[11883] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Telecomm regulation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Fri Apr 22 18:53:28 1994
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 13:14:01 -0400
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@sprint.net>
To: avg@sprint.net, brodsky@radiomail.net
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, frezza@radiomail.net, stahlman@radiomail.net
>Despite your disclaimer, this is the classic defense given by
>companies who owe their existence to having mastered the art
>of influencing government officials.
Ok, lets get it straight. I work for Sprint because i think
Sprint is doing the right thing, not vice-versa. I definitely
won't work for Microsoft for any kind of money.
>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.
Hm. Did you ever study a history of late 19th century?
Can you tell a trust from cartel and do you know why those
words are no longer in use to describe business forms?
>(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.
Hah. "Tripoly". Have you ever heard of WilTel, Cable and Wireless,
Metropolitan Fiber Systems? There are about two-dozen long-distance
carriers in the market. Most of them sell only to businesses, though.
If i understood you correctly you refer to the present restraining
of Baby Bells from entering long-distance market. What you *don't*
realise is that while they enjoy monopoly on local access they
can easily kill *all* long distance service providers by artificially
low prices on their own long-distance services. The volume of
local access market is *much* higher than volume of long-distance
market.
>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.
I do not defend actions of US government granting monoploy to one
company which managed to convince them that it is a "technical necessity".
Still, complete deregulation of the market *now* will lead to the wave
of mergers and we'll get the monopoly back before you'll manage to
say "Jesus Christ".
>The idea that the Baby Bell's are "natural monopolies" is preposterous.
They are results of splitting ONE big natural monopoly. The split preserved
regional monopolies, though.
>The Baby Bell's were created by a court order, not the free market.
Yeah. In this case *regulation* allowed creating competitive marketplace
in long-distance 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.
Nah, there was *no* way to build local access competition without
blasting all existing telephone system and launching competition
from scratch. The local access market is *much* more capital-intensive
and to create a level playground after 100 years of monoploy is not
that easy.
>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.
Opinions differ, you know.
--vadim
DISCLAIMER The statement(s) above represent my personal opinion(s) ONLY
and in no way should be interpreted as position(s) of
my present and/or former employers. This message is NOT and
is NOT intended to be an offical statement or presentation
by Sprint and/or any other organization.
