In terms of the historical term of sharecropping the operator-state relation is, IMO, different than
landowner-sharecropper, one major reason that the state-operator relation is more "symmetric"
in terms of power on both sides (cmp operator-subscriber, landowner-shrcrper).
Especially true if the state is democratically elected by the endusers, with one vote-one citizen, not
one vote - one operator.
Funny, maybe, that both monopoly operators and the feudal, sharecropping systems have similar
roots, the feudal landlord was expected to guard the nation against enemies, both foreign and
local riots. Good telecommuncations were important when something happened, so telecommunication
also became a "vital interest" of both state and landlord, especially the military. (as did public roads,
highways and railroads)
Wireless is now making it possible to change that by actually having a healthy competition
without digging up all streets and yards, public or private, just a matter of sharing some masts
and setting up some rules for trading channels, as well as the old stuff of networks with a
sign of "private property, no trespassing" for the wrong kind of SMS message, data packet
or audio streams.
Luckily telecommunication has become so cheap that it almost can be trusted to the
"free markets", highways and especially railroads are still expensive to roll out.
However, IMO, the demand is that the operators are in a tight place between each other, the state
and the endusers, with the enduser deciding who runs the state.
IMO the operators should actually be sharecroppers, pay their rent every year or when renewing the
lease of the "air of the people".
However, if some aspects of common sense go wrong, the operators can just become another
way of collecting taxes, or funding tax cuts for more popularity for some politicians or dictators
(where some even hope(d) to fund the domestic tax cuts in some other nation)
Ilmarinen
All of this will be interesting in terms of extremely local WLANs and the more kind of long distance 3G. |
