 LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | reply to nasadude
Re: Will the data show regulation the way to go? I don't know, I'm not a technician, what is the definition of broadband? Is it a matter of preference; 200Kb is too slow? I use 768 at home because I'm willing to wait longer for pirated MP3s  , if they had a 200k tier at a lower cost, I would consider it.
On point about regulation, there's a reason that most of the stuff is invented here. Regulations set into place what already exists and throw cold water on innovation by locking in a "rate of return" on investment and favoring incumbent firms. In other words, they are safe because they have the contract and so there is no need to innovate.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. |
|
| Regulations set into place what already exists and throw cold water on innovation by locking in a "rate of return" on investment and favoring incumbent firms.
Bingo, but now a proactive policy (not necessarily a regulatory one) might be required to dismantle that framework/advantage. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to LegoPower77
said by LegoPower77:... Regulations set into place what already exists and throw cold water on innovation by locking in a "rate of return" on investment and favoring incumbent firms. In other words, they are safe because they have the contract and so there is no need to innovate. regulations can also open markets to new entrants when monopoly incumbents control those markets and prevent easy entry. That's the problem we have right now: most markets are at best controlled by two companies, the telco or the cableco; some markets are entirely controlled by only one of them (like where I live). The 1996 telecom act was supposed to open these markets, but it was never enforced like it should have been (big campaign contributions and telco stonewalling took care of that).
In these strange times we live in, where down is up and black is white, it is apparently very easy to convince politicians competition exists where there is none (the big campaign contributions help also). The FCC is simply playing it's role in this game. That's why people would like to see the raw data - they think the fix is in and the books are cooked (so do I).
I don't know if we need regulation or not; I do know we need competition. Right now, lack of competition is what is stifling innovation and keeping prices high and speeds low. |
|
LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | As you can expect the contrast between perfect competition and monopoly is a continuum. (What were talking about mathematically is a horizontal curve or a vertical curve, respectively.) Perfectly competitive conditions do not exist anywhere except maybe in the futures markets (and neither do "perfect" monopoly conditions).
Second, as Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek says "Enthusiasm for perfect competition in theory and the support of monopoly in practice are indeed surprisingly often found to live together." People get caught up in trying to determine what's "fair" and bog the system down with Procrustean rules and operating procedures (which btw, benefit big companies by knocking high-cost producers, usually smaller firms, out).
There are four aspects in which government intervention is inferior to the free market:
- Regulators are likely not to correctly judge the course the market might take if there were there no regulations.
- Because regulators do not operate under the same set of incentives that businessmen do, regulatory decisions will not exploit opportunities waiting to be discovered.
- Regulation may stifle the desirable discovery process generated by the market.
- Regulation distorts the market by creating new undesirable opportunities and market processes that would not be relevant in an unregulated market.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| That may well be; But right now we've got the worst of both worlds. I think either:
1) You have a completely open free market with no barriers to competition entering the market, with a level playing field
or
2) You have a large monopoly player or incumbent that is tightly regulated and monitored for abuse, and pushed and prodded to do what is best for the nation (not just their own interests.)
I think either one of these solutions works the best.
However, what WE have is the bastard third option:
A mostly un-regulated pseudo monopoly (or duopoly) that acts in their best interests only and deliberately creates high barriers to viable competition AND lax oversight and control.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
|
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to LegoPower77
That may well be; But right now we've got the worst of both worlds. I think either:
1) You have a completely open free market with no barriers to competition entering the market, with a level playing field
or
2) You have a large monopoly player or incumbent that is tightly regulated and monitored for abuse, and pushed and prodded to do what is best for the nation (not just their own interests.)
I think either one of these solutions works the best.
However, what WE have is the bastardized third option:
A mostly un-regulated pseudo monopoly (or duopoly) that acts in their best interests only and deliberately creates high barriers to viable competition AND lax oversight and control.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
| 1) Impossibly, particularly in a utility market, with limited avenues of distribution.
2) This setup has never worked in the long run and actually, a federally-sanctioned telecommunications monopoly (as opposed to state and regional co-op and municipal providers) has a lot to do with the current crop of broadband problems/confusion.
These are two extreme views neither of which works in utility or utility-like markets. The former is impossible because of physical limitations. The latter has little accountability and allow for massive loss or profit squander.
