Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (17208)	10/28/2006 3:57:24 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

BT promises to improve local loop services for rivals Ofcom acts... "BT has been given permission by Ofcom to draft in extra engineers to help improve service levels at Openreach - the division charged with helping rival telcos get equipment into local exchanges. The telco is bringing in 150 engineers from another division - BT is restricted by regulators to stop it unfairly favouring its own retail division. Local loop unbundling has been hit, BT says, by high levels of demand." More: theregister.co.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Frank, thanks for your thoughtful response. Policy, based on correct understanding of the precepts governing information flow will drive fibre buildout. Policy: not the regulator's policy, the government's policy. Policy by fiat, or by democratic process. The facts are not complex: some nations have subordinated incumbency to national and public interests, others have not. The unknown behind the facts is whether enabling broadband (including fibre buildout) IS fundamental infrastructure, that should be beholden to no particular commercial interest, or set of commercial interests. Yet we have seen tacit acknowledgement of the case for infrastructure in past atomic blast-hardened microwave networks. The providers of that service were (at the time) seen as the enablers and providers (even protectors) of information transmission in the national and public interest. They were, for a variety of historical reasons, entrusted with acknowledged responsibility for acknowledged infrastructure. There was no doubt about its importance as infrastructure then - so why should there be any doubt, now? What IS in doubt is the status of the former protectors and providers: now, they have become gatekeepers, whose interests are neither public nor national. Now they are correctly perceived as gougers and blockers, sitting in a privileged position in the information distribution heirarchy, which privileged position was ceded to them by the public, or its agent: government. What the people have given, only the people can take away. In future generations, creation (and subsequent difficult removal) of monopolist incumbencies will become a textbook case of what NOT to do in many disciplines: economics, commerce, public administration, political science, and so on. Where we sit, the incumbents get the air time. They get the media play, bought and paid for nationally, where they trumpet the breathtaking technological advances they bring to the public. The real story is less compelling. What's going on in government hearings, in lobbying, and in subsequent voting is not being broadcast to the public in Prime Time. Quite the contrary. Well, so be it. The problem isn't going to be solved here. There's an old saying that people get the kind of government they deserve. If that's true, then what's (not) happening with information technology in North America is a sad comment on our underlying societies. Regards, Jim