Regulators now regulating Internet History? Really?
Looks to me that there are issues of interest here. http://www.aei.org/publication/tom-wheeler-tries-to-rewrite-internet-history... -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Looks to me that there are issues of interest here.
http://www.aei.org/publication/tom-wheeler-tries-to-rewrite-internet-history...
This isn't a very good article. At best, it is a set of unsubstantiated claims regarding events of undefined correlation. "Change in regulation Y led to less investment in [bad sector] and more investment in [good sector]." Really? Details of how much more? How much less? Why was this better? How did you measure that? There are only vague figures without attribution and no establishment of causal link. The assumption is just made that investment decisions are made for regulatory reasons. This is particularly suspect because, as you may recall, there were other things going on in that period. Like the Internet Bubble. The timeline of events is screwed with. He uses the period between 1996 and 2000, when the Internet Bubble popped, and compares it to 1996 to 2005, when Powell/Martin did away with pro-competitive regulation. Yes, during the bubble, which ended in 2000, there was a huge investment in fiber, but it is a difficult argument to make that the investment was because of regulation since the regulatory change happened in 2005. If it was the regulatory change, why didn't investment happen during the missing five years? Since it is a widely held thesis that the fiber bubble popped because of a huge oversupply of dark fiber, why is that not directly addressed. Yes, after 2005 cable companies invested in broadband, but again that market wasn't technologically developed yet in say, 1999. Further, how can you focus only the rate of change in cable investment without considering the rate of change in DSL? Claiming the Internet bubble popped because of a change in telco regulatory regime in the US is ridiculous, as is ignoring the effect of underlying technology on the appearance and disappearance of markets. Regulators, lawyers and politicians need to get over themselves and have a measured perspective on their importance. The argument that killing competition from the CLECs led to more investment and a better network is a difficult one to make. Particularly during a period where the US's network lost is speed/quality advantage compared to other advanced countries. There is a strong set of opinions that killing CLEC competition was retardant on network speed/quality growth. I don't see how articles like this are going to change minds. Disclaimer: I am a computer scientist. In general, I find public policy arguments deeply annoying because they have flaws similar to the above. -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
The article is nothing more or less than what you'd expect to read from the American Enterprise Institute. "All regulation totally sucks" is their only message ever. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Fletcher Kittredge <fkittred@gwi.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Looks to me that there are issues of interest here.
http://www.aei.org/publication/tom-wheeler-tries-to-rewrite-internet-history...
This isn't a very good article.
At best, it is a set of unsubstantiated claims regarding events of undefined correlation. "Change in regulation Y led to less investment in [bad sector] and more investment in [good sector]." Really? Details of how much more? How much less? Why was this better? How did you measure that? There are only vague figures without attribution and no establishment of causal link. The assumption is just made that investment decisions are made for regulatory reasons. This is particularly suspect because, as you may recall, there were other things going on in that period. Like the Internet Bubble.
The timeline of events is screwed with. He uses the period between 1996 and 2000, when the Internet Bubble popped, and compares it to 1996 to 2005, when Powell/Martin did away with pro-competitive regulation. Yes, during the bubble, which ended in 2000, there was a huge investment in fiber, but it is a difficult argument to make that the investment was because of regulation since the regulatory change happened in 2005. If it was the regulatory change, why didn't investment happen during the missing five years? Since it is a widely held thesis that the fiber bubble popped because of a huge oversupply of dark fiber, why is that not directly addressed.
Yes, after 2005 cable companies invested in broadband, but again that market wasn't technologically developed yet in say, 1999. Further, how can you focus only the rate of change in cable investment without considering the rate of change in DSL?
Claiming the Internet bubble popped because of a change in telco regulatory regime in the US is ridiculous, as is ignoring the effect of underlying technology on the appearance and disappearance of markets. Regulators, lawyers and politicians need to get over themselves and have a measured perspective on their importance.
The argument that killing competition from the CLECs led to more investment and a better network is a difficult one to make. Particularly during a period where the US's network lost is speed/quality advantage compared to other advanced countries. There is a strong set of opinions that killing CLEC competition was retardant on network speed/quality growth. I don't see how articles like this are going to change minds.
Disclaimer: I am a computer scientist. In general, I find public policy arguments deeply annoying because they have flaws similar to the above.
-- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
On 6/8/15, 6:56 AM, "Fletcher Kittredge" <fkittred@gwi.net<mailto:fkittred@gwi.net>> wrote: Yes, after 2005 cable companies invested in broadband... Without respect to the merits of the AEI article, I did want to point out that cable companies have been investing in broadband / Internet services well before 2005. They were in an R&D phase in the early 1990s and by around 1995 - 1996 there were many cable modem trial deployments underway in the U.S. Comcast and several other cable companies launched their cable Internet service in 1996 in partnership with @Home. For some early background, see: https://www.informit.com/library/content.aspx?b=Planet_Broadband&seqNum=17 http://www.businessweek.com/1996/42/b34971.htm http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-12-04/business/1996339002_1_cable-mode... Regards, Jason Livingood
participants (4)
-
Fletcher Kittredge -
Jay Farrell -
Larry Sheldon -
Livingood, Jason