Crossy, an excellent response, particularly WRT structural separation and competition.
However, taking a cue from Frank's previous post Message 25947462 one might place oneself in the position of US (or Canadian) incumbents analyzing the "threats" to their existence, and their preparedness.
An incumbent surveying the landscape for danger might well say: "We've got it covered. Keep up the political contributions, the astroturfing, the media campaigns, the litigation and the lobbying. We've met every challenge, and increased our dominance. Unless we meet a politico with overwhelming public support and an agenda for change, we can control the game."
I've long suggested what you advocate. However, capture (in telecomms, but elsewhere too) is so deeply embedded that it will take a policy decision - major expenditure of political capital - to effect change. Major threats? Significant change? Very low probability. "Creeping change"? Under control. Competition? Negligible.
Competition is the key. Encouraging and facilitating competition is a function of the state, in the public interest, as the agent of the people - not some fictional "free market", which exists nowhere on this earth.
Jim |
