broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to KrK
Re: Will the data show regulation the way to go?
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. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
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. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
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. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| 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.  |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, 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. |
|
