3 ms·

You are once again leaving out the important bits that don't fit your story. The facts are an example of regulation arbitrage, not some fatal flaw in Title 2 /

You are once again leaving out the important bits that don't fit your story. The facts are an example of regulation arbitrage, not some fatal flaw in Title 2 / Common Carrier. The 'Fatal Flaw' is the FCC doesn't say "All consumer facing ISPs are Common Carriers under Title 2" but "Technology X is under Title II and Technology Y is not". Even from your own article "In this case what has Wall Street's heart all a flutter is the possibility for Verizon to shed all union-related workers and their pensions." Dumping a ton of long term liabilities [pensions, union contracts] is the core reason. Divesting of some high cost DSL markets for an infrastructure provider [which is the regions they are talking about in the article, Upstate New York isn't exactly a market with roaring profitability due to low population density] is a secondary concern in that article and it basically said they invested 24 billion? Title 2 doesn't require Union workers. It also isn't a reasonable comparison to say "Title 2 Technology A lost to Non-Title 2 Technology B because Title 2 doesn't work" with such weak evidence. Why yes, investors want to reduce liabilities and cost centers. Magically, if you can enter a market with a lower liability and costs [due to less regulation] you prefer that option. If that isn't an option, magically, the market functions on an even playing field and everything competes on the merits of the technologies. Somehow, magically, in places like Europe you get better ISP performance per $ with similar profit margins. Maybe the problem is not too much regulation, but how the regulation is being applied?

rayiner 12y ago
You concede that higher levels of regulation increase regulatory costs. But you assume that as long as you make all regulation equally burdensome, the market will somehow fix things. But you're ignoring the fact that capital is fluid, and will flow out of regulated industries like telecom into less regulated industries. You can't invoke the market then ignore basic aspects of how the market works. Places in Europe are also much more willing to outright subsidize telecom investment: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-why-do-they-have-more-fiber/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-w... ("Sweden has built one of the fastest and most widely deployed broadband networks in Europe because its government granted tax breaks for infrastructure investments, directly subsidized rural deployment, and, perhaps most significantly, required state-owned municipal utilities to create local backbone networks, reducing the cost for the local telephone company to provide service.")
- opendais 12y ago
  Please explain how all other utilities and common carriers are effective in the US and able to receive sufficient capital investment to provide reliable service? Having a near-monopoly reduces risk significantly. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half-of-all-us-tax-subsidies-go-to-four-industries-guess-which-ones/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half... We subsidize Utilities & Telecommunications roughly equally via tax breaks. Oh, and they get subsidies like Sweden too: https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338 https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_broadband_plan#Sweden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_broadband_plan#Sweden Sweden didn't even put 1 billion in. So umm, you are pretty providing all the evidence that greater intervention in the market than even I'm suggesting will improve things...? confused
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half.. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half.... We subsidize Utilities & Telecommunications roughly equally via tax breaks. Uh, please read the methodology of the linked article. Those aren't direct tax subsidies. It's a made-up number based on effective tax rates below 35%. By your logic, the government is heavily subsidizing Apple & Google, which pay much less than the 35% rate. > Please explain how all other utilities and common carriers are effective in the US and able to receive sufficient capital investment to provide reliable service? They're not. Utility infrastructure in the U.S. barely gets enough investment to keep it operation, much less keep up with technological development: http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-on-the-impact-of-under-investment-in-water-infrastructure-in-the-us-.html http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-o.... > https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338 https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338 The one-time ARRA money is for jobs programs. The money is distributed to municipalities, and may or may not be used to actually build broadband anywhere. > Sweden didn't even put 1 billion in. Sweden putting in $900 million is like the U.S. putting in $27 billion.
    - 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

You concede that higher levels of regulation increase regulatory costs. But you assume that as long as you make all regulation equally burdensome, the market will somehow fix things. But you're ignoring the fact that capital is fluid, and will flow out of regulated industries like telecom into less regulated industries. You can't invoke the market then ignore basic aspects of how the market works. Places in Europe are also much more willing to outright subsidize telecom investment: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-why-do-they-have-more-fiber/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-w... ("Sweden has built one of the fastest and most widely deployed broadband networks in Europe because its government granted tax breaks for infrastructure investments, directly subsidized rural deployment, and, perhaps most significantly, required state-owned municipal utilities to create local backbone networks, reducing the cost for the local telephone company to provide service.")

opendais 12y ago
Please explain how all other utilities and common carriers are effective in the US and able to receive sufficient capital investment to provide reliable service? Having a near-monopoly reduces risk significantly. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half-of-all-us-tax-subsidies-go-to-four-industries-guess-which-ones/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half... We subsidize Utilities & Telecommunications roughly equally via tax breaks. Oh, and they get subsidies like Sweden too: https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338 https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_broadband_plan#Sweden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_broadband_plan#Sweden Sweden didn't even put 1 billion in. So umm, you are pretty providing all the evidence that greater intervention in the market than even I'm suggesting will improve things...? confused
- rayiner 12y ago
  > http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half.. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half.... We subsidize Utilities & Telecommunications roughly equally via tax breaks. Uh, please read the methodology of the linked article. Those aren't direct tax subsidies. It's a made-up number based on effective tax rates below 35%. By your logic, the government is heavily subsidizing Apple & Google, which pay much less than the 35% rate. > Please explain how all other utilities and common carriers are effective in the US and able to receive sufficient capital investment to provide reliable service? They're not. Utility infrastructure in the U.S. barely gets enough investment to keep it operation, much less keep up with technological development: http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-on-the-impact-of-under-investment-in-water-infrastructure-in-the-us-.html http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-o.... > https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338 https://www.ncta.com/news-and-events/media-room/article/2338 The one-time ARRA money is for jobs programs. The money is distributed to municipalities, and may or may not be used to actually build broadband anywhere. > Sweden didn't even put 1 billion in. Sweden putting in $900 million is like the U.S. putting in $27 billion.
  - 12y ago