3 ms·
The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then,
by notdonspaulding 12y ago
The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance,
if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment
in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone
from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network.
By the 1960s AT&T was a well-established government-sanctioned monopoly [0]. It's a bold claim that says we wouldn't have gotten an internet without FCC regulation of AT&T. An easier conclusion to draw is that we wouldn't have needed an FCC if we hadn't given Ma Bell a pass on being a monopoly for the previous 5 decades and instead focused on policies that encourage innovation and investment at the local level.
Yes, the last-mile is a natural monopoly, but there's a wide gulf of possible solutions between "Let AT&T kill all competitors" as they have been for the last century and "Have the FCC regulate competition into existence" as they did in 1996 [1]. Neither of those extremes worked, and to the extent that this policy seems to understand that, it looks like a good outcome. The line about "no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" is especially promising in this regard.
However, the proof is in the pudding, and I think we have yet to see an FCC that is truly effective in inspiring local broadband competition through regulatory policies.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
- th0ma5 12y agoDarn it if this isn't correct. It is very true to say we don't really know what the market forces would've done, because it was all already mucked with. I'm not sure I agree though that the last mile is a natural monopoly. A market could create more distributed solutions, we're seeing that with solar grid power contribution. The early Edison systems were sometimes a single location for DC power. The early net benefited from something a little more peer-to-peer than it is today. Also all of these things will never exist independently of each other. If we had an anarcho-syndicalist system, we'd be complaining about the inability to use omnidirectional antennas effectively because of all of the interference of the airwaves, possibly...
- TheRealDunkirk 12y agoYou're obviously much more versed in this than I am, so I'm probably missing something here. But your comment reminds me that, if we could get the cables to stop killing muni wifi initiatives, that'd be a great start.
- 001sky 12y agoISPs, especially Comcast and Verizon, are big players in Washington, known for throwing their money and influence around. If their businesses are reclassified under Title II, they can be expected to squeeze the resulting rules and regulations until they scream for mercy. It's fine to praise Wheeler's plan, as do some net neutrality fans, for aiming to "regulate the internet like a utility." But it's worth noting that utilities have long learned how to run rings around their regulators.
- creeble 12y agoI’m not sure how much government has ever done to encourage innovation and investment at the local level. If one is a true believer in last-mile natural monopolies, then it is clear that the last mile should either be a) run by local governments, or b) run by regulated monopolies, for the benefit of consumers. I’m not sure how wide that gulf really is: Government run vs. private, but regulated. How do you provide incentives to build infrastructure that can only end up as one or the other?