A Regulated Monopoly
I saw a news blurb today that reports that the large telephone companies in the US have already requested a speedy appeal to new FCC rules that haven't been issued yet. These guys are on the ball! Perhaps if service outages were reported directly to a regulatory agency, they would be a bit more on top of things.
The gist of the rules is that the bells are still required to sub-let
their networks to "competitors". On that issue, I have to admit that forcing a company to sell its product at an artificially low price to another company who will turn around and undercut the incumbent is a bit crazy. This is the path that the health care system embarked on and look where it is today.
It is time to reconcile the rules and the realities that the consumers, producers and resellers all deal with.
Separate access from content. That is it, in a nutshell. The
incumbent telephone and cable companies all have a significant
investment and ongoing cost in their distribution systems. They
should not be required to sell that at a discount to an agency who will only add a markup and then offer it to the consumer as a "choice". (Face it, in those areas where service is bad, it will be bad no matter who sends out the bill). Those network companies ought to be able to separate the costs associated with building and maintaining a distribution system from other costs, (programming and internet access in the cable TV world, dial tone, call features or DSL in the telephone world, who knows what in the wireless world...) and sell the means of access to these fine products directly to the consumer, who in turn, would be free to select whatever provider that they choose to provide
content. This should apply equally to all such network providers, be they telephone, power, cable tv, wireless or satellite companies).
This would go a long ways towards simplifying the situation for
everyone, regulators, consumers and providers, and making the entire process transparent. The consumer could arrange for access to a supply chain through whatever means is available or most suits his or her needs. Purveyors of services could then deliver their wares over that connection. The network companies could maintain reasonable rates for access, regulated), content companies (in many cases the same companies that provide access), could charge what the market would allow
for whatever services thay can dream up.
It sure beats the artificial and opaque system that we have now. Look at the health care industry. I don't believe that there is one person in the world who really knows what a particular service is worth. A patient pays one thing is he is uninsured, another if he is a member of a network, and even another if he is a member of a protected class of citizenry. Is it any wonder that the system is on the verge of failing?
The gist of the rules is that the bells are still required to sub-let
their networks to "competitors". On that issue, I have to admit that forcing a company to sell its product at an artificially low price to another company who will turn around and undercut the incumbent is a bit crazy. This is the path that the health care system embarked on and look where it is today.
It is time to reconcile the rules and the realities that the consumers, producers and resellers all deal with.
Separate access from content. That is it, in a nutshell. The
incumbent telephone and cable companies all have a significant
investment and ongoing cost in their distribution systems. They
should not be required to sell that at a discount to an agency who will only add a markup and then offer it to the consumer as a "choice". (Face it, in those areas where service is bad, it will be bad no matter who sends out the bill). Those network companies ought to be able to separate the costs associated with building and maintaining a distribution system from other costs, (programming and internet access in the cable TV world, dial tone, call features or DSL in the telephone world, who knows what in the wireless world...) and sell the means of access to these fine products directly to the consumer, who in turn, would be free to select whatever provider that they choose to provide
content. This should apply equally to all such network providers, be they telephone, power, cable tv, wireless or satellite companies).
This would go a long ways towards simplifying the situation for
everyone, regulators, consumers and providers, and making the entire process transparent. The consumer could arrange for access to a supply chain through whatever means is available or most suits his or her needs. Purveyors of services could then deliver their wares over that connection. The network companies could maintain reasonable rates for access, regulated), content companies (in many cases the same companies that provide access), could charge what the market would allow
for whatever services thay can dream up.
It sure beats the artificial and opaque system that we have now. Look at the health care industry. I don't believe that there is one person in the world who really knows what a particular service is worth. A patient pays one thing is he is uninsured, another if he is a member of a network, and even another if he is a member of a protected class of citizenry. Is it any wonder that the system is on the verge of failing?
posted by eccentric recluse at 10:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home