The concept of the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media: I want a substantive conversation

The Documentary Telecommunications Association ( ADE - this is a very “old” party of telecommuters, in which companies from Beeline to Cisco and Yandex accept) prepared a review of the project for the development of multiservice networks in Russia. On "Habré" this topic has already been discussed and caused a great response . The document is non-public and I, unfortunately, can not put it on the network completely.

On Roem.ru, we pulled out the central point of the claims of ADE - the lack of consequences of the introduction of federal telecom operators, to you, dear readers, we offer much more comments from the association on the proposals of the Ministry of Communications. In general, the review of ADE on the concept of negative:

"General conclusion. The degree of elaboration of the theses of the Concept at the moment is completely insufficient to consider the document ready for further discussion and decision on the adoption of the Concept for its practical implementation. Substantial refinement and addition of the document is required , first of all in terms of defining the new concepts used, assessing the impact of the proposed measures and principles on the market and including a sufficiently detailed “roadmap” into the Concept. ”

It is clear that we have from the ministry only one document: a presentation. It is characterized by understandable flaws - vagueness, the absence of spelled out mechanisms for the implementation of the declared plans, and so on. But at the same time, it is already clear that there are things that are preventing us from carrying out at least some meaningful work. For example, what is “digital divide”? We use this phrase so often that it seems that no one needs to explain what it means. But what and in what numbers is it expressed, what will we achieve when we eliminate it?

The same questions arise in ADE:

“The“ digital inequality ”is mentioned, however, its numerical indicators and criteria are missing by which one can judge about the solution of this problem. The subsequent presentation does not give a clear answer how exactly the adoption of the Concept will help to solve the problem of digital inequality as a complex problem of infrastructure and market development ”

In the concept there is a requirement to ensure the emergency call "from any terminal":

“The requirement to provide an emergency call from any terminals seems technically unrealistic. We can talk only about terminals adapted for the implementation of the appropriate type of call "

On slide 9, the Ministry of Communications and Communications announces the peer- to -peer requirement of the network. ADE, predictably, against:

From a technical point of view, even in data transmission networks there is a hierarchy. There are levels of access, traffic aggregation, trunk core. Therefore, technically, the peer requirement is unreasonable and contradicts the fundamentals of the teletraffic theory.
It is generally accepted that a peer-to-peer (peer-to-peer) network does not have a control system. If the transport network is not managed, then no one is responsible for the availability, not to mention the quality, of such a network.
From an economic point of view, the peer requirement is also completely unclear. For example, on the Internet, there are almost levels of carrier networks Tier1, Tier2, Tier3. This is a reality that cannot be ignored.
In a broader context, in countries with a large territory and population objectively, for technical and economic reasons, the business roles of operators of backbone networks and access network operators are usually highlighted, which contradicts the proposed “peer-to-peer structure” model. It seems that for the Russian Federation with its territory and population density, the requirement of peer at this stage is completely unjustified.

And, most importantly, with regard to cross-border traffic - here Russia may have so many problems that it’s not possible to limit it to one slide, which is casually suggested: “Let's enter the federal mobile operators!”

The requirement to prohibit the self-admission of cross-border traffic by many telecom operators requires a serious assessment and justification.
First, it is necessary to assess the impact of such a requirement on the market. It seems that such a demand will lead to squeezing a certain stratum of players from the market , including quite large ones (for example, GP KS), as well as Russian subdivisions of large international carrier companies.
Secondly, legal expertise of this requirement is necessary from the point of view of compliance with the obligations of the Russian Federation, adopted at the time of joining the WTO, as well as from the point of view of the requirements of antitrust laws, since it explicitly limits competition compared to the current market conditions. From the point of view of the Federal Law "On Competition", the introduction of this restriction can be implemented only by federal law, which seems unlikely due to the contradiction also in Article 1 of the Federal Law "On Communications" (paragraph 5).
Thirdly, it seems that this proposal is drastically out of line with the general logic of the best practices of world law. The proposed restriction seems illogical and economically unjustified for the following reasons:
In all developed countries to which, we believe, including the Russian Federation, the restrictions on the provision of services in any territory apply only in inelastic (limited market). However, in developed countries there are no restrictions on the construction and use of telecommunications infrastructure in an elastic and competitive market, which, among other things, includes the market for the use of cross-border telecommunications infrastructure in the Russian Federation.
The adoption of the Concept restricting the rights of all operators (except for federal ones) to pass cross-border traffic and, probably, the creation of telecommunications infrastructure facilities (this question is not covered in the Concept) carries significant reputational risks for the country . At the moment, there are quite a large number of operators who have built their own infrastructure at border crossings, but in accordance with the provisions of the Concept, there are no federal operators in the future, among them there are Russian telecommunication companies and subsidiaries of large intercity operators. All of them are currently fulfilling the requirements of national legislation. In addition, the above-listed business entities have entered into long-term lease agreements (IRU) with foreign companies to ensure that infrastructure can be leased not only to border crossings in the Russian Federation, but also abroad. Currently, this infrastructure is used by all operators, including future federal operators, to connect to global traffic exchange points outside the territory of the Russian Federation.
The concept in fact provides for depriving these business entities of the right to use their property to generate income, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
In addition, it remains an open question what these operators will have to do with their telecommunications infrastructure, built and registered as real estate, after the adoption of legal acts (if the adoption of such acts is acceptable from the standpoint of civil and anti-monopoly legislation).

You know, I'm against digital inequality. But the scheme "we will oblige the FOS to lay the cable wherever we need, and in return it will earn on the foreign traffic, how much it will need to cover the losses" I really do not like.
')
Because there will be a million and a thousand reasons why the FOS will postpone cable laying to all Russian settlements, but there is not one that he does not charge as much money from his clients for foreign traffic as he wants.