4 ms·

"I'm not arguing for more regulation" the way I see it this ideology is the sole reason for the creation of this problem. Having a level playing field is not op

by antman 13y ago

"I'm not arguing for more regulation" the way I see it this ideology is the sole reason for the creation of this problem. Having a level playing field is not optional and batter and more regulation is the only solution.

SwellJoe 13y ago
I'm not sure more regulation is always the only solution. But, I'm willing to concede that in the market regulation has built, more and better regulation may be the fastest way to a fairer and more consumer-friendly market. If there were actual competition in the telco market, we might have a better market without more regulation. But, the telcos were declared a "natural monopoly" and became enforced by law before any of us were born. There have been waves of "deregulation" since, and most stages have led to better treatment of consumers, but still the regulation in place obviously picks winners and makes it impossible to compete with them, thus insuring we remain with effective monopolies on the last mile. I'm not an ideologue on this, or much of anything else, these days. I tend to like market solutions, if they can be made to work. But, sometimes we end up with the worst of all worlds, and only more regulation can provide some relief. Telcos are one example of this, in the US. Health care is another. Going to more regulated, more subsidized, health care was probably the only sane way forward, given how screwed up our health care and health insurance market is. It's not what I would want, if we were starting from scratch...but, we're pretty far down that rabbit hole. Going back up and starting over with a market solution would probably be even more disastrous than staying put and trying to build some reasonable services down here in the dark (that analogy isn' a very good one, I admit). A level playing field could be achieved by not having the state elevate some players to an unattainable position above all others. Knocking them down after putting them up there is fine, too, I guess...but they've got a lot of power once they're up there. And, they're willing to lobby and fight tooth and nail to keep those advantages and that license to print money at the expense of everyone else. I'm arguing more for, "Hey, let's never let the state elevate some companies above others in the future." more than "Hey, let's let the most powerful companies set the rules forever, and not regulate their ability to 'compete'."

by antman 13y ago

SwellJoe 13y ago

I'm not sure more regulation is always the only solution. But, I'm willing to concede that in the market regulation has built, more and better regulation may be the fastest way to a fairer and more consumer-friendly market. If there were actual competition in the telco market, we might have a better market without more regulation. But, the telcos were declared a "natural monopoly" and became enforced by law before any of us were born. There have been waves of "deregulation" since, and most stages have led to better treatment of consumers, but still the regulation in place obviously picks winners and makes it impossible to compete with them, thus insuring we remain with effective monopolies on the last mile. I'm not an ideologue on this, or much of anything else, these days. I tend to like market solutions, if they can be made to work. But, sometimes we end up with the worst of all worlds, and only more regulation can provide some relief. Telcos are one example of this, in the US. Health care is another. Going to more regulated, more subsidized, health care was probably the only sane way forward, given how screwed up our health care and health insurance market is. It's not what I would want, if we were starting from scratch...but, we're pretty far down that rabbit hole. Going back up and starting over with a market solution would probably be even more disastrous than staying put and trying to build some reasonable services down here in the dark (that analogy isn' a very good one, I admit). A level playing field could be achieved by not having the state elevate some players to an unattainable position above all others. Knocking them down after putting them up there is fine, too, I guess...but they've got a lot of power once they're up there. And, they're willing to lobby and fight tooth and nail to keep those advantages and that license to print money at the expense of everyone else. I'm arguing more for, "Hey, let's never let the state elevate some companies above others in the future." more than "Hey, let's let the most powerful companies set the rules forever, and not regulate their ability to 'compete'."