3 ms·
For a start, the approach to wireless seems to be more "wait and see" than "never regulate", since the proposal tasks the GAO with monitoring the market for sig
by djmdjm 16y ago
For a start, the approach to wireless seems to be more "wait and see" than "never regulate", since the proposal tasks the GAO with monitoring the market for signs of failure. Wireless seems prima facie likely to be a more vibrant market anyway and therefore more likely to settle to a less consumer-hostile equilibrium - there aren't true monopoly wireless providers in the vast majority of regions like there are cable providers.
- nanairo 16y agoWhy would they be a more vibrant market? The fact that wireless licences are limited should actually make it less competitive. What's your argument?
- djmdjm 16y agoWireline broadband is limited in many areas by (near-)monopoly providers. It often isn't economic for multiple providers to chase each others' wires into the home. Wireless might be restricted by spectrum licenses, but there are usually a number of options.
- nanairo 16y agoSure. So you point out that wireline broadband is less competitive (in the USA) than wireless. But wireless with 3-4 competitors is hardly a free market either. I don't debate that wireline is less competitive (again, in the USA), I argue that wireless is not so different, and in particular so much more competitive, as to need no regulation.