The solution is between the two and has so much to do with the particular place and the particular service/provider. The best solutions are pragmatic partnerships, not grand ideological sweeps. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | said by broadbander:These are two extreme views neither of which works in utility or utility-like markets. The former is impossible because of physical limitations. The latter has little accountability and allow for massive loss or profit squander. Read it again. #2 has never been tried properly. Note it says tight oversight and control. What's been tried is "lax oversight and control".
Many would argue that what we have NOW is the "solution between the two" and I'd intend to agree except it's the worst case scenerio instead of the best of both worlds. |
|
1 edit | said by KrK:said by broadbander:These are two extreme views neither of which works in utility or utility-like markets. The former is impossible because of physical limitations. The latter has little accountability and allow for massive loss or profit squander. Read it again. #2 has never been tried properly. Note it says tight oversight and control. What's been tried is "lax oversight and control". Many would argue that what we have NOW is the "solution between the two" and I'd intend to agree except it's the worst case scenario instead of the best of both worlds. No, solution implies it works, which of course what we have doesn't. What we have isn't at all what I was referring to, so philosophically even if that is what some would argue is "between the two" its irrelevant to my point and my proposed solution. The solution is multifaceted. Not really "in the middle" but "a mixture" of the two notions, implemented on a local level, with support, but not intervention, from the federal body.
EDIT: As for number 2 ... it HAS been tried and the result IS almost always what I described. It "has never" been tried "completely," because it cannot be tried completely, just as communism will never "really" exist. Which highlights my point. Theoretical ideological ways of thinking do not equate to real world results in this industry, and most industries, and well, life in general. I stand by my statement: the solution is complex and particular and the situation should be dealt with as comparable countries are dealing with it. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by broadbander:implemented on a local level, with support, but not intervention, from the federal body. LOL. Ok, who's speaking with philosophical idealogy now.  |
|
| reply to KrK
A mostly un-regulated pseudo monopoly (or duopoly) that acts in their best interests only and deliberately creates high barriers to viable competition AND lax oversight and control.
I agree that is, in short, what exists (though the situation is murkier in certain areas). But I wouldn't call it "the" third option, it is "a" third option as there are many other options on the table.
My feeling is that the best of those other options is a system in which the federal government ....
1. plans an initiative a la Kennedy (we will put a man on the moon, it will be done by X) and then
2. lays down incentives (in the form of taxes, special exemptions, free cat food, whatever did the trick in other countries) for private companies to spread broadband to places with less profitability (and for those incentives to kick in when the jobs done) in partnership with the local municipalities,
3. encourage local governments to facilitate their own broadband networks (by giving credits to local utilities who do so) with some legislation guiding the policy for such a network (i.e. what circumstances need to be present for it be allowed [perhaps 1 or less current ISPs serving in any one part of town with X speeds)] either solo (a la Lafayette) or in partnership with a private provider (a la Philly),
4. pass laws ensuring that state regulators do not have the power to wholesale stop local governments from providing broadband or partnering with third partners to provide broadband (leaving the power to ban broadband in a particular region solely up to the local government and/or federal government),
5. and last, but not least, open the lines to service provider competition.
As with other utility systems, the regional nature of broadband means that special emphasis must be put on local cooperation. Other countries have managed that without centralizing the whole thing. I think we can, too. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Now that's a great reply.
I really can't add much to that at all. I've always believed the best policy would be have a private company that builds out the network, repairs it, upgrades it, and expands it, and charges people for access to the network, but they DO NOT provide any services themselves. IE they are an infrastructure company, and that is their job, and their income.
They charge all users equally, and allow the companies to choose what services/packages/entertainment they want to provide over the network, and consumers can pick and choose what services and packages they would wish to buy.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | reply to broadbander
I agree with qualifications. I do think we're on the same page more than not. For one thing, we, as a nation would be much better off if we adhered to the principle of subsidiarity. But alas, state's rights=racism anymore.
Since you're in the industry, you may be interested in an academics take on New Zeland's attempt at deregulation. (The By-line is wrong, Vernon Smith is now at George Mason in Fairfax, VA.) Be warned, it is long.
Maybe you'd be interested, this is short, another professor at Mason has a weekly column, a recent one is on ideological point.
As long as we're talking ideology, I disagree slightly with your "grand ideological" sweeps statement. The only way subsidiarity is to work is if we adhere to the idea of limited government as set forth in the law. It's said we have a "living, breathing Constitution," but if that's so, then the law—the limit on government—"becomes a mere ball of wax" and there is no real limit on the powers of government.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. |
|
