LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Will the data show regulation the way to go?
Should be interesting.
I doubt any of the data will show that deregulatory policies are not the best course of action. Sure we could wire every 300 person town with 100mbs, but at what cost? It's too bad the FCC has as much control as it does. I hope people can agree that having a regulatory board or agency opens the market up to political rent seeking. In other words, politicians and regulators act as self-interested individuals just as eeevil corporateers do in the private market. Certainly there is a function for government, but we musn't be Pollyannaish that there aren't costs when we use it.
My prediction is that this dubiously named "Center for Public Democracy" will not be any less biased in their analysis of the data than the FCC has supposedly been for their side. (For the record, I do think it sounds bogus to have 1 person mean it's a wired zip code.)
--
"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. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
edit:
September 26th, @01:07PM
| if the data is worth a damn, it will give an accurate picture of broadband in the U.S. Previous interpretations of the FCC data clearly do not do that, given the "zip code" and "200kbps" criteria they use.
From anecdotal and other evidence, my feeling is that broadband in the U.S. is in pretty bad shape, compared to the leaders in the developed world.
besides, we don't need the raw FCC data to show whether or not there needs to be regulation - examination of every single country that is ranked ahead of us in broadband shows some sort of regulatory scheme in place that is more rigorous than what we have. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to LegoPower77
all that matters is that the FCC releases the data for others to analyze.
why haven't they yet? they are hiding something... |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to nasadude
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. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to LegoPower77
I doubt any of the data will show that deregulatory policies are not the best course of action. Sure we could wire every 300 person town with 100mbs, but at what cost? It's too bad the FCC has as much control as it does.
Broadband has hardly enough competitors for deregulatory matters to improve much at this point. Regulation of the industry during the 20th century helped set the regional monopoly stage now set.
I agree that the FCC, a federal body, has too much power in general, but I also think local authorities have too little leeway in forging their own networks. Whereas other countries with better penetration have introduced ambitious government directives, tax deals, and yes, even cross-subsidization plans for private and local government investment/partnership in broadband, and have, as such, expanded more rapidly available service and opened the market for provision competition, the U.S. has gone the opposite, staying largely mum on the subject and giving mixed regulatory signals. The courts have been even more bewildered, with ridiculous rulings both for and against local/state regulatory practices.
The U.S.'s broadband superiority has been falling rapidly in recent years and the current FCC's lack of vision has had a lot to do with it. An unwillingness to devote themselves to either side of the deregulation argument and an ambivalence about how to proactively promote partnership.
It will be lovely to see the data and formulate our own conclusions. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to 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.
Bingo, but now a proactive policy (not necessarily a regulatory one) might be required to dismantle that framework/advantage. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| 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. |
|
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| reply to LegoPower77
said by LegoPower77 :but at what cost? You have a very valid point.
I wonder how many people said this when Eisenhower subsidized the interstate highway system? Back then, most people in traditionally "lower technology" areas probably thought the same thing most people today do about the current broadband available, "It's good enough for me, so it must be good enough for everyone else.", "I don't need any new roads, my two-lane twisty country road is fine.", "I don't see what you can do with 100Mbps that you can't do with 1.5Mbps", etc etc....
I wonder where our country would be without the interstate system?
I hate to think about where our country will be if we don't take control of a national broadband deployment out of the hands of private companies and enact a viable solution. |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| said by MattE :I hate to think about where our country will be if we don't take control of a national broadband deployment out of the hands of private companies and enact a viable solution. Scary thought.
I don't know if the comparison with the interstate highway system is very accurate. For one thing, there is a valid argument that interstates promote national defense by allowing for quick movement of troops and equipment. It be hard to make that case for small town broadband access.
Secondly, the interstate system, while funded by taxpayers, was built by private contractors.
--
"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. |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to MattE
This is pure socialist thinking dude. I know it is the in-thing these days to bash the US, whining and crying that we don't have more free or almost free benefits. The reality is that we are expanding broadband, this is a very large country compared to other countries and the population densities varies to thousands an acre to 1 per couple hundred acres. It is not nor has it ever been the role of government to regulate/run/operate broadband or any other service. People live with only dial or no Internet connection and do just fine. Let the industry do its thing they are going as fast as they can. There are going to be places left behind as not economically feasible part of life learn to deal with it. Businesses have a right to make a profit, owe reason to exist and any case we all benefit from those profits. No subsidizing of the Internet please want it? Pay for it then. The government should not ever subsidize anything or utility.
Living large in Colorado |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| This is pure socialist thinking dude.
How so? I admit there is a socialist bent in proposing some possible "federalization" of telecommunications systems, but furthering private-public partnership and creating an atmosphere in which private competition can thrive is not exactly socialist.
