Ford and GM would like to have others use their resources, but the government won't let them. The reason is domestic content laws. The car companies would like to outsource their production to lower manufacturing cost sources, but that would cause significant unemployment in an area that is deemed too large to let fail by government and labor. The outcome is preserved employment, but the cost is that Lexus and BMW rule the roads.
The analogy is not only weak in relation, but also weak in comparison. The MSOs were a protected monopoly conspired by people, company, and government. For 20 years everyone has thought that is a good arrangement because it protects the people. It only protects against innovation and improvement, but fails to protect against rising cost for service. All three have stated they do what they do for competitive reasons.
The MSO had its investment protected, but the outcome was that Fairlanes and Ramblers ruled the cable. TCI in particular, has evolved into a reincarnation of Ma Bell. With autos I can at least get a Ford or GM, but not in cable. You have no choice. You get Edsel. Period.
Let's say open access is phased in over 5 years. The RBOCs haven't changed their local monopoly position 3 years after Telcom '96, so why should T be so benevolent? In any event how could a government body order the phase in unless they ruled eminent domain and usurped the autonomy of companies to discover their own ways to naturally phase in open access? Doesn't this interfere with other companies considering an investment in supplying infrastructure to shy away? If the FCC were to rule in some unknown way such that T's presumed advantage is protected, then outside competitors wouldn't enter. You were saying about preservation of investment incentive?
This is the nature of monopoly. You never need to do anything about it, because the monopolists all by themselves pursue a course which always destroys them. It is only government attempting to pass laws to accelerate the destruction of monopoly which through negotiated concessions enables the monopoly to persist. The market destroys monopoly because monopoly is too large or stiff to change relative to all the factors entering the market. That's where MSFT is at now. The government doesn't need to break them up. Their own size will. You have to have faith in markets and that is too foreign for the weak intellects colored with university socialism to accept. The problem with this weakness is that it gets brainwashed into the public so that TCI monopolies are the result.
Portland, a community, is acting as a catalyst to bring about a change in this monopoly. They don't trust that T would do it on their own. Portland almost inevitably, unless T relents, will have to find a viable alternative and that will set the stage for competition. There are alternatives even if they are still somewhat on the drawing boards. It is critical that the FCC stays out of this market oriented solution. You could look at Portland as an individual looking for an alternative to the assigned Rambler. This is why Judge Panner is right and if he is overruled, it will be only on some technicality vaguely related to the legal cause of the decision.
Three lines for each MSO? This is narrow thinking talking, not a market solution. It is as exclusionary as one line. What happens to all the other ISPs? Why should TCI build it and who will pay for it? This kind of solution satisfies fair-minded politicians, but it always brings about a bigger mess than what was there originally. Portland may demand that some other company has the right to install HFC on top of TCI's pull. I believe that Portland is right there too, because it is the people of Portland who paid for all TCI's cable plant. |
