[9878] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
bill text draft 2: Telecommunications Competition Act (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Tue Jan 25 14:12:25 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 14:11:16 -0500
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: jeffgs@netcom.com
Cc: horn%temerity@leia.polaroid.com, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: Jeffrey Sterling's message of Mon, 24 Jan 1994 22:42:24 -0800 (PST) <Pine.3.85.9401242224.A25738-0100000@netcom>
>From: Jeffrey Sterling <jeffgs@netcom.com> [responding to me]
>Gee I think so, large regulated megacorporations profiting from
>monopolies that allow them to spend billions in unregulated industries.
But how did they become and stay monopolies?
As another counter-example, large relatively unregulated
megacorporations spent billions in another unregulated industry
(software, e.g., DEC, IBM) yet look at all the significant small (or
new large corps) players that arose, not to mention that these
megacorps hardly dominated that playing field or managed to keep
entrepeneurs out.
Of course, now many of the large corps are trying to manipulate govt
intervention to control that market better by creating broad-based
state-enforced monopolies (aka Software Patents.) Oh, it's not
either/or, but isn't it amazing how well that worked. Now we have
Compton's trying to get an exclusive patent on much of multi-media,
what a "wonderful" result...
>They profit by controlling the infrastructure and owning the content and
>excluding or overpricing other's content.
Well, sure, you make them monopolies you had better regulate them!
>Newspapers ala Rupert Murdock => William Randolph Hearst also profitted
>from creating media monopolies of their time. And newspapers today still
>control the content and spin that we are exposed to every day.
I'm sorry but I am unfamiliar with any media monopolies you refer to.
As to newspapers today, roughly how many different, independent
newspapers are you referring to (is it fair to say "in round
thousands")? And what stops you or anyone else from launching a
newspaper tomorrow? It's not even awfully expensive, we launched two
major industry magazines here basically from scratch (Sun/Expert and
RS/Magazine), a few bucks in private investment money and a lot of
hard work.
>My thesis is that the cost of bandwidth ought to be dropping in direct
>proportion to the rate at which computers are getting smaller and faster.
Well, I think that's a flawed thesis.
What has one thing got to do with the other? Do cheaper computers let
more fiber be laid? Dig the trenches? What?
>Cheap, flat rate digital transport ought to be delivering ethernet to the
>doorstep with no long distance charges for the cost of regular phone
>service. The Reason this has not occurred is no competition in the local
>loop for telephone or cable.
Indeed there is no (or just now burgeoning) competition in the local
loop, but I'll claim that this is because the state created REGULATED
MONOPOLIES. It may have been a reasonable idea at the time of
creation, but we're currently experiencing its effects in a changing
world.
As to "cheap, flat rate ... ethernet ... for the cost of regular phone
service", hogwash.
It's worth more to you, so why wouldn't you pay more? And if you (or
at least most people) will pay more then why sell it for less?
Competition no doubt is a good thing, but I don't think a common
result is mass stupidity on the part of an industry.
And besides, the investment in infrastructure to accomplish this goal
is immense, from cabling to personnel and support. Where is that
capitalization supposed to come from?
I can't help but wonder if your ideas are based on some attempt at
analysis of the milieu, or a mere desire for an incredible bargain?
>If you can explain a way to have completely deregulated telephone and
>cable competition in local exchange areas (please be at least as specific
>as we have been) that is feasible and practicle today please do so.
Why should anyone explain what is already happening rapidly.
At any rate, we weren't talking about telephone + cable where we
already have a messy regulatory legacy to deal with.
>Otherwise I argue that using a commercial network access point (CNAPs)
>model is the best approach to induce free market competition in the
>interactive multimedia world of the future without giving it away to the
>megacorporations.
This is because you may be a bit naive about how such monopolization
actually operates.
I run one of the largest public access internet sites in the USA (and
the rest of the planet for that matter.)
It would be in my selfish interest to have the state require, oh,
$100K/year or more hookup fees to those CNAPs. It would be in NYNEX or
Bell Atlantic's interests to require $1M/year or more. Why? It
protects each of us, at our own level, from smaller players getting a
toe-hold.
And when the big guys come offering to pay the big bucks you show me a
legislative body that can turn it down.
Create a monopolistic presence, and you have created a manipulatable
target for the wealthy and powerful.
>> I think some illusions need to be shattered here, badly.
>
>Some serious illusions are exist if you can't see there is no free market
>in a world where two corporations control 80% (maybe) of the local loop
>traffic in a totally regulated market and are getting to have their cake
>and eat it too!!!
Yes, but I think you're going after the wrong target. You keep stating
the answer but then point your gun elsewhere, it's rather odd.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
