|reply to jaminus |
Re: McDowell uses what (usually) works: FEAR
said by jaminus:The initial deal was in response to rivalry between competing phone companies that refused to interconnect with one another. During the early days you could only call subscribers if there were customers of your phone company.
Look at the history of regulation as it applies to private infrastructure. Once politicians start meddling with competitive forces, the status-quo is entrenched at the expense of progress. Consider Plain Old Telephone Service, which remained largely stagnant for decades on account of Ma Bell's entrenched monopoly status.
Then in the 1980's when it became clear monopolist regulations were stifling innovation Telecom Divestiture occurred.
said by jaminus:There is always a trade-off. I'd argue there is little to no competition in first-mile access space. What little there is is not focused on maximizing social value it is, as it should be, focused on maximizing profitability. In some cases maximizing profitability is good social policy in other it is not.
Progress happens because firms develop and implement new products, new pricing models, and new ways of doing business. If you curtail experimentation on account of a single company's mistake, you just might lose "good" experimentation, too.
The Net Neutrality debate is about how to strike that delicate balance.