From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 11:29:12 PST
To: frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell)
Subject: Re: Should we oppose the
In-Reply-To: <199311111839.AA10010@panix.com>
Message-ID: <199311111927.AA06278@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 
frissell writes:

> M >Just so. If you really believe that merely stopping regulation, 
> M >*without anything else*, would restore competition to a market that's
> M >been dominated by a government-supported monopoly or duopoly, then we 
> M >simply must agree to disagree.
> 
> You mean to tell me that if the Feds just said -- the Local Loop monopoly 
> no longer exists, we'll auction all the frequencies and get out of the 
> business of regulating telecoms, no market would spring up.  Right now, 
> there are 6 count them 6 possible suppliers for the Local Loop:
 
First, I wasn't talking about the local-loop competition. I was talking about
cable. I don't doubt that in *some* monopoly situations, mere reduction or
elimination of regulation can allow markets to spring up. I just don't
think this is true with regard to telcos and cable.

Secondly, and as I mentioned, there are non-market tactics that a supplier
can use to prevent competition from arising. For example, why should a local
telco decide on its own to be interoperable with, say, the Electric
Company? What market share can a monopoly gain by giving access to
competition? None. It can only *lose* market share.

> 1) TPC
> 2) Cable
> 3) The Electric Company (yes the Electric Company)
> 4) Cellular
> 5) PCS
> 6) Digital Mobile Radio (you all saw the stories about Nextel?)

It's always a mistake to confuse technical feasibility for competition.
What's to prevent the dominant one or two providers (TPC and Cellular,
let's say) from closing out the others by refusing to be interoperable?


--Mike