SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: MikeM54321 who wrote (11607)6/26/2001 5:14:33 PM
From: Crossy  Read Replies (1) of 12823
 
Mike,
first of all I would also like to point out that I really enjoy this debate on regulatory issues. Let me assure you that at least I think I understand your argument: You can't think of ILECs to deploy broadband when they have no incentive to do so. Is it that ?

Then you outline that rules are not needed anymore because competition from MSOs is finally coming. You also seem to imply that if the ILECs could deploy what they wanted without others access to unbundled network elements and co-location then they would already have rolled out DSL express way.

I would hold against this that the 96 Act didn't change the underlying motivation on behalf of the ILECs not to roll out DSL big time: their fear of cannibalization of T1 lines for business and metered ISDN lines for individuals. This strategic issue exists with or without the 96 Act. The act magnifies it only. The real issue here are cable MSOs. As soon as they entered the ILECs had to respond - with or without the 96 Act.

So the 96 Act is NOT a shortterm solution IMHO and it does nothing to increase the speed of DSL broadband deployment BUT - it is a pathway to a competitive future and precicesly this "assymetric" regulation is to address the simple fact that there does exist a PSTN network that was created in a world of monopoly (the uneven playing field)

One of Milton Friedman's greatest works is "FREEDOM TO CHOOSE" - a motivation I totally subscribe to. The title alone says it all. It's a thorough analysis on market systems and their merits but ONLY FROM A CUSTOMERS ANGLE ! They are the only one who count. K-Street lobbyists wouldn't like this angle, I'm sure, neither the Hollywood entertainment crowd, neither the ILECs. Friedman doesn't specially endorse anti-trust activities (he scolds some excesses where bigness alone but not a monopoly - IBM, GM came under anti-trust scrutiny) but he specifically focuses as competition as the ingredient of progress and the yardstick is choice.

In Germany, great market economists like Walter Eucken or Eugen Mueller-Armack espoused similar views, in effect underlining the anti-trusts agenda of the "Bundeskartellamt" in Germany. This is really against the French pencheant for creating "national" champions in their industry. The European anti-trust office is pretty much modeled after this. The key agenda here is the establishment of competitive behaviour against all forces in place undermining competition. So far the German Bundekartellamt did an excellent job - one of the best pro-market institutions in the world.

best wishes
CROSSY
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News