Interconnection & Interoperability Agreement: fundamental goal Disagreement: What is an interface?...
-
Upload
antoine-ebanks -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Interconnection & Interoperability Agreement: fundamental goal Disagreement: What is an interface?...
Interconnection & Interoperability
Agreement: fundamental goalDisagreement:
What is an interface?Which interfaces are critical?What is “open”? How should standards be set?
Map out the debate
3 fundamental problemsClash of two concepts and of two debates:
Interconnection (telecom)Interoperability (computing)
Economics / Strategy: Technical meritStrategic interest of the parties
Three policy domains: IP protectionantitrustregulatory oversight
No clear separation, many conflicts
Interconnection v. Interoperability
Degree? Interop > InterconnectTwo distinct traditions:
Telecom InterconnectionComputing Interoperability
What are the relevant Interfaces?What is the primary policy goal?
interface telecom interconnection
computer interoperability
appliance to network
· physical: modular phone or CATV plugs· logical: standard signaling
ethernet (10baseT)
appliance-to-application
(not a major concern of traditional Telecom)
Windows and Intel-based machines v. MacOS and Motorola-based machines
application-to-application
· interface between voice-mail systems
service provider to carrier interface (ONA's BSAs/BSEs as the network's APIs)
· file exchange between applications
· message passing among different e-mail services
· client/server compatibility
· APIs: OS to application interface
network-to-network MCI to PacBell, voice call [equal access]
· internet [TCP/IP]
Primary policy goal?
Interconnection / Telecom: network effects, pursued through regulation
Interoperability/ Computing: encourage innovation, pursued through IP protection
Reflects inherent trade-off between
integration and diversity
Policy trade-off diversity
inte
gra
tio
n
Policy trade-off diversity
inte
gra
tio
n
(mo
no
po
l y)
(competition)
Policy trade-off diversity
inte
gra
tio
n
(mo
no
po
l y)
(competition)
Policy trade-off diversity
inte
gra
tio
n
(mo
no
po
l y)
(competition)
Policy trade-off diversity
inte
gra
tio
n
(mo
no
po
l y)
(competition)
Vir
tual
inte
gra
tio
n
Policy trade-off diversity
inte
gra
tio
n
(mo
no
po
l y)
(competition)
Virtual differentiation
Vir
tual
inte
gra
tio
n
Policy trade-offdiversity
inte
gra
tio
n
( Reg
ula
t ed
I n
terc
on
nec
t io
n)
(IP protection& competition)
Telecom
Computing
Policy trade-offdiversity
inte
gra
tio
nVirtual differentiation
Vir
tual
inte
gra
tio
n
Interfaces and Strategy
which interfaces are critical?what is “open”?
Fully openFully ClosedMost lie in between
what is “proprietary”?how should interface standards be set?
government mandateVoluntary consensusMarket competition
Compatibility & interconnection
Public Owned
Published
Available to all
Compete on implementation
TCP/IP, Ethernet
Licensed (non-discrimatory Terms)
Owner maximizes installed base, entrants compete on implementation
Dolby, VHS, phone
Restricted
Available, but govnt restrictions
Industrial policy, security
PAL, HDTV(?), clipper
Owner's choice to license
Maximize profits from locked-in installed base
Windows, CATV set-top boxes
Compatibility & interconnection
Public Owned
Published
Available to all
Compete on implementation
TCP/IP, Ethernet
Licensed (non-discrimatory Terms)
Owner maximizes installed base, entrants compete on implementation
Dolby, VHS, phone
Restricted
Available, but govnt restrictions
Industrial policy, security
PAL, HDTV(?), clipper
Owner's choice to license
Maximize profits from locked-in installed base
Windows, CATV set-top boxes
Users
Compatibility & interconnection
Public Owned
Published
Available to all
Compete on implementation
TCP/IP, Ethernet
Licensed (non-discrimatory Terms)
Owner maximizes installed base, entrants compete on implementation
Dolby, VHS, phone
Restricted
Available, but govnt restrictions
Industrial policy, security
PAL, HDTV(?), clipper
Owner's choice to license
Maximize profits from locked-in installed base
Windows, CATV set-top boxes
Users
Producers with locked-in, quasi-monopoly position (Microsoft, IBM, CATV)
Compatibility & interconnection
Public Owned
Published
Available to all
Compete on implementation
TCP/IP, Ethernet
Licensed (non-discrimatory Terms)
Owner maximizes installed base, entrants compete on implementation
Dolby, VHS, phone
Restricted
Available, but govnt restrictions
Industrial policy, security
PAL, HDTV(?), clipper
Owner's choice to license
Maximize profits from locked-in installed base
Windows, CATV set-top boxes
UsersCommon carriers
Suppliers without monopoly position
Producers with locked-in, quasi-monopoly position (Microsoft, IBM, CATV)
Interfaces and Policy
Primary concern:Telecom: encourage network effects.
Regulatory oversight. Ex-ante (introduce competition within monopolies)
Computing: encourage innovation IP protection. Ex-Post (grant IP protection -- monopoly -- remedies if abuses
Interfaces and Policy (cont'd)Intellectual Property: temporary monopoly
CopyrightPatentsTrends?
- Toward denying IP protection for interfaces- Increasing use of patent protection for software (as functional)
AntitrustCounterweight to IP"Essential Facilities"Blunt instrument
Regulatory oversight
Conclusion
Should we care? Will private incentives serve the public
interest?Is there scope for beneficial
government action?
Conclusion
Should we care? YESWill private incentives serve the public
interest? Is there scope for beneficial
government action?
Conclusion
Should we care? YESWill private incentives serve the public
interest? NOIs there scope for beneficial
government action?
Conclusion
Should we care? YESWill private incentives serve the public
interest? NOIs there scope for beneficial
government action? MAYBE…