REFINEMENTS ON A LAYERED MODEL FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY Douglas C. Sicker, Ph.D.* University of Colorado (Boulder) * Based on work with Joshua Mindel, a Ph.D. student at CMU.

Layered Policy Models Several layered policy models have been proposed. While a layered model is a logical approach in its consistency and modularity, there are concerns. These concerns include –Sufficiently defining the terms and concepts –Ensuring that the desired policy goals are achieved –Describing a transition strategy We will discuss these concerns and propose a framework for examining future policy needs. This framework isn’t proposed as a model for regulation, but as a tool for considering the relationships among the providers, particularly in terms of interconnection.

Definitions Openness –This is a vague and subjective term; one used rather loosely by policy makers and in the literature. –Openness of what? Architecture, Interconnection, Interoperability, Directories, Code, Content… –Are these technical, legal, policy or business issues? Probably all of the above This is what makes openness so subjective, in that everyone has their own perspective.

Definitions Openness –Why is the Internet “open”? Is it the design, the protocols, the market driven standards process, the business relationships, the lack of dominance, or the regulatory structure? –IP-based networks do not equate to the Internet We could design an IP-based networks that is not part of the globally accessible Internet Thus, just because it’s IP-based doesn’t make it open. –Is the Internet really open? Access, backbone, addressing, and content issues –As we add players and new services to the mix, how do we ensure that the “open” nature of the Internet does not erode?

Definitions Layers –Where do we draw the lines? Combining all of the physical elements may ignore the significant differences of these elements in terms of architecture, business and policy. –Who decides on (and regulates) the divisions? A layered model will require considerable coordination among numerous government agencies. Unified layers may make it more difficult to treat the inconsistencies within those layers. Interface –What is an interface? The interface will vary as we proceed up the “stack”, moving from something more technical to something more contractual. –In what detail should an interface be described? –And again, who decides?

Ensuring the Policy Goals How do we create definitions that can stand the test of time (i.e., the test of technology and business change)? What if we define openness, the layers, and the interfaces? –Does providing “openness” of the interfaces ensure that a provider will connect? –If they do connect, how do you ensure that a dominant doesn’t price competitors out of the market? Can we really move away from rate and interconnection regulation? –Does describing the network, the services and the content in new ways (based on new models) address the problem of market power? –Possibly we should refrain from regulating based on the service/infrastructure and focus on market power as a threshold for rate and interconnection regulation.

Transition Shifting from a title-based model to a layered model may create some growing pains. Some things to consider –Diversity of existing technology and architectures –The disparity among the market segments –The strong dependency (and influence) of existing policy –The opportunity for concentration of market power A transition strategy must recognize the strong influence of the existing structures. Is there a precedent for a layered model? –Basic/Enhanced –Telecommunication/Information –ONA –Section 256 (for interaction with standards bodies)

A Framework We propose a framework for evaluating the relationships among the players and services. Our framework has the following elements: –Providers of Access and Transport Services –Providers of Applications Services Directory Services Middleware Services End user Services –Providers of Content –Providers of Telecommunications Services This framework was designed specifically with consideration of the network design, the business relationships and future policy. A framework must be realistic in what it attempts to frame.

Alternate Framework Any of these layers may require further divisions. For example, directory services will likely need to be treated differently from end user applications. Based on unpublished work by Sicker, Mindel, and Cooper, 1999.

Alternate Framework It is important to ensure that the highly interconnected and interoperable nature of voice service is maintained. Therefore, one of the most important issues will be understanding the requirements of emerging to legacy interconnection.

Conclusions For a model to be useful, it must address the details of the problem (but not get lost in them). –A model must be rooted in sound policy goals. –The policy/regulation should be general in nature - to be applicable as technology and business changes. A model should consider the transition strategy. –This transition strategy should take into account the existing network design, the business models as well as the evolving policy. –This transition strategy should also consider what aspects of the existing regulation should remain and what should change. While some of the existing regulation may remain, we should stop regulating based on service/infrastructure and focus on market power as a threshold for rate and interconnection regulation.