>>This proved to be a wrong prediction though, as evidenced by events
which have transpired since then, and when you consider that virtually
every large Interexchange player now has either set a date for deploying VoIP (such as DT, Qwest, etc., and AT&T in another month or so) or has it on the agenda to do so. This is only 10 months later, and not several years later, as some of my my esteemed colleagues suggested. [Gotcha, Guys and Gals, and you know who you are...]<<
Frank,
I am certainly no expert in the telecommunication industry, so half of the material that I read is well above my head. I read the entire post, and the above comment caught my eye. In addition, there are other comments that I will refer to below.
I do not know if this response is what you were looking for in the form of comments, but here it is anyway.
[By the way, I still owe you the other commentary, which for reason a, b or c, I have not finished, but I am close, I apologize for taking this long.]
Speaking from a "common sense" approach, I have this picture in my head.
15 or 16 years ago, (I do not know exactly), a judge told AT&T to go and "divest yourself".
Now, it seems that in order to gain efficiency, companies are merging in just about every field, including telecommunications. Does that make sense? Well in a way, since we live in different worlds, and that is precisely the point. We can not apply old solutions to brand new situations.
As you point out, the estimated time for VoIP implementation is running way ahead of schedule, in addition, I believe that the regulators really are not prepared to "tackle" (read understand) how to regulate an entire new industry because I believe business today, is run on the premise of "efficiencies", and free markets.
The advances in technology, (perhaps initiated by the success of the PC), have not only gained the desired efficiencies, but the advance in technology has accelerated to unimaginable speeds, only ten years ago.
In addition, two events have taken place that 5 years ago were not even in the map. These events on their own are accelerating all kinds of changes, efficiencies and advances, which are confusing just about everyone, because I believe no one (other than visionaries and "futurists" as the ones you and I have discussed in the past).
The events that have taken place are the real opening of the world economies, (partly as the result of the complete collapse of the Soviet Union, and ensuing liberation of the Eastern Block economies).
These new growing economies (and in some instances, new countries), are fast becoming important markets for many American companies, that while slowly at first, many are now taking a life of their own.
The other event is the commercialization of the Internet, (as a viable link between the American companies and brand new markets), in other words, e-commerce, and everything else that this represent.
I believe that the regulators understand that there is little they can do to regulate much of anything, because there are, existing foreign companies, or new entities being formed off shore, that are ready to compete in this "brave" new world.
I understand that Deutsche Telekom will begin to offer service here in the United States? Is that correct?
I continue to think that once the technology is figured out, whatever regulation will come about, as soon as it is put into law, the techies will figure a way to get around it.
In addition, there are entire new markets out there that are virgin.
I acknowledge your comment earlier to the fact that it is possible that in the current "established" markets (America, Europe, and the metropolitan areas of Latin America and Asia), will be way more advanced, than any of the newer markets could hope to be.
However, will they really?
I see this global market, as the American West was 200 years ago.
What is going on in the worlds today, (at least in my eyes), is 1776, but now the entire world is participating, and indeed it is the "wild, wild, west" today.
I thought that the telecommunication act of 1996 was going to de-regulate the industry and allow everyone to compete with everyone else. Cable, TV, Telephone, etc.
>>What the Fast Track proposal does is acknowledge that the problem is basically one of incentive. The RBOCs have a very fundamental conflict of interest.<<
How motivated are they going to be when an entire customer base, could have access to foreign competitors in whatever service they may offer, (example: movies over the Internet, music over the Internet, never mind Long Distance, which I could assume it would also be possible). In addition, in the process the technology will figure a way to access the American market, without the regulators being able to do a thing about it.
Example: Internet gambling...
Can the FCC stop that from happening? Isolating the US from the rest of the world? Because in the worst case scenario, it will reach a point that if the US market becomes so obnoxiously hard to deal, hey, they will ignore it altogether.
>>So, yes it is absolutely to get people thinking hard about where we
are going as a nation before we are sunk into one model, which two years and a month has shown is not what people thought it would be.<<
Exactly what I am trying to say.
As you have indicated, the speed of the application of certain technology is already way ahead of the schedule once thought to be feasible.
My assumption is that technology is accelerating exponentially, and in some instances we do not even imagine where we will be, say, 5 years from now, as far as technology is concerned.
Example: Serious implementation of Cyber-cash (could we go back to the times that currencies were issued by individuals/institutions?)
Look at what is happening in the Banking Industry... will the Glass-Stegal Act be repealed? A= yes (my opinion), not only will Interstate Banking be a reality, but International banking Is TODAY a reality. How? Internet + encryption + cybercash. And just wait, this is only the beginning...
The economy we are enjoying today, in my opinion is the result of the new technology, low interest rates, economies of scale enjoyed as a result of consolidation and new found efficiencies, (thanks to technology).
I believe that the future for some time now can only get better, at least for the US. In my eyes, regulating is going to become increasingly more difficult to implement simply because of the negative effects it could create. The problem therefore, could be larger than what the solution they are trying to solve, (real or dreamed up).
The U.S. (and the entire Western World can only be benefited if the regulatory bodies are kept to a minimum
>>The way we proposed it, researched it, conceived it an understand it -- our proposal requires no action whatsoever from the Congress. <<
I like the sound of that.
>>To the extent that you are not calling for full divestiture, what reason is there to think that the RBOCs wouldn't sabotage the plan by circumventing the proposed separation?
It is a concern. It is absolutely a concern. And I guess my answer to that is 40 percent public ownership with a public board of directors, and employees' compensation tied purely to this retail affiliate, not to the parent stock options in the retail affiliate and not in the parent corporation, are much better to drive incentives in the current 100 percent RBOC companies. But I don't claim that it's perfect -- I don't believe it is. I think that full divestiture is the better solution, but that is not the act that was passed in '96.<<
I wonder why would that be?
>>I have got to believe they concluded that the price of actually opening that market at forward-looking competitive prices was more than they were willing to pay right now and they have resorted to litigation instead. Judge it yourself.<<
Lawyer's influence? Lack of motivation by companies given regulatory requirements? Lack of definition what the total risk/reward ratio is?
>>If the [Bell companies] get into long-distance and we can't offer bundled packages to residential consumers, you won't get the competition the Act expected and that Congress wants to see for residential customers. <<
So what would be next?... more regulation, and new "Acts"? Do not forget that in the meantime technology advances...businesses will find a way to make a determination, with an accepted degree of "certainty" what the prudent risk/reward ratio will (should) be.
And let us not forget the individual in this country that slowly is becoming more informed, and with ever increasing number of options as to what to do next...
Well. Only my opinion and again, all the comments above are more of a "flying by the seat of my pants" than really an educated opinion.
Regards.
Z. |
