By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld
10/28/05 5:00 AM PT
It should be clear by now that governments do not create competition -- markets do. And markets best serve consumers and create jobs in an environment free from heavy government involvement. The dismal record of the 1996 telecom act speaks to this point and stands as a stark reminder that price and "access" controls don't work.
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.
Revolutionary innovation and competition have shaken up the telecommunications sector, prompting at least three important mergers. Government officials who set the rules of the game are now faced with key decisions that will affect the future of communications in America.
Federal regulators may approve the mergers of SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI as soon as this week, but some states, such as California, are dragging their heels. At both levels of government, self-interested competitors and profiteering interest groups are predictably calling for handouts and unfair hand-ups.
Communications Changes
Government has a job to perform, and that is to remain above the fray. It should not give in to the illogical arguments of those who either hate capitalism and corporations, or want to use the official review process to hinder competitors. In that second category are companies such as BT Americas, Broadwing Communications, Level 3 Communications, Qwest, SAVVIS, and XO Communications.
These six companies asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to put constraints, such as price controls, on SBC and Verizon if the mergers are to go through. This type of call for government intervention gives one a distinct "been there, done that" feeling -- and it's not good. Communications is changing rapidly and government attempts to micromanage are a prescription for failure.
It should be clear by now that governments do not create competition -- markets do. And markets best serve consumers and create jobs in an environment free from heavy government involvement. The dismal record of the 1996 telecom act speaks to this point and stands as a stark reminder that price and "access" controls don't work. The way to ensure benefits for consumers and communities is to allow for low regulatory barriers to entry into the marketplace so that competition drives innovations and good customer service. Consider new developments in phone and cable markets.
It was easy for multiple providers to get into the phone market when voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) came along. That's driven phone prices down and taken a significant chunk of business away from traditional phone companies. With a broadband connection, a phone line and free long distance is US$14.95 a month if one chooses a provider like Vonage. If one chooses a company like Skype, phone service is free. Cable, on the other hand, is another story.
Paying Too Much
Because of regulatory barriers, it's been difficult for phone companies to enter the video market, and a new study by the American Consumer Institute shows that if the situation isn't remedied soon, a lot of money could be wasted.
"In five years, consumers will have paid $107 billion too much for cable TV services," states An Analysis of Cable TV Services: Are Older Consumers Losing Out?. What's worse is that older consumers are more vulnerable as cable grabs a greater portion of their income. With this kind of data, it is disturbing that groups like the Greenlining Institute in California are trying to saddle communications companies with a list of demands that extort money under the guise of helping consumers.
Under immense pressure from profiteering advocates, SBC and Verizon have agreed to what amounts to a California merger extortion tax: a combined $67 million that will go to fund the very organizations that hound them.
Why would these corporations agree to such a deal , when that $67 million could be better deployed for improved networks and more advanced services? Simple: it's better than the extremely irrational deal they were offered by Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pulsifer. He wanted the companies to fork over $330 million for the privilege of organizing their businesses in ways that would stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Fostering Innovation
These are the choices that the current regulatory regime imposes on key broadband providers. Pandering to whining competitors and obnoxious advocacy groups is part of the reason America lags seriously behind in the deployment of broadband. That calls for better government leadership.
New FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin may be willing to play the responsible role, but he can't do it alone. State legislators and public utility commissioners also need to step up and just say no to the culture of irrational entitlement that smothers innovation in telecommunications.
Attorney: Big Music Case Judges May Be Lacking in Tech Expertise October 25, 2005
"I think it would be helpful, when I see an instance in which I think a judge may have been misled by the RIAA on technical issues, to present the judge's findings to be vetted by the tech community," said attorney Ray Beckerman.
Related Stories
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.
Winds of Change Could Help Fix Telecom January 14, 2005
Wireless technologies are not perfect. But a government regulatory regime would make things worse, not better. Already the Consumer Bill of Rights has sent Cingular, Verizon, Sprint, Nextel and T-Mobile into court to stop government micromanagement of their business.
California Keeps Iron Grip on Telecom August 20, 2004
While the court invalidated the line-sharing rules, California marches on implementing them. For instance, a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) administrative law judge recently decided that SBC should be allowed to charge its competitors a whole 25 cents more than it normally does for the use of its lines.
Regulating Telecom Regulators for the Sake of Innovation June 04, 2004
The time has come to free telecom and regulate the regulators. Vested interests and others must stop blocking reform so that jobs can be created, honest deals can be made and consumers can benefit from increased innovation.
Reforming Telecom To Create Jobs April 07, 2004
It's time for policymakers, and the public that elects them, to pay attention and take action. In the lamentable "jobless" economic recovery, fixing the nation's telecommunications mess will help create jobs.
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.