Path: gmdzi!unido!unidui!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
spool.mu.edu!wupost!uunet!tijc02!pjs269
From: pjs...@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Does the EFF really support free enterprise?
Message-ID: <1991Oct22.202214.26341@tijc02.uucp>
Date: 22 Oct 91 20:22:14 GMT
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Lines: 25
Does the EFF *really* support free enterprise? Mitch Kapor testified:
> My name is Mitchell Kapor. I am the founder and former chief
> executive of Lotus Development Corporation and the designer of Lotus 1-2-3,
> the world's most successful business software application. I am here today
> representing the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
> organization concerned with the development of information and
> telecommunications policy which promotes innovation and free enterprise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and in the same testimony said
> The telecommunications industry, unlike computers, is, as you know,
> a highly regulated one, for very good reasons of social policy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would like to get the lowest cost for telecommunications services, also.
Free enterprise and the innovation that results from it are ideas I would
advocate. I think that regulation of the telecommunications industry will
severly deter the free market and resulting innovation. How does highly
regulating the telecommunications industry promote innovation and free
enterprise? What is this concept of "social policy" and what are the
"very good reasons" for high regulations?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schmidt - (615)283-0084 - uunet!tijc02!pjs269
President, Davy Crockett Chapter: Advocates for Self-Government
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!world!eff!ckd
From: mka...@eff.org (Mitch Kapor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Does the EFF really support free enterprise?
Message-ID: <CKD.91Oct23153137@eff.org>
Date: 23 Oct 91 19:31:45 GMT
References: <1991Oct22.202214.26341@tijc02.uucp>
Sender: c...@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Lines: 52
In-Reply-To: pjs269@tijc02.uucp's message of 22 Oct 91 20:22:14 GMT
>Does the EFF *really* support free enterprise? Mitch Kapor testified:
>
>> My name is Mitchell Kapor. I am the founder and former chief
>> executive of Lotus Development Corporation and the designer of Lotus 1-2-3,
>> the world's most successful business software application. I am here today
>> representing the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
>> organization concerned with the development of information and
>> telecommunications policy which promotes innovation and free enterprise.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and in the same testimony said
>
>> The telecommunications industry, unlike computers, is, as you know,
>> a highly regulated one, for very good reasons of social policy.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I would like to get the lowest cost for telecommunications services, also.
>Free enterprise and the innovation that results from it are ideas I would
>advocate. I think that regulation of the telecommunications industry will
>severly deter the free market and resulting innovation. How does highly
>regulating the telecommunications industry promote innovation and free
>enterprise? What is this concept of "social policy" and what are the
>"very good reasons" for high regulations?
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schmidt - (615)283-0084 - uunet!tijc02!pjs269
>President, Davy Crockett Chapter: Advocates for Self-Government
>
>
While I'd agree that, in most cases, regulation deters free market
innovation (as I think the full body of my testimony clearly demonstrated),
there are important reasons any historically knowledgeable person should
acknowledge for some degree of regulation.
Since local telephone service has been a monopoly for 80 years, it is
likely that in the absence of government regulation many remote areas would
have no telephone service at all as telephone companies found it
unprofitable to bring service there. In addition, rates would likely be
set to maximize revenue. This would probably make telephones unaffordable
by students, poor people, and the elderly. All of these are excellent
reasons for regulation of local telephone service. Universal service is a
good policy.
Changing technologies, such as personal communication systems of the 21st
century, may make local loop competition economically efficient. In such a
case one of the rationales for regulation is diminished.
[reposted by]
--
Christopher Davis <c...@eff.org> | WEIRD QUOTES OF THE WEEK:
System Manager & Postmaster | "Carpe grepem."
Electronic Frontier Foundation | "Seize the WAIS?"
+1 617 864 0665 NIC: [CKD1] | -- two overworked technodweebs
Path: gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|eff!eff-gate!
usenet
From: mka...@eff.org (Mitch Kapor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Does the EFF really support free enterprise?
Message-ID: <199111112057.AA16465@eff.org>
Date: 11 Nov 91 10:57:55 GMT
Sender: mkapor
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Lines: 42
Approved: use...@eff.org
I claim that, without regulation (or other form of government
intervention), rural areas would not be served with telephone service. The
basis of the argument is that the cost of providing basic phone service in
rural areas is sufficiently expensive that firms would not invest on their
own to do this. They would instead seek other opportunities which prmised
a greater return to invest their capital, leaving rural areas unserved. It
might be argued that, if prices were unregulated, someone would offer
service, albeit at a high price. Even if this were the case, it would not
meet a policy goal of universal, affordable service.
You that if a new firm were able to get a foothold, then big, existing
companies would choose to interconnect in order to deliver calls from their
customers to the new service. I don't see how this is relevant if no new
companies would enter the market. In addition, I seem to remember that
historically AT&T refused to interconnect fully to independent phone
companies until they got their monopoly status affirmed.
With new wireless technologies such as PCS being developed, entry costs for
local exchange competion in urban and suburban areas will be much lower.
It will be economically desirable to permit full competition in the local
loop. We support this policy direction. Your statement that we're a
defender of forbidding local loop competition is in error. That is not our
position.
This aside, I claim that the requirement for universal service is still a
good argument for regulation. The motivating examples continue to depend
on market failures.
I need to know whether you believe that market failures ever exist. If
not, then I think I understand the point of departure of our views. If so,
then all we have is a possible empirical disagreement about under what
conditions market failures obtain with respect to telephone service.
My own view is that large organizations, per se, are problematic, not
simply large public organizations (i.e. the government). I think we need
as much protection against depredations of impersonal corporate forces than
we do against government bureaucracy. But then again, I suppose I'm just a
sentimentalist when it comes to such things. :-)
Mitch Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation
mka...@eff.org