[9675] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Telecommunications Competition Act of Washington State
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chip Morningstar -- "Software With)
Sun Jan 16 04:09:11 1994
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 00:01:44 PST
From: grand-central!amix!chip@psi.com (Chip Morningstar -- "Software Without Moving Parts")
To: adamfast@u.washington.edu, com-priv@psi.com, communet@uvmvm.BITNET,
Adam responds to my concerns about his proposed legislation:
>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.
While I don't dispute the idea that technology generates social costs, I
question whether we can have any kind of reasonable picture of what these costs
truly are without the benefit of at least a few decades of historical
hindsight. In addition, even if the costs are correctly identified, I am
highly suspicious that regulations intended to deal with these costs will have
the intended effect. I am concerned about this legislation precisely because
it seems to me that the market *is* now in fact achieving "social good faster,
better, and easier" without it.
>why has the level of telephone service actually been /declining/ since the
>sixties? market forces are /not/ achieving universal service.
My perception is the opposite. I think assertion of decline needs to be backed
up with some facts.
I will grant that some aspects of technological change in the
telecommunications industry are perceived by some folks as a decline in
service. For example, the decreasing availability of access to human operators
is frequently commented on, but I think this is just a trade-off between cost
effectiveness (anything that requires a human being in the loop is very
expensive) and "friendliness", which the market has resolved (correctly, in my
opinion) on the side of cost effectiveness. I think people would rather pay
less money and have to deal with machines (while grousing about it), than pay
more money and deal with humans.
>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.
>
>if you think people should not make any legislation regulating
>technology, that is another discussion i would be happy to take up with
>you somewhere else.
While I would certainly be delighted to dive into an argument on these points,
I agree that this is not the place. So, rather than trying to stake out an
"all regulation is bad" position, I'd like to suggest that we might find more
productive places to apply the legislative lever. For example, I think I
mentioned in my original post the idea of restricting local entities from
granting various forms of (monopoly promoting) communications franchises.
>regarding this bill, however, i would like to respond to your questions,
>i will do that a little later today.
I will await your answers with great interest.
Chip
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chip Morningstar |"Going into VR is like |
| Electric Communities | wearing a pair of rented |
| 3339 Kipling, Palo Alto, CA 94306 | bowling shoes on your face." |
| 415-856-1130 | -- Doug Crockford |
| chip@netcom.com or chip@amix.com | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
