Cleland served as Deputy United States Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy in the George H. W. Bush Administration. Eight Congressional subcommittees have sought Cleland’s expert testimony and Institutional Investor twice ranked him the #1 independent analyst in his field. Scott Cleland has been profiled in Fortune, National Journal, Barrons, WSJ’s Smart Money, and Investors Business Daily. Ten publications have featured his op-eds. For a full bio see: www.ScottCleland.com.
Latest posts by Scott Cleland (see all)
- America Needs a Consumer-First Internet Policy, Not Tech-First - January 25, 2018
- A Remedy for the Government-Sanctioned Monopolies: Google Facebook & Amazon - January 22, 2018
- Net Neutrality’s Masters of Misdirection - November 30, 2017
The Internet peering marketplace works exceptionally well and it has for its entire twenty year history. The unparalleled success, growth, and resiliency of the unregulated model for the Internet backbone peering marketplace has been nothing short of phenomenal in enabling and ensuring everyone reasonable access to the Internet.
Inter-networked computer networks are effectively the opposite of railroad, electricity, and telephone networks; trying to impose telephone interconnection rules on IP inter-networking is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole. It predictably breaks both the peg and the hole.
Please see NetCompetition’s House CommActUpdate submission on interconnection — here. (3 pages)
Summary of What Congress Needs to Know
As Congress considers modernizing communications legislation concerning Internet peering and interconnection issues, it is imperative to understand how Internet peering and voice interconnection are fundamentally different from two key policymaking perspectives.
How Internet networks are completely different from railroad and electricity networks.
Place-independent vs. place-dependent
Software-dependent vs. hardware dependent
Digital vs. analog
How IP packet networking fundamentally differs from legacy voice interconnection.
Circuit technology vs. packet-switching technology
Continuous vs. discontinuous transmission
Predictable vs. unpredictable transmission
Unitary service vs. multiple services
Centralized vs. decentralized architectures
Location-driven vs. location-agnostic
Best efforts vs. guarantees
Accounting simplicity vs. complexity
Access vs. connection
To see the full three page analysis submitted to the House CommActUpdate click here.
[Originally published at Precursor Blog]