TRPC director Dr. John Ure's presented on "Preparing for tomorrow: Regulation in a data-drive connected world" at Session 2: "The changing rules of the game" at the Inaugural ICT Regulators' Leadership Retreat, that took place in Singapore from 18 to 20 March 2015, organized by the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) and the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA).

1. ITU/IDA ICT Regulators’ Leadership Retreat
Preparing for tomorrow:
Regulation in a data-driven connected world
Session 2: The changing rules of the game
Dr. John Ure
Director – TRPC Ltd (Singapore)
Associate Prof. and Director - TRP, Social Science Research Centre
University of Hong Kong
Singapore 18-20 March 2015

2. Martha Lane Fox
House of Lords and Founder of
Lastminute.com
6th March 2015
“… it is in my strange new role in the House of Lords where, certainly, my
fellow peers do not yet understand the internet.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/06/martha-lane-fox-internet_n_6818410.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-news
Warning!

3. Eight
practical
issues
1. Convergence
and the
Regulator
2. Significant
Market Power
and Mergers
and Acquisitions
3. Technology
and Copyright
4. Net
Neutrality
5. Investment
in Bandwidth
6. An Internet
Economy
7. A Digital
Economy
8. Data,
Privacy, and
Security

4. 1. Convergence and the Regulator
• Sector-specific vs. converged regulator: Were the advantages of
converged regulation ever fully specified? Ever fully realised?
 One-stop shop of the public
 Spectrum allocation – comes from ITU/WRC recommendations
 Spectrum assignment ? – e.g. mobile network broadcast/streaming
 Silos or not within FCC? Ofcom? Etc. = horses for courses?
• Sector-specific vs. ICT sector-wide regulator: Regulators are the
executors of policy makers (ministries) – implies ministries must be
converged?
 IDA model (SG) – provides ICT back-up across the board
 OFCA model (HK) – confined to telecoms and broadcasting
 NRCs (EU) – harmonization is the key issue
1. Convergence
and the
regulator

5. 2. SMP and M&A
• How to define markets: In a non-linear and convergent world, what becomes a
close substitute?
 Compete for audience? For revenue? (Subscription revenue? Usage revenue?
Ad-driven revenue?) How to distinguish cross-price elasticity of demand from
sudden changes in fashions and behaviour of users?
 Non-linear channels of communications = Fragmentation of markets, e.g.
social media ups and downs
• How to estimate levels of competition: Is access the key strategic issue, given so
many content and app alternatives?
 Is access a bottleneck?
 Non-traditional forms of access – e.g. WiFi + MVNOs (FB, Google in the USA)
 Is copyright stranglehold a source of unequal competition?
• M&A’s reflect different geographical markets – e.g. EU encouraging growth
through consolidation? Other markets need more competition not less? US
consolidation of RBOCs, but now competition from Internet companies
2. Significant
Market Power
and Mergers
and Acquisitions

6. 3. Technology and Copyright
• Broadcast vs. streaming: Nielsen has agreed to revise audience ratings
system to include non-linear audience estimates
 Important for setting ad tariffs & therefore revenues
 Can copyright be enforceable over Paul Goldstein’s ‘Celestial
Jukebox’? (Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial
Jukebox – 2003) – the public-private use distinction remains critical
3. Technology
and Copyright
“… it would be a serious mistake for policy makers (and I include the courts) to
reflexively reach for a new exemption or an expanded fair use any time copyright
appears to stand in the way of the roll out of some new technology. It would be a
mistake because the characteristic impediment in all of these cases is not copyright, but
the transaction costs associated with securing licenses under copyright. The proper
target, then, is not copyright, but transaction costs, and digital facilities, including the
Internet, offer dramatic possibilities for reducing these transaction costs to close to
zero.” (Paul Goldstein’s Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox – 2003 - see:
http://www.sociallyawareblog.com/?s=Paul+Goldstein)

7. 4. Net Neutrality
• Utility model vs. Pragmatic model vs. No model?: How sustainable is a net
neutrality model, and neutral with regard to which users?
 √0 = EU effort to square the circle? Allow ISPs to charge for higher speeds, but
preserve a minimum for all users = becomes new committed maximum?
 How to handle priority cases, e.g. health systems, early warnings, etc.? –
reserve channels/ at discounted prices to be vacated at short notice?
 Network management – how to recognize a smoke screen?
Red Flags
Where: When management tools are applied in the transit between the different
networks (source network and the carrier network) in the routers below the
transport level
What: If blocking or termination is used rather than QoS degradation
Who: If it is a unilateral decision of the ISP
When: If the tool applied only to (i) the source/destination or (ii) the service provider
(Scott Jordan and Arijit Ghosh of the University of California, Irvine – see http://broadbandtoolkit.org/3.7 )
4. Net
Neutrality

