At 7/17/2011 07:22 AM, Scott Reed wrote:
Well, yeah, necessarily.  Where I lived the service got worse.

I presume you mean that ironically, as a sample of one does not indicate a general case.

Service got considerably better for my employer at the time, where I worked in telecommunications. Competition helps. And for the first couple of years, the still-fettered Bells tried pretty hard to do a good job with the businesses they were given.

On 7/16/2011 10:08 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 7/16/2011 09:41 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
I also noticed that the breakup of Ma Bell degraded service in many areas. A monopoly by market demand is not necessarily bad. A monopoly by regulation is bad.

Well, not necessarily. Ma Bell's service was never consistent before the breakup, but their P.R. was good.

The monopoly occurred "naturally" from the time the Bell patents expired (1893) until the last competitors were gone in the 1930s. There were CLECs galore (called "independents" at the time, but not the geographic-monopoly independents of later years) in the 1893-1920 era. Bell bought Pupin's patent on the loading coil in the 1890s, which gave them a monopoly on long distance (>10 miles or so), but local service was competitive in many places. Independents pioneered dial; Bell was all-manual until the 1920s. However, the economics of natural monopoly are real. The larger market share means a lower unit cost, so the big guy almost always wins. So by 1934, when the Communications Act was passed, the monopoly already existed; FCC and state rules simply locked it in place (made it de jure).

The idea of TA96 was to de-monopolize. Since the natural monopoly still exists, unbundling is a way to open the market, but the 2001 FCC turned against it and the current one remains opposed, law notwithstanding.

The public Internet only exists because the FCC in 1966 started the Computer Inquiries, which created a bright line distinction between carriage ("basic service") and content ("enhanced service"), especially in 1980's Computer II. The ILECs hated that. The FCC also rammed sharing and resale down their throats around 1976 -- before that, you couldn't lease a line between two companies unless one of them was a licensed common carrier (e.g., Western Union, one of Ma Bell's few authorized wholesale resellers). How could you have an ISP without those rules? However, in 2005 the FCC revoked the Computer Inquiry rules, in response to a Verizon request, which is what led to the whole Network Neutrality kerfuffle.

The "no regulation" approach would most likely involve granting ILECs full property rights on their networks, so they would have unregulated monopolies. Who does that benefit? It's a banana republic situation. Every civilized country regulates its monopolies or keeps them under public ownership. Of course property rights are themselves an artificial legal construct, so I suppose a Somali-level approach would be that you could string wires, but you'd need to hire warlords to guard them, and could steal whatever your warlords were able to rassle from competitors. Ironically, Somalia does have a competitive mobile phone sector, since there is no government to regulate it and the warlord armies do guard their towers, but no wireline sector to speak of.

WISPs are less dependent on wireline rules than wireline ISPs, who are largely hurting due to malevolent FCC policies. But they still depend on spectrum regulatory policies. which the FCC makes consistent with the law. And many depend on wireline backhaul, where regulation is the only thing that keeps the monopolies from gouging worse than they do. (I've got an article in the works about how the real digital divide is the way the ILECs have kept the fiber dividend -- the low per-bit cost of capacity on fiber -- away from their monopoly ratepayers, even though it operates in competitive markets.

On 7/16/2011 9:25 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Well...again you have to go further back in history...before telecom regulation ..it was a Ma Bell monopoly ......and without regulation...there is a very good chance that it will again become a Ma Bell monopoly or maybe a duopoly...

Let's not forget that...

Faisal

On Jul 16, 2011, at 9:03 PM, RickG <<mailto:rgunder...@gmail.com>rgunder...@gmail.com> wrote:

"it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
internet access and other communication services"

With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government "allows" us to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or no, regulation or no, there should be no question that we are allowed to make a living the way we want to regardless.

 --
 Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting              http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to