Wow. This has gone off the rails.
To avoid unnecessary explanation, let me use a comparison: FedEx.
I'm not suggesting that people should use FedEx for free; that's ridiculous. What I am trying to convey is that Fedex competes for more traffic; that FedEx doesn't open your package, decide it's not in their priorities, and either deny transport or send it by slow boat. FedEx doesn't say "Sorry, we can't take your business, because we don't have enough capacity." They compete. They get the capacity, because that's the business they're in. They chase business because if they don't, somebody else will.
I wrote, "The old linkages between cost and carriage must be broken - constructively."
Wonk replied, "No. Disagree."
Note that I didn't say that the linkage between cost and carriage should be broken - because it can't be. What I meant by the term "old linkages" is that carriers should be restricted to carriage, and not able to use their position to preferentially discriminate/restrict/promote content to end-users. In other words, get carriers out of the content business; make them compete on carriage alone. The operative word being "compete". How would we create incentives to break up monopolies, duopolies? A couple of months ago, I PM'd you that one almost wished for the return of Teddy Roosevelt.
Whatever is done (we discussed this long ago) we can't just write existing players out of the equation. Any new economic construct has to give them the same opportunities as their newly-risen competitors, at the same time as it sponsors capacity growth and connection. That's what was meant by stating, "The old linkages between cost and carriage must be broken - constructively."
As posted previously, in Japan and Korea incumbents were enlisted in the process; in Korea, they even went to "affirmative action" to ensure both inclusion and competition.
"LG’s lobbying efforts ultimately prevailed. As the wireless telecommunications industry grew in size and political importance, and a consumer movement to reduce rates gained strength, LG intensified its efforts to persuade policymakers of SK Telecom’s monopolistic advantage. These efforts were successful: in May 2001 the Korean government announced that it would “guarantee a market share of at least 20 percent for a third major telecom operator [LG Telecom] through asymmetric regulation on Korea Telecom [the state-owned provider] and SK Telecom.” (Korea Herald 2001)."
Message 22892894
In the world of economic mechanisms, how might we apply such things as taxation changes, guaranteed or forgivable loans, stimulus packages at different levels (corporate, national, municipal, industry-specific, etc.)?
No offense is intended: I very much appreciate everyone's replies. But once again we've dropped into the recurring pattern.
I wrote, "Beyond policy change, there must be some macroeconomic adjustments, that will serve the development of true competition and different business models in telecomms."
Wonk replied, "Yes, Agree. But I don’t think you can get there, not given the economic power of the incumbents, the political environment, and the statutory and case law playing field which favors them so greatly. Certainly not in the short term."
I understand that POV! It may be correct, but it means that we (in North America, and elsewhere) don't have what it takes to undo what's been done. Who's in charge of telecomms policy - status quo players, or the people? It means that we can't even equal the UK policy changes that brought BT into line (just Google the BT complaints from 6 years ago). Never mind the impressive improvements in Korea and Japan.
Are we incapable of suggesting what we want? And how we might get there? In general, content on telecomms consists of endless repetition on issues, problems, and difficulties by many of the industry's most intelligent and articulate commentators.
In a country that was once foremost, the opportunity for change is fast approaching. Improvement is needed, not because it's a contest, but because there are benefits that go beyond IPTV. It seems to me that it's time for the industry's practitioners and commentators to begin proposing solutions.
We can talk about the dated conceptual basis that still lives in telecomms law and regulation, but we know the future is all-IP. Because of the way things work here, we know that the economic construct is just as important as the statutory and regulatory environment - maybe even more important. Because we've never seen status quo players refuse to chase a dollar, but we have seen them break the law.
In general, nobody has even tried to formulate a better path to the future, linking industry economics to desired goals. The response seems to be "Naah! Can't be done."
There was a time when that view would be unacceptable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd like to repeat that these remarks are not intended to offend or anger. I appreciate everyone's comments.
Perhaps forums, blogs and informed commentaries are just talk, not a place to gestate solutions, and not a springboard to action.
Jim |
