By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld
04/29/05 5:00 AM PT
Quality, service, convenience, aesthetics, and other issues all come into play when consumers make decisions. When regulators leave markets alone, businesses compete on all these levels. But perhaps it's not that Commissioner Brown and his staff don't like markets per se, maybe it's just that they feel markets need government help.
eMarketer Whitepaper: Optimizing the E-Commerce Experience
From the Web to the Contact Center, are you prepared to proactively engage and keep your savvy customers? Read how e-commerce leaders are optimizing their sites with ratings, reviews, live help, Web analytics, mobile and more.
It's not a bird or plane, it's the "stratellite," a huge broadband blimp announced this month. It will make high-speed Internet junkies gleeful, leave broadband competitors fearful, and tell policymakers to ignore warnings of an imminent broadband monopoly.
Some might be surprised to learn that anyone is worrying about a potential monopoly, given the many ways to obtain broadband. Consumers can get high speed service through cable, DSL, wireless, broadband over power lines, satellite, and soon, through the blimp.
Regulatory Stronghold
Once launched, the stratellite will deliver line-of-sight wireless broadband to an area the size of Texas from a single transmission point using a fleet of robotic airships hovering at 65,000 feet above the Earth. While amazing technological advances like this continue, reactionary regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) still believe that the market needs their help to be competitive.
A recent broadband report produced by CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown and his staff, probes what it calls "the fundamental structural monopoly problem of the last mile." Such jargon from obsolete telecommunications regulation is truly shocking in a report designed to address new technology. But then, maybe the purpose of the report, from the bureaucratic point of view, is not to help consumers at all, but instead to maintain and expand regulatory reach.
Indeed, Commissioner Brown's report says that one of the reasons its recommendations should be followed is that "it may develop into a framework in which California can regain regulatory authority from the FCC" and it "maintains a role for California in the regulation of the industry." In a world where Internet communications are global, it's unclear why anyone would think a patchwork of state laws is beneficial, but again, power is like a drug bureaucrats just can't quit.
Consumers' Choice
To be fair, Commissioner Brown's report makes sure to acknowledge the marketplace. More than once, the report states "markets are the preferred method of distributing goods and services among the population." However, if you read the rest of the report, you'll see that statement only partly reveals how Commissioner Brown and his staff think about the world.
The sentence that was left unsaid in this instance is "but it shouldn't be the preferred method." Maybe that's an attitude that should be expected from authors who believe that consumers will always choose the provider whose price is lowest.
Consumers make decisions based on all sorts of inputs. A case in point is that many would rather buy a Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX) latte instead of settling for cheaper donut shop coffee. Or to make it more tech-specific, many will choose Verizon wireless, one of the more expensive carriers, because of their reliability and customer service.
Quality, service, convenience, aesthetics, and other issues all come into play when consumers make decisions. When regulators leave markets alone, businesses compete on all these levels. But perhaps it's not that Commissioner Brown and his staff don't like markets per se, maybe it's just that they feel markets need government help.
"If policy makers believe that market forces are a sufficient mechanism to insure that consumers receive high quality broadband service and protections from unscrupulous business practices," said the Brown report, "it is our responsibility as public servants to do all we can to create a marketplace that will in fact provide that discipline."
Maintaining Flexibility
This statement betrays an economic ignorance that would be funny if it weren't being taken seriously. Governments do not create markets, entrepreneurs and consumers do. Supply and demand do not need government help to find each other, and frequently the opposite is true. All too often, suppliers can't enter markets to satisfy demand because of government barriers to entry such as taxes and mounds of red tape.
Early next month, the CPUC will vote on what kind of broadband report to send to the California legislature, but fortunately Commissioner Brown's report is not the only choice. A different report, created by Commissioner Susan Kennedy and her staff, identifies the real policy problems responsible for slowing broadband rollout, including regulatory uncertainty and lethargy.
California's economic well-being depends a great deal on businesses having the flexibility to operate in a competitive market free of government interference. That at least some policymakers recognize this reality is a welcomed development. The broadband marketplace is far from being monopolistic and next time regulators need proof they should lift their gaze to the blimp in the sky.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
Recording Industry's File Sharing Complaints Don't Hold Water April 26, 2005
While the international organized criminal and crime gangs (the tech-savvy counterfeiters and duplicators who use commercial DVDs and CDs and packaging as templates) dance circles around the entertainment cartels, they're instructing the MPAA and RIAA to sue their own customers, trying to force them into buying "product."
Related Stories
SBC and AT&T: One Marriage San Francisco Opposes April 22, 2005
Consumers need a marketplace that allows for flexibility, quick innovation and true competition free of government control. The communications space is a dynamic and evolving sector, making it time for the phrases "phone company" and "command and control regulation" to follow the dinosaurs into extinction.
Free Broadband? Metro Mistake April 01, 2005
The communications industry is a high-risk area of investment with constantly changing technology and expensive labor and material costs. It is difficult enough for private industry to keep up with the latest developments, let alone lethargic government bureaucracies. This weakness puts millions of taxpayer dollars at risk.
Telecom Mergers Make Sense March 04, 2005
Traditional telecom companies feel the pressure to enter the entertainment business, offering video and music, as well as what might be called "technology services," allowing consumers multiple functions for multiple devices. That's one reason that the pending mergers make a lot of sense.
The Future of Advanced Communications February 25, 2005
In order for the communications industry to have a brighter future, government needs to step out of the way and let firms serve consumers. That means deregulation, which comes with a number of benefits such as increased flexibility and activity. And when that happens, there's greater competition and economic growth.
Broad Thinking on Broadband February 11, 2005
In today's digital world, speed is key to competition and progress. When a regulatory agency takes four years to approve a lease request for the rollout of new services, it is effectively killing economic growth and jobs. That's an embarrassment to the Golden State and must be corrected immediately.
Related News Alerts
More by Sonia Arrison
How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue October 28, 2009
Regulation by the U.S. government is not the way to keep the Internet neutral. A better approach would be self-regulation. Now is the time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues and forestall the possibility of the FCC "managing competition" on the Internet.
FCC's Genachowski Not Neutral on New Net Rules September 30, 2009
The proponents of Net neutrality say it's necessary for a free and open Internet, but history doesn't support that argument. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, was supposed to bolster competition. Instead, by compelling companies to share their infrastructures, it reduced incentives for improvement. In the long run, it failed.
What Has President Obama Done for Silicon Valley? August 28, 2009
President Obama's appointments of Silicon Valley outsiders were only the first indications that his administration would be less than friendly to the high-tech industry, despite campaign promises. Since then, it has shown an inclination toward tight regulatory practices and away from transparency.