8. 5. Investment in Bandwidth
• Options
 “Bend” – Regulators do not legitimately determine market outcomes, but do
legitimately determine the creation of a market
 Bend in favour of the carriers – Happens for SOTEs; issue of ‘capture’; = off-
the-books capex for Government
 Bend in favour of new entrants – Free up facilities licences; simplify
convergent licensing; facilities sharing; make markets contestable.
[cf. AT&T’s response to Google in US cities; HKT’s broadband response to
competition in Hong Kong early 1990s, etc.]
 Hybrid models – Wholesale/retail – open access/open entry
 Innovation models – Facilitate use of new technologies, e.g. dynamic spectrum
assignment, WiFi nets + MVNOs, HetNets, etc.
Note: Carriers have options – utilities, mobile apps, Internet, CDNs, etc.
5. Investment in
Bandwidth

9. 6. An Internet Economy
• Basic connectivity – Remains a supply side issue for all developing countries;
 1st hurdle = international bandwidth - How to increase? More licences?
Liberalize resale? – a key issue = bring down transit prices!
 2nd hurdle = national backbone coverage – More licences? Capacity resale by
public utilities/private corporations? Sharing of towers?
 3rd hurdle = nationwide coverage of mobile networks – Most citizens in
developing countries access Internet by wireless devices
• Elasticity of demand – Encourage ISPs to realise latent demand
 Price elasticity of access is low, income elasticity is higher – typically >0.4%
overall? – FB and others trying to promote the value of usage via apps to
team up with carriers
• IPv6 – Anticipate the Internet-of-Things!
• Peering – Carrier-neutral IXPs needed; IPX for 4G LTE on its way?
6. An Internet
Economy

10. 7. The Digital Economy
The following based upon forthcoming ISOC (23 March 2015) ‘Unleashing the
Potential of the Internet for ASEAN Economies’:
• Digital economy here refers to a stage of development wherein the Internet has
become an embedded part of the underlying infrastructure of all major sectors of
the economy
• Key policy & regulatory challenge – How to leverage the Internet economy into a
digital economy and society? Two preconditions:
 Interconnection of networks (economic of scale or ‘network’ economies) –
e.g. telecoms, mobile, payments, banking, travel reservations, etc.
 RIOs, role of central bank, incentives, market forces, etc.
 Interoperability (economies of scope) – Apps on different platforms work
across different networks – e.g. mobile bank and payment networks,
collaborative working for enterprise, e-government services, etc.
 Mostly market driven, but role for planning, especially in public services
7. A Digital
Economy

11. 8. Data, Privacy, and Security
• Data privacy – Can reliance upon ‘consent’ work in an interconnected world of Big
Data, wearable devices, etc.?
 Should the emphasis shift towards “accountability” of the data controller?
(NB. EU focus on location; USA and APEC on accountability)
 Anonymous vs. pseudonymous vs. self-reg. vs technology fixes to data usage?
• Cross-border data – Costs of compliance rising as more privacy laws enacted
 Need for alignment? For industry codes of practice = ex-post regs.
• Localization requirements – Part security (unrealistic?) and part protection of local
industry
 Keep FDI open for partnerships; “warehouse” for sensitive data?;
 Cyber breaches reporting? Cyber liability schemes?
Based upon ACCA/APCC (2014) Report on Cloud Data Regulations
A contribution on how to reduce the compliancy costs of Cross-Border Data Transfers
http://trpc.biz/report-on-cloud-data-regulations/
8. Data
Security,
Privacy

12. 8. Data, Privacy and Security
Summary of Data Privacy Laws and Data Transfer Provisions
Y/N means laws agreed but not yet implemented
Country General
law on
personal
data
privacy
protection
Separate
regulator
Register of
data
controller
Sector-
specific
regulation
“White list”
countries or
requirement
on data
controllers to
ensure
protection on
data transfers
Individual
consent
required for
data
transfers
Contract
obligations
accepted as
reason for
data
transfers
Companies
required to
appoint
‘Data
Protection
Officer’
Australia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
New Zealand Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
India N N N Y Y Y Y Y
Indonesia Proposed N N Y N Proposed N N
Hong Kong Y Y Y/N Y Y/N Y Y N
Japan Y N N Y Y Y Y N
Malaysia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
Philippines Y/N Y/N N Y Y Y Y Y
Singapore Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
South Korea Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
Taiwan Y N N Y Y Y Y N
Thailand Y N N Y Y Y Y N
EU Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Proposed
UK Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
USA N FTC N Y N By sector Y Varies
8. Data
Security,
Privacy

13. Questions
Thank You
Dr. John Ure
johnure@trpc.biz