[11874] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Telecomm regulation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ira Brodsky (via RadioMail))
Fri Apr 22 14:44:58 1994
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 08:16:50 PDT
From: Ira Brodsky (via RadioMail) <brodsky@radiomail.net>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, frezza@radiomail.net, stahlman@radiomail.net
To: avg@sprint.net
Vadim,
You wrote:
<The whole purpose of regulation is to prevent
forming of monopolies (or prevent "natural"
monopolies like baby Bells from killing potential
competitors before they could get into business).
Regulation is definitely needed in the market
still plagued by the legacy of AT&T's monopoly.>
Despite your disclaimer, this is the classic defense given by companies who owe their existence to having mastered the art of influencing government officials.
Only a loyal MCI or Sprint employee would think that telco monopolies were a natural outgrowth of capitalism. No doubt, you support regulations that specifically keep AT&T in check. (Excuse me if I persist in questioning your motivations, but not your good intentions.)
I defy anyone to name one telecommunications monopoly that was created and sustained without material assistance from the government. The thing that is most striking about petitions to the FCC by MCI and Sprint is that they try to canonize the 'triopoly'. Evidently, monopolies are bad, triopolies (if you are one of the
lucky winners) are good.
You brought up the Bell 103 modem. Thank you. There was a time when we all had to use Bell 103s (of course, there were far fewer of us under such conditions). In fact, it was against the law for a citizen to own his own telephone equipment back then; you had to lease everything from the Bell System. This restriction was, I assure you, conceived in the 'public's interest' by govt. regulators.
The idea that the Baby Bell's are "natural monopolies" is preposterous. The Baby Bell's were created by a court order, not the free market. That is historical fact. Although the Bell System achieved its remarkable--but by no means total--dominance through more legitimate means, it had the benefit of regulations that outlawed further competition in geographic areas already secured.
If all regulation were wiped off the books tomorrow, the complaint at this time next year would not be that the Baby Bells were trampling their nascent rivals; instead, the pro-regulation folks would be wringing their hands over the chaos and confusion resulting from 'too many' players and choices.
Ira Brodsky
***************************************
This message proudly represents the
views of Datacomm Research Co.
