"Illustrate this by some means other than self-serving government or corporate press releases."
Good tactic. Put the onus on your opponent to supply factual information, when you have none to offer yourself. Accompany the tactic with prejudicial comments about anticipated responses.
However, the tactic is not relevant to the matter, so I'll get back to this a little later.
"I know its popular here to blame everything on ILEC's and MSO's... "
I can't speak for others. My posts have always placed the fundamental blame on the absence of good policy. The behaviour of incumbents around the world is consistent within that absence, and almost uniform: exclude competition, maintain scarcity in throughput.
On the other hand, where lawmakers have actively intervened, incumbents have been forced to include competitive alternatives. Aggregate thoughput has increased, at a huge discount to previous prices, per bit.
So your statement: "Don't be so quick to discount market forces and lack of Government direction" is exactly what I'm NOT doing. I'm ADVOCATING government direction, and use of market forces.
That's called the Straw Man: another rhetorical trick where you create a fictitious argument by your opponent, then refute it. The fact is you're supporting my proposition, however unintentionally.
"Government subsidies creating new markets do not necessarily achieve what you are suggesting."
A carefully-worded statement. "Not necessarily": meaning that in some cases government assistance can help create new markets?
Of course it can. Railways would never have been built without government assistance. Look at all the assistance that was given to airlines.
Goverment subsidies won't create new markets? First, let's define subsidies. Is the creation of a monopoly a subsidy? The ability to exclude competition and create artificial scarcity is a subsidy, in itself. Who needs government money, when you have a license to print your own?
But beyond that, is it true that incumbents have received NO money (subsidies) for broadband buildout? I suggest you check your facts.
And finally, define "new markets". Public support for airlines, highways and railways not only opened up new markets in themselves, but also created large new domestic and international industries for these technologies, by virtue of leadership in the field.
"The first push at 'broadband access' was with ISDN and what did that get the Japanese? There were dozens of articles in all the trade rags for years about the supposed advantages the Japanese were getting, but essentially they got nothing for it and saddled NTT with substantial debt overhead".
DT made the same mistake. Perhaps your example demonstrates retrograde thinking, and the inability of incumbents to encompass and enable new technology. Certainly, fibre was waiting in the wings when ISDN was being pushed by incumbents.
I'll post a few links to some of the "factual information" you demanded, in my next 2 posts. I apologise for the rough format, but time is limited.
I'm not sure whether you want an honest debate on the questions at hand. I'm willing to continue the discussion.
oreillynet.com
Regards,
Jim |
