<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">By "edges" I mean "products" for the most part, products offered to consumers and products available to other operators.<div><br></div><div><div>Way back regulation was technical. Then it became more economics based - all the discussion about markets and SMP (significant market power) - and so the emphasis on products.</div><div><br></div><div>We still have regulation involving shared technical resources, whether spectrum or ducts or masts.</div><div><br></div><div>But we have had push-back, at least in spirit, on CPE from the days following the Terminal Equipment Directive. And also more recently on local loop unbundling - because fibre is so different to copper?</div><div><br></div><div>What I sense is that now they leaning towards getting deeper inside networks - and on the internet side and not on the specialised side.</div><div><br></div><div>This is a good thing or a bad thing? i would hope people talk about it. I wonder though if all those people who wanted network neutrality will be happy with how it will be enforced in detail.</div><div><br></div><div>From a few years ago:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/network-neutrality-law-">http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/network-neutrality-law-</a>–-step-forwards-or-step-backwards</div><div><br></div><div>By the way many people, even those who have questions about BEREC, seem to think their local regulator is actually quite good on all this. So I wonder where the gap is.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway I am trying not to "do the analysis". I am trying encourage people to read at least some of the BEREC material - there is lots! - so they can discuss it here / make their own mind up.</div><div><br></div><div>Gordon</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 20 May, 2014, at 14:36, Wout de Natris <<a href="mailto:denatrisconsult@hotmail.nl">denatrisconsult@hotmail.nl</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div dir="ltr">Gordon,<br><br>Weren't regulators in telecoms in the late 90s meant to go in straight through the front door and break open the market? (Where necessary.) Make interconnection and special access possible by forcing access and setting prices, etc.? In those days I was not under the impression to be working on "the edges".<br><br>What I get from your analyses, the main point BEREC's stating, is not so far beside what happened in the late 90s, at least in NL. New developments should be supported, but not through harming other/traditional services. And isn't that what the concern is about?<br><br>Wout<br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>