calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to inteller
Re: dont want regulation, DO want cooperation
said by inteller:
I think if the FCC used regulation as a threat to push more openness that would be the best scenario.
...and I'm all for Motherhood, apple pie, and good sidewalks too. The problem is, the FCC hasn't really pushed openness in ANY network since Reed Hundt was forced out as Chairman (by President Clinton, who replaced him with Kennard--a near ultimate "don't rock any boats" guy.)
The FCC seems to use regulation now only to squelch competition against the established monopolies. Since they have embraced the "two competitors is good enough" approach (telco and cable) it's doubtful that this FCC would ever have expanded cellular competition beyond two players.
Remember how the cellular duopolies of the '80's and '90's kept prices high before PCS blew the cartel open? Yep, that sort of duopoly is the likely result of this FCC's approach to competition.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA | Do you think DirecTV should have to share their network? |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| I think the underlying spectrum should be shared.
If Direct TV had built its network by having a government subsidized monopoly for 90 years, had largely depreciated its network to where it's capital cost for ongoing operations was about zero, was in a position to strong-arm its vendors into supporting its legislative and regulatory agendas, AND HAD AGREED TO SHARE ITS NETWORK IN RETURN FOR BEING ALLOWED INTO LONG DISTANCE AS PART OF TA'96, then, yes, I would support having them share their network.
Since they built a network without a guaranteed rate-of-return (and actually fought monopolies, rather than being one) I think they are in a different position.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
