how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | reply to Minister
Re: -sigh- I got this one.
First off, I've been reading here at bbr for quite some time and it's obvious that Mr. Bode has a left-wing, perhaps even Marxist agenda. With him its always the eeevil corporation, us-v.-them mentality.
Second, after reading the CSE report I wonder if Mr. Bode read the same thing. Actually I know he did, but he glommed on to the passing mention of the uncertain regulatory environment as a reason to assail the report. (Does anyone disagree that an eeevil business would be hesitant to invest in an area that has uncertainty?) And how does Mr. Bode attack the report? By attacking ad hominem the organization that put it out. It's interesting to note that Mr. Bode has no problem citing non-profit type organizations when he agrees with them. A notable one is his interview with Center for Democracy and Technology here—just who is this group, where do they get their money? and ironically the same day as this news story, he cites an outfit called The Yankee Group here. But a group that has an outlook which he disagrees with gets inspected to see where their funding comes from; because you know, an economist isn't going to actually look at the facts, he's just going to say what his corporate masters want him to say. And is anyone under the illusion that any think-tank, be it left or right, doesn't have large contributors?
Third, the data written about in the CSE report are not from CSE itself. Dr. Brough cites two different reports, with two different methodologies, put out by two different outfits, but reaching the same conclusion, N.B.: that increased broadband deployment would benefit all these states—not deregulation as Mr. Bode says. See how he creates a straw man?
And fourth, on the point of deregulation. Unfortunately for Mr. Bode, the overwhelming majority of economics literature and economists agree that regulation per se is a drag on the economy creating artificial barriers to entry (even a poster in this very thread advocates regulations to raise prices for the consumer). George Stigler is a quite forceful proponent of deregulation as is Gary Becker and last year's Nobel Prize winner Vernon Smith (who has an elucidating article on regulation of the electric industry here). I'd like to see Mr. Bode read and comment on this article—but whoops—where does Dr. Smith get his funding?
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell | | |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Two thoughts:
First, uncertainty is a great disincentive to investment. That is the primary reason that the ILECs have fought a never-ending battle in the courts to upset the Telecom Act. With the prices of UNEs in flux, the definitions of UNEs in flux, and now even the availability of UNEs in flux, who is going to invest in a new business? That leaves only the Whining Baby Bells--who have the captive cash flow to be self-funding.
Second, I may seem like a broken record here, but I'll again repeat Alfred Kahn's maxim--"Deregulation does not mean that you fire the policeman." There is a big difference between regulating commerce (active price and route regulation, etc.) and regulating safety or anti-trust issues. Where the ILECs are wrong now (but still convincing too many people) is that they claim they should be free of the remaining regulations under TA'96--when in reality, those provisions weren't meant to regulate commerce generally, but only to protect from and make amends for the long history of antitrust offenses committed by the local monopolies we used to call the "Bell System".
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
