Re: cr> re: regulations


Sender: Arun Mehta <•••@••.•••>

> Sender: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore)

> I can see no other motivation for the
> bill than to destroy competition and make it possible for the biggest
> players to control the medium and the prices.

I'm no wholehearted supporter of the telecom act, but I can point out
another motivation.

The old system prevented American industry (telecom and cable) from
making use of the latest developments. It is today possible to provide
voice telephony via cable, and video via the phone lines. Laws have to
keep pace with technological change.

>         From that point of view, the government has _already_ "passed
> regulations that drive up the cost of access to email" -- if you project
> forward the consequence of the new regulatory regime.

I don't agree. Telecom costs are going down sharply, with fiber so cheap,
bandwidth is increasing. Not to mention satellites. More companies are
getting into Internet service provision. Rates are going down, not up.
With multiple paths into the home, the basis for a monopoly is lacking.

>  Deregulation means there are no rules, which means that the biggest
> guy on the block tells everyone else what to do.

Deregulation could also mean that there isn't a need for so many rules.
Of course, the TRA may have gone too far, -- but fundamentally, there
has been a paradigm shift in telecom. It may be a good idea to let the
industry try out different options undistorted by what the government
thinks might be the right thing to do, and then if there is need for
regulation, to step in.

After all, what are we asking for in the case of CDA? Deregulation.

Arun Mehta, B-69 Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24, India. Phone 6841172,6849103
•••@••.••• •••@••.••• •••@••.•••
"There is enough in the world for man's need, but not for his greed"--Gandhi

 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.