobile networks, calls in (for which they get paid) and calls out to other networks (for which they pay) roughly balance out (and their consumers pay) . For BT and also for 3, the argument is that there is an imbalance in traffic and that these networks are essentially subsidising the mobile networks.
In 2011 OFCOM issued a determination requiring that termination rates be reduced over a period of years. BT (and 3) claimed too little to late, the mobile networks claimed too much, too fast. The Commission have now ruled in favour of BT and prices will be required to come down quickly and steeply. Good news for consumers? Maybe. You might look at this article and this one
Essentially, the business model of UK networks has been to subsidise the cost of handsets and recoup the money from higher call charges. this has perhaps been best seen in the market for prepaid (pay as you go) phones. It is apparent if you go to other EU countries, I've been particularly struck in Germany, that handset prices are much higher than in the UK - and calling charges much lower.
Which is best? I don't pretend to know. You will see in some of the articles that the change is likely to impact upon the poorer elements of society who typically use prepaid phones. We are perhaps moving close to discussions of universal service which we will consider later in the semester.
Any thoughts?
Thursday, 16 February 2012
We are becoming out numbered
You might be interested in this BBC report which summarises research from Cisco suggesting that the number mobile networked devices will exceed the population of the world during the course of this year. The report indicates the massive scale of data traffic, something which networks are struggling to deal with. Also in the news this week is a report than Vodafone is considering making a takeover bid for Cable and Wireless. The Guardian reports that one of the attractions is access to the fixed line network to bolster its network capacity.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Voice and Broadband Switching
A large >200 page consultation document has been published by OFCOM which makes proposals to ease problems resulting from voice and broadband communications services being switched from one provider to another.
Two key problems are identified. The first relates to the difficulties that consumers may face when they wish to make a switch. If the transfer is not handled efficiently they may find themselves either left without a service or being liable to make payments to both providers. 130,000 customers annually are stated to have faced one or other of these problems.
A second problem (which OFCOM estimate affected 520,000 users in the past year) relates to a practice known as 'slamming'. Often perpetrated by unscrupulous sales staff seeking to boost their commission based earnings, this sees consumers being switched to a new provider without their knowledge or consent.
The paper presents a number of options but the provisional preference is for a regime where responsibility for transfers lies with the 'gaining' provider but that, in order to minimise the risk of slamming, an independent verification service should be established with the remit to obtain confirmation from the customer that they wish to change provider.
Two key problems are identified. The first relates to the difficulties that consumers may face when they wish to make a switch. If the transfer is not handled efficiently they may find themselves either left without a service or being liable to make payments to both providers. 130,000 customers annually are stated to have faced one or other of these problems.
A second problem (which OFCOM estimate affected 520,000 users in the past year) relates to a practice known as 'slamming'. Often perpetrated by unscrupulous sales staff seeking to boost their commission based earnings, this sees consumers being switched to a new provider without their knowledge or consent.
The paper presents a number of options but the provisional preference is for a regime where responsibility for transfers lies with the 'gaining' provider but that, in order to minimise the risk of slamming, an independent verification service should be established with the remit to obtain confirmation from the customer that they wish to change provider.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Lower prices are not always good?
OFCOM have recently announced a lowering in the price which BT can charge other operators for providing broadband Internet access. Sounds good for consumers but you might look at this interesting article from the BBC's Rory Cellan=Jones.
The basic point made is that lowering the prices for access over the current copper cables might make it more difficult to justify investment in fibre as the price differential would be substantial enough to deter consumer take up. the article indicates also that there is little sign of providers other than BT investing in fibre networks. Maybe the old idea of telecoms as a natural monopoly is not too far from the mark, at least at the network level?
On a somewhat related point, OFCOM have published data indicating that 8 million of the UK's 20 million broadband connections are provided by means of local loop unbundling (the providers have effectively taken over the lines from BT exchanges to their users' premises. That is about 40%. 70% of users access the Internet through providers other than BT. The remaining 30% of connections are based on providers purchasing capacity from BT on a wholesale basis and effectively rebranding the service.
