To: LLCF who wrote (102198 ) 5/15/2001 9:56:27 AM From: Art Bechhoefer Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258 DAK--The lack of free markets in telecom and air travel does not work very well, contrary to what some people think. Yes, it works, but with some undesirable side effects. For example, in air travel, the carriers want only the most profitable routes, such as New York to Los Angeles. Not surprisingly, under a deregulated system, you get bargain fares from NY to LA, with customers often paying one-third or less what they would pay from, say Rochester, NY to Washington, DC. Thus, the issue to consider is whether the whole nation is better served by cheap fares from NY to LA at the expense (and I mean economic development expense) of much higher fares between less popular sources and destinations. Under a free market system, a great disparity in price will develop, with the usual consequences. In the telecom area, you see an almost identical situation. The higher density urban areas get all the latest wireless and fiber optic facilities, featuring high speed data access capabilities and other conveniences available at low cost. Lower density rural areas are often stuck with POTS (plain old telephone service) or analog wireless, not even digital at this late date. Is that a success? Or, would it be in the best interests of the nation as a whole to assure that good quality, fast voice and data services are available everywhere. Before you denigrate the need for intelligent regulation, remember that the first communication service -- the post office -- was designed to allow letters to be sent from anywhere in the nation to anywhere else in the nation at a uniform price. I live in a rural area in New York State. You can be damn sure that it costs a lot more to deliver letters to my mailbox, 12 miles from the local post office, than it does to deliver letters to an urban residence or apartment house. The founding fathers thought uniform rates and uniform service for postal communication was a good thing. Art