[12265] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
re: NII and Reality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven=Byrne%CFP%BTCE@smtpgate.dot)
Thu May 12 04:43:21 1994
Date: Thu, 12 May 94 12:29:29 EST
From: Steven=Byrne%CFP%BTCE@smtpgate.dotc.gov.au
To: com-priv@psi.com
Mark Stahlman wrote:
|Steven, I agree that much of the discussion has been illuminating and
|exciting. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened without the hype, but I
|disagree that the net (no pun intended) effect has been positive.
|
|Entreprenuers are confused. There is enormous wasted effort in forging
|alliances and jumping on the "bandwagon". Convergence is the most
|implausible industrial nonsense yet it captivates many potential
|innovators. The seriousness with which this malarkey is taken within the
|Beltway is leading many of us to worry that the principle result of the
|Infobahn hype will be a new information bureaucracy and crippling market
|regulation.
|
|Mark Stahlman
|New Media Associates
|New York
|stahlman@radiomail.net
Mark:
I agree that entrepeneurs may be confused, and I take your point. This is
very much the Gilder argument that if the Govt regulated the PC industry
like the FCC had regulated telecommunications we would have a nice
standards based PC architecture but zero technological innovation and none
of the dynamism we see in the PC market today. This dynamism and growth
can be viewed as the direct result of the virtual absence of any
regulatory interest in the development of the personal computer industry
(so far - everyone is aware of the Justice Department's anti-trust
interest in Microsoft).
But the debate is really about conceptions of industry policy - never a
popular topic in the US but a feature of political and economic life
around the world - look at the role of MITI in Japan, for example, and its
clones in Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. The NII is an open attempt by Gore
to improve the national economic competitiveness of the US by attempting
to have the government steer and sponsor the development of an advanced
communications infrastructure, which everyone agrees will be a key
technological underpinning to future markets and economic development.
(The same issue applies to flat panel displays.)
The real issues are whether it is viewed as appropriate for Govt to take
this role, and whether Govt can do the job better than the free and open
play of market forces. In the PC industry, I think the answer is no: so
far the free play of market forces in the PC industry has done a good job
in fostering innovation, growth and American pre-eminence in the key
technologies of this industry. But is the evolution of the PC industry a
good model to apply to the future of communications?
That's a hard one to answer - and I am open to views on this.
| | | | | | | ||||||||| | | | | | | | | |||||||| | | | | |||||| | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Steven Byrne. Communications Futures Project. Bureau of Transport |
| and Communications Economics. Canberra, Australia. |
| Internet: Steven=Byrne%cfp%btce@smtpgate.dotc.gov.au |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