A standing army, law enforcement, education ... none of these things are in line with a "capitalist" framework. However, they are not only phenomena of socialisms and fascisms, but Democratic "capitalist" societies, too. There are so many examples of even the most hands-off governments in the world being involved with various affairs that calling any particular thing, other than wholesale nationalization of a specific industry, "socialist" doesn't tread water.
The reality is that we are expanding broadband, this is a very large country compared to other countries and the population densities varies to thousands an acre to 1 per couple hundred acres.
This is relatively true, but even countries of comparable size or comparable population density (a more relevant statistic) have spelled out initiatives and ambitious plans. Those that planned earlier have better penetration and (generally) more competitive environments. We are behind many countries, some with much more population density, some with relatively equivalent ones. However, without better vision, we will fall behind more comparable countries in short time.
There are going to be places left behind as not economically feasible part of life learn to deal with it.
Small government exists largely to ensure this is not the case when it comes to utilities. Utilities are PIVOTAL to growth and economic progress. If a municipality wants to continue to exist or wants to grow, it needs to ensure that important utilities are available in their borders. While this can drive debt in the short-term, it can attract new residents and businesses in the long-term. While not every municipality shares this view, there should be a way for those that do to pursue broadband, either in partnership with a private provider or on their own.
The government should not ever subsidize anything or utility.
Having studied and worked in the utility industry for about thirteen years, I can say your assertion is often correct, but like any ideological notion it does not always work. There are many examples of successful co-ops and locally run utility systems that, while perhaps no longer necessary, were pivotal in ensuring that everyday things we've come to expect like electricity and water were made available to everyone.
I consider myself a conservative and I generally agree that free markets are a good thing, but oversight is also an okay thing, and cooperation in the name of mutual interest is often the best. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to LegoPower77
said by LegoPower77 :I don't know if the comparison with the interstate highway system is very accurate. For one thing, there is a valid argument that interstates promote national defense by allowing for quick movement of troops and equipment. It be hard to make that case for small town broadband access. Not at all. Need I remind you that the internet's predecessor, Arpanet, was developed by the Defense Dep't?
In wartime, as in business, knowledge is power. And effective communications is key to spreading it.
The fact of the matter is that all aspects of our industrial infrastructure contribute to our defensive capabilities. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
edit:
September 26th, @08:37PM
| reply to LegoPower77
said by LegoPower77 :I doubt any of the data will show that deregulatory policies are not the best course of action. Just like the last taxpayer financed FCC report that was suppressed from going public by former FCC Powell in order to protect his corporate buddies from evidence that their policies regarding locally owned stations produced more local news than those owned by media behemoths.
But I'm sure you're right, Lego. Trust the FCC. Deregulation is always best. Especially for the consumer. I mean, look how beneficial electricity deregulation has been for the State of California. Utils are practically free.
--
Choose Net Neutrality or Lose It
21st C TechnoBarons.
Why Care About Media?
IANYL:TINLA |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to PDXPLT
Yes I know about DARPA, I think that project has achieved its goals, no? I still fail to see how internet access for countryside towns would give us any military advantage since those guys use satellite communications and such just as easily.said by PDXPLT :The fact of the matter is that all aspects of our industrial infrastructure contribute to our defensive capabilities. So we should nationalize all industry?
--
"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. |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to nasadude
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. |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to major marco
I agree, the FCC's embargo on the data is indefensible. But see my posts elsewhere in this thread about the problems with regulation.
I'm not saying no regulation at all is the best, but the very cronyism you point out from powell et al. is because of interventionist policies.
Electricity was never deregulated, I can't remember but it was either the wholesale or the retail price that remained fixed. I seem to recall it was wholesale but in any case price fixing is not a telltale sign of free markets and it created the type of profiteering that Enron did (separate from their funny accounting). If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say California's leftist politicians sold a bunk bill of goods under the rubric of "deregulation" to solidify public consensus against it. It couldn't have worked better if planned.
--
"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. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to major marco
said by major marco I mean, look how beneficial electricity deregulation has been for the State of California. Utils are practically free.
[/BQUOTE :add Texas to that list. since deregulation, 20-30% increases. unbelievable. |
|
alanhdsl
Premium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ
·Qwest.net
| reply to LegoPower77
The retail price was capped, in repsonse to the assertion that deregulation would make prices cheaper. It was to force the providers to live up to this promise.
Enron and company forced up the price on the wholesale side and tried to force the state to break the caps. If that had been allowed, the retail price would have tripled. Instead, the evil regulators kept the caps and sent the Enron guys to jail. Notice that despite continuing growth and not much new generating capacity, California has not had nearly as many problems since the supply manipulation was stopped.
If the position is that higher retail prices are a good thing in exchange for reduced regulation, fine, make that point to the public. But be honest about it and state right up front that higher prices are your goal. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| 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!) |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. |
|
