Sender: Arun Mehta <•••@••.•••> Richard said: AG> but if the AG> majors do gobble up the spectrum, it's not at all obvious that AG> their business strategy will be to offer the lowest possible AG> prices. I think we will have a dog-eat-dog, something like what happened in airlines. Only difference is, the entry barrier is a lot lower than for someone wishing to start a new airline. Prices, in my estimation, should fall *a lot*. I think we could discuss this till we go blue in the face, as I said before, we are all reading tea-leaves or equivalent. The Telecom Regulation Act is now law, with wide bipartisan support. I don't see anyone attempting a major rollback, only relatively peripheral issues (with respect to the central issue of deregulation) such as the CDA. So, instead of getting nostalgic over the old system, shouldn't we be looking at the new law to see how we might make the best of it? Arun Mehta, B-69 Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24, India. Phone 6841172,6849103 http://mahavir.doe.ernet.in/~pinaward/arun.htm •••@••.••• •••@••.••• •••@••.••• "There is enough in the world for man's need, but not for his greed"--Gandhi @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: •••@••.••• (Jay Michlin) Subject: Re: cr> Telecom Regimes >Sender: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore) > > I may have an advantage over some of you, in that I've lived >through most of the changes I've been describing... > It is at a visceral level that I respond to the naked power-grab >represented by the Telcom bill... With some reluctance, I'll jump into this one. Richard's remark about a visceral level of response got my attention. Seems to me that much of the laissez-faire-vs.-regulation debate is exactly that: visceral. On both sides. And that's a dangerous way to make public policy. Reason and factual debate are much better. When in doubt, I tend to be on the laissez-faire side. I don't share Richard's visceral fear of business monoliths. The data shows that they bungle and blunder and eventually wound themselves. Remember when IBM was invincible? Remember when GM held 55% market share? Remember what happened? Yes, the large telecom companies are in a frenzy of expansion and intermarriage. But internally, they know they're in great danger in this open, competitive environment. They don't know the future and know all too well that it is a time of jeopardy. They have to bet billions on each possible outcome. Pac Tel bet wrong, and will now likely vanish in a merger. The ultimate price, I think. One need not search for evil and malice when stupidity and human frailty explain behavior just as well. Corporations are made of humans too. That's why free markets work in the long run. -jm ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