The basic point made is that lowering the prices for access over the current copper cables might make it more difficult to justify investment in fibre as the price differential would be substantial enough to deter consumer take up. the article indicates also that there is little sign of providers other than BT investing in fibre networks. Maybe the old idea of telecoms as a natural monopoly is not too far from the mark, at least at the network level?
On a somewhat related point, OFCOM have published data indicating that 8 million of the UK's 20 million broadband connections are provided by means of local loop unbundling (the providers have effectively taken over the lines from BT exchanges to their users' premises. That is about 40%. 70% of users access the Internet through providers other than BT. The remaining 30% of connections are based on providers purchasing capacity from BT on a wholesale basis and effectively rebranding the service.
Monday, 6 February 2012
Is Facebook (and others like it) "outstandingly stupid and overwhelmingly dangerous"?
Eben Moglen, professor of law at Columbia and director of the Software Freedom Law Center, has taken an interesting view of Facebook —
His point is a valid one; phone companies have strict prohibitions around interception (at least within Europe) and so do not retain the content of all users' communications. Facebook and the like are arguably not subject to the same restrictions, as it is unlikely that they are electronic communications services.
Do you trust Facebook for your communications? Or even "traditional" telecoms providers? What do you think of Moglen's pet project FreedomBox? It's definitely a fascinating idea, but I am not sure that it will catch on.
The point is that by sharing with our actual friends through a web intermediary who can store and mine everything, we *harm* people by destroying their privacy *for* them. It's not the sharing that's bad, it's the technological design of giving it all to someone in the middle. That is at once outstandingly stupid and overwhelmingly dangerous.
His point is a valid one; phone companies have strict prohibitions around interception (at least within Europe) and so do not retain the content of all users' communications. Facebook and the like are arguably not subject to the same restrictions, as it is unlikely that they are electronic communications services.
Do you trust Facebook for your communications? Or even "traditional" telecoms providers? What do you think of Moglen's pet project FreedomBox? It's definitely a fascinating idea, but I am not sure that it will catch on.
"MPs rattle telcos to help kill extremist material online"
One which would sit as well with the eCommerce module as with the telecommunications course, members of Parliament in the UK have seemingly asked again for service providers to take responsibility for the content which they hold.
Currently, however, the regime under Article 14, directive 2000/31/EC does not encourage providers to look at the content which they host, for fear of liability; if providers were held harmless from any liability arising from the material they host, perhaps more providers might be willing to undertake such obligations, although there is a potentially significant risk to freedom of speech if this were to happen.
Although there are statutory powers under the Terrorism Act 2006 for law enforcement agencies to order unlawful material to be removed from the internet, the committee recommends that internet service providers themselves should be more active in monitoring the material they host, with appropriate guidance, advice and support from the government.
Currently, however, the regime under Article 14, directive 2000/31/EC does not encourage providers to look at the content which they host, for fear of liability; if providers were held harmless from any liability arising from the material they host, perhaps more providers might be willing to undertake such obligations, although there is a potentially significant risk to freedom of speech if this were to happen.
Friday, 3 February 2012
OT: student chat — thinking about module choices?
Given the success of the official blogs in getting interesting conversations started, I've created a similar blog for unofficial discussion — a replacement for the more conventional common room, perhaps.
With a range of us on the course — some coming to an end of our studies, others just starting — this might be a chance to share some of the knowledge, and benefit from each other's experiences in areas not specific to any particular module or field of study.
I thought I'd start by seeing which modules you might be thinking of taking — please do share your thoughts here.
With a range of us on the course — some coming to an end of our studies, others just starting — this might be a chance to share some of the knowledge, and benefit from each other's experiences in areas not specific to any particular module or field of study.
I thought I'd start by seeing which modules you might be thinking of taking — please do share your thoughts here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)