Hi, Frank - I was puzzled, in this exchange, by your use of the word 'provocative'.
If provocation was felt, none was intended.
Let me put it this way; from time to time you have posted on particular aspects of Canadian telecomms: CANARIE and the imminent arrival of telephony on cable come to mind.
In reading those posts, I never took your remarks on the result achieved to be any comment at all, either way, on the regulatory, or governmental process that achieved it. By extension, neither did I take the posts to be a comment on the interaction between government and industry in Canada.
Similarly, I have never taken your posts on the subject of installation of FTTH in Japan, to be an endorsement of their regulatory process, or the unique interaction between industry and government, there.
And indeed, your posts were not such a comment. You were simply noting the achievement of different results in a different geographic and political area.
My comments on the French solution to the energy crisis, my comments on the IEEE vs ETSI, and many other things, are not intended to be provocative: the intent is neither to celebrate nor deprecate the efforts of any of the actors.
My intent is the same as yours (IMO). To point out a result achieved, the factual existence of a phenomenon, or of differences.
Into the second category would fall my posts on the dilatory response of the incumbents around the world (not just in the United States) to the demands of deregulation, and their rearguard action at the CO. Judging by the news, in the States, in Canada, in the UK and Europe, there is enough evidence of a consistent pattern of behaviour to attribute a strategy to such action. The news is a fact; the interpretation is a matter of opinion.
The comments were not intended to dis deregulatory efforts in the States, to endorse deregulation, or celebrate it. The interpretations were put forth in the sincere belief that it will be difficult to dismantle that worldwide monopoly at the CO, no matter what the law says, and further, that is where the incumbents are making their stand, until they can regain ascendancy.
I am at a loss, in re-reading my posts, to see where I have indicated that the United States (or Canada, for that matter) should adopt the French, or European system of doing this, or that.
But, in the spirit of cross-pollination, there is much to be learned from others, that should not simply be rejected because it is "different", or results from a "different" process.
.................
On the subject of the impending energy crisis, I fear for the future: I feel, given the long lead times needed to install alternatives, and the escalating costs of same, that delay and indecision are enemies. As Darleen pointed out in her post, a windmill in everyone's back yard won't do it. At present , we are simply unprepared, worldwide, for any major interruption of fossil-fuel supplies. OPEC nations are already pumping at near-capacity, and the available fleet of tankers is near full utilization.
In the United States, there are significant obstacles to the construction and use of alternatives, in which I include nuclear power. Given a situation in which delay has caused people to endure real hardship and privation through the absence of power, a crash program may have to be instituted.
It goes without saying, that such a program would have to be tailored to the particular needs of the United States. Furthermore, such a program would require a degree of consensus, political leadership and common regulatory direction that has only manifested itself in times such as the Second World War. But we know from past experience that the US is capable of strong and united action, involving industry and government, when the need is clear.
In such a case, the United States might look with interest on the solution implemented by the French.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Happy New Year, everyone! Be well, and prosperous.
Regards,
Jim |
