[9654] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Telecommunications Competition Act of Washington State
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sat Jan 15 13:19:37 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: adamfast@u.washington.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 12:18:47 -0600 (CST)
Cc: grand-central!amix!chip@beaver.cs.washington.edu, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9401150925.H2734-0100000@goren1.u.washington.edu> from "adam fast" at Jan 15, 94 10:03:40 am
> On Fri, 14 Jan 1994, Chip Morningstar -- Software Without Moving Parts wrote:
>
> [about the Telecommunications Competition Act]
>
> > This is the sort of well intentioned meddling that I have been fearing would
> > eventually come of all this NII/Datahighway/Open Platform stuff, and now we are
> > seeing it. In fact, I think this just part of the calm before the storm.
>
> all law making is "meddling."
Some is just downright dangerous meddling. This is an example, and one which
must be stopped.
> all technology incurs social costs of some kinds, that is why we regulate
> technology. the assertion that the telecommunication industry should
> be exempt from social pressures because the market will achieve social
> good faster, better, and easier is an assertion that does not hold up
> under scrutiny.
>
> why has the level of telephone service actually been /declining/ since the
> sixties? market forces are /not/ achieving universal service.
Oh really? The cost of a long distance phone call (THE ONLY PLACE WHERE
THERE IS COMPETITION) has declined what -- 90% in real dollar terms -- since
1960?
That's not the effect of competition? Excuse me, but what planet do you
live on? I remember in the late 60s being <unable> to call California to
talk to my relatives because my family could not afford a 5-minute call.
That is, the $10 or so it cost was beyond our means to pay without severe
hardship.
$10 then bought a hell of a lot of material goods. Today, that same call is
$2.50, and the $2.50 won't even buy you a MCDonald's lunch! (the $10 would
easily feed a family of 4 in a reasonable restaurant back then, was
about 1/4 of our weekly grocery bill, and would fill your gas tank 3-4
times. Don't you remember the commercials for MCds - "feed a family
of 4 for under $5"?).
Why don't you instead get rid of the local phone monopoly, which will bring
to that service competition, just as Judge Greene did for the long distance
market. It certainly benefitted the consumer in the long distance area; why
not repeat the experiment?
Today there ARE no monopolies in the Internet arena. You wish to raise the
bar in the competitive marketplace so that some can form, IMHO. Frankly, I
think it stinks to high hell.
The CIX is a great accomplishment in the marketplace. It formed as a
response by the <free market> to what was perceived as a nascent monopoly
position by ANS, in an attempt to prevent that from happening. From all
appearances it seems to have worked. MCSNet's T1 came online last evening,
and with it FULL CIX connectivity -- you know, it is really impressive when
we can get universal connectivity with one T1 line from a national phone
carrier. Seems that the wonderful word - "competition" - has done what all
the Government regulators, and the NSF, utterly failed to do -- does it not?
Or have I missed something?
> this bill is not directly about universal service, but my point is that a
> lot of social goals (whatever they are) cannot be met by the market alone.
> just as social goals cannot be met by legislation alone, or grassroots
> organizing alone.
The market seems to be doing a hell of a job filling this social goal. You
wish to impose costs on access providers which WILL be reflected in end-user
costs.
I say leave it alone.
> regarding this bill, however, i would like to respond to your questions,
> i will do that a little later today.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | Clarinet feed in Chicago. Send email to
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | "info@mcs.com" for more information.
