Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

[Jim Oksvold]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tyler van Houwelingen" <tyler at azulstar.com>
To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <talk at seattlewireless.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell


Re: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowellTodd,

>To agree with your point of free market failures, I would have to add Walmart. 

That Wal-Mart looks mighty great to me - But never mind that - I am just Norwegian and envious :-)

>To counter your point I would say - Utilities and regulation are required when an industry MUST have >a single player given physical constraints.  Eg. you can only have one highway grid or one electrical grid >for safety and practical reasons.   You regulate it to ensure it works properly without monopoly >power.  

A better choice would be WATER - Hence french corporations eagerly looking for buying Water rights - Please note that nobody wants to privatice sewer systems :-)
They are not profitable :-)

>At least three players (cable, DSL, wireless1) is enough to keep any free market in check.

Here is the hard part to get - In the "outback" people are few and cable and DSL is not 
a realistic choice. Cities are already covered - The suburbs less so.

>If there is money to be made, more networks (e.g. WiFi, WiMAX) will be built until there is not money >to be made.   Why regulate this??     

There is no reason to regulate - Problem is that the different states on planet earth tend to "Sell" or lease
radio spectrum to the highest bidder. They put the proceeds from auctions/leases/sales in the
coffers of the state. This is only of "value" because the state will see to it that there is not enough
of it. If radio spectrum was unlimited it would be hard to "sell".
Radio spectrum is not a property of the state that they can sell in order to make a profit.
They simply do not own it the first place.
The money that the state grabs by "selling" spectrum must be paid for by the consumer/customer with a profit on top of it.
What would be next? Sales of fresh breathable air with 12% sales tax on top of it? :-)))

http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/10.htm
 "The United Kingdom too employed sophisticated game theory in its auctions of 3G licences, its own government ending up with a £22.5 billion (1) windfall by the end of the process in April 2001. Thirteen bidders had driven up prices well beyond the original estimate of £5 billion."

That was the cost before any infrastructure was put up.
Ask yourself - Is this good or is it bad?
Why would some companies pay that much?
Who will end up paying for it all?
One thing is certain - My money thrives best in my own pockets :-)
I will spend my money visely.
Will the state spend it as carefully and efficiently as I do?

Radio spectrum is a resource to be used to the common good - Visely for the benefit of as many as possible - Just like water resources. That does not imply that water transported to your house does not cost money.
If the state sells/leases radio spectrum it is just another tax that takes freedom of choice away.
If the state profits by constraining the access to the Internet it can be compared to a sales tax on books.
That would be a tax on knowledge.
In the city there are alternatives to radio links. On the countryside sometimes not.

Putting radio spectrum and water in the hands of politicians is gross lack of good judgement.
Politicians have a time horizon of perhaps 4 years at best.
By then it is time to get reelected or not.
It does not have to be owned by the state - It is better owned by itself  and its customers.
If a property has access to good water and good Internet connection then that property
will have a higher market value. If shortsighted politicians regulate down the price of electricity
then underinvestment in the energy supply will follow. Witness California a few years back.


If an honest farmer cannot himself put up a radio-link of suitable frequency to a suitable access point
to the Internet in the free market, then I smell a dead rat.
There are still millions out there with nothing but Dial-Up and some even without that.
I am not asking for free socialist handouts - Only that nobody makes it harder for that farmer out there
who wants to be connected. He shall have the freedom of choice without the unhelpful hand of the state.


>ty

Greetings
Jim Oksvold
Oslo, Norway