[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]

Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 02 May 2006 21:26, Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca> was heard 
to say:
> Deregulating the telco industry and breaking up Bell was the worst
> thing we could have done in this case.

There was no "de"-regulation. The "baby" bells retained their locally 
mandated monopolies. New tiers of service were set by regulations, 
different players had to deal with new and different rules in 
different physical areas.

Worst is the requirement that all carriers have to provide remote 
wiretap ability for any call, anywhere, to be piped to the FBI or 
whoever it is who wants to listen. Hardly a "de"-regulation.

Actual de-regulation would be a godsend compared to the mess created 
by the regulatory environment. I couldn't agree with you more that 
the new regulations caused problems, but don't confuse government 
merchantilist intervention with the "free-market". Us free-market 
advocates just _hate_ that.

However, considering just the price drop since "de"-regulation, it's a 
rousing endorsement of what is possible just by allowing a little bit 
more competition in only one area (long distance). We freedom types 
would like to suggest that such would be the case in spades if real 
competition were allowed in all areas, just like happened with IP 
service prior to the DMCA and other regulations on that.

California discovered the same thing when their state 
government "de"-regulated their power industry. There was no "de" at 
all, just a new spider-web of regulations that made it impossible to 
buy enough power to deliver to customers.


- -- 
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central 
planning advocates in American history

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: