Game Plan Simple (GPS): Get Out Of The Way

AS senators consider President Obama’s nomination of Tom Wheeler to lead the Federal Communications Commission, some observers have painted a dire picture of the state of Internet availability in America. One legal scholar, Susan Crawford, has argued that “prices are too high and speeds are too slow,” though she supports Mr. Wheeler, a venture capitalist and former telecommunications lobbyist. Other critics have called for new government policies to “fix” the telecommunications industry. 

Prices are too high and speed to slow because of intervention of the FCC.  The situation is far worse in Canada where the we're not even debating the problematic issue that our industry is a monopoly preserved by the CRTC. We not only have outrageous prices, we're not even a player technologically speaking. As for critics who call for more (not less, more) government regulations, that's just typical of the dinosaurs who roam the floor in Washington and everywhere else. What we need is one big cloud dust to choke them off. It's the same mindset that calls for increased taxes to deal with deficits or eating habits. Got a problem? Tax it! Next!

Dumb.

Such criticisms are misplaced. If he is confirmed, Mr. Wheeler will have the good fortune to be arriving at the F.C.C. at a time when the United States has gained a global leadership position in the marketplace for broadband. 

Wow. The NYT is actually taking a free-enterprise, market stance on the issue? Shtonk! I just fell off my chair. The paper that not too long ago editorialized 'big government for big problems?' That paper? No. You don't need big government to solve 'big' problems. Just efficient and innovative ideas - and you ain't getting that from a bureaucrat who operates in a snail-paced regulatory environment. Paper is their thing. They sure do love Dunder-Mufflin.

More than 80 percent of American households live in areas that offer access to broadband networks capable of delivering data with speeds in excess of 100 megabits per second. Almost everyone in the country has several competitive choices for high-speed broadband service (with wireline, satellite and wireless options). Verizon offers 14.7 million consumers, in parts of 12 states and the District of Columbia, speeds up to 300 megabits per second via our FiOS network, which is poised to provide even greater speeds in the future. Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable are also investing in their infrastructure. 

Fifty-six percent of American adults have smartphones that give them access to mobile broadband data and video. Our country is the center of a booming mobile ecosystem in which new devices and applications are being used to do everything from personal health monitoring and e-commerce to tracking deliveries and saving energy. 

Contrast this with the European Union, where innovation and investment in advanced networks have stagnated under an onerous regulatory regime that limits investment and innovation, and where today only about 2 percent of households have access to broadband networks with 100-megabit-plus speeds. “Once, Europe led the world in wireless communication: now we have fallen behind,” Neelie Kroes, the European Union official responsible for broadband policy, said in a speech in January. “Europe needs to regain that lead.” 

The United States built its lead because companies invested nearly $1.2 trillion, over 17 years, to deploy next-generation broadband networks. These investments, which began with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, were neither accidental nor inevitable; they were a result of deliberate policy decisions by Congress and by Democratic and Republican administrations alike to protect consumers while encouraging companies to invest in nascent technologies that are now flourishing. 

Notice the simple trend and logic. Lower regulation, step aside and let the big boys who know what they're doing run the show. In French they say 'chacun sont metier.' To each their own craft. When the government isn't involved, companies feel comfortable investing over the long-term. They feel they can retrieve their investment over time without intervention. In Europe, which has been dealing with eurosclerosis for decades, the trend has reversed itself because of too much government policy initiatives. It's not complicated at all. 

To use my own personal experience, I'm not investing anymore money in private daycare in Quebec because the current administration frightens me and the industry has become too politicized. On the drop of a piece of legislation I can lose my business here. Logically, I can't commit to a long-term project because I can lose everything. Why should I invest $250 000? It takes years to get that money back. What happens if in the fourth year of my 10 year loan the government decides to take action that works against me and suddenly find myself stuck making payments?

Think about the ramifications of this across the board - lower employment, tax revenues etc. And I'm not the only one thinking this way. Don't throw Target in my face. Target is an massive corporation with tax incentives and special privileges small-businesses don't have. Completely different scenario.

My point is the economy at the basic level grinds to a slow down because of the excessive regulatory and politicized environment. This is an axiom that can't be debated. Frankly, I can't believe it is in some circles.

President Bill Clinton’s administration decided not to impose, on the Internet and wireless technologies, century-old regulations designed for copper networks. Michael K. Powell, the F.C.C. chairman during President George W. Bush’s first term, presided over the decision to exempt new fiber-optic networks from the old regime of price controls and rate-of-return regulation. The fast deployment of 4G LTE mobile broadband networks across the country might not have happened had Julius Genachowski, the most recent F.C.C. chairman, imposed a heavy-handed regulatory approach toward the technology. 

Wise.

Regulatory restraint has resulted in a robust broadband market, but today some self-styled policy advocates insist that America’s broadband marketplace is badly broken and that the only solution is to revert to Depression-era regulations, like government rate setting and price controls or rules dictating what types of competitive offerings broadband providers can offer consumers. These ideas, however, are part of the rigid bureaucratic approach that European regulators like Ms. Kroes have correctly identified as stifling. 

Quoted for truth and it's hilarious and depressing at the same time people would advocate such policies. It's crazy. They're incapable of understanding it's private enterprise that will push this industry forward. Besides, the New Deal has come under more scrutiny in recent years for its effectiveness and applying it to contemporary issue is foolish. You don't need a New Deal and its progressive garbage. You need to have the confidence of your people; a free people. That's your greatest asset.

Progressives have zero faith in people. They ultimate faith in the civil servant.

****

Heard on the radio the other day a liberal commentator agreeing with the NYT. You could smell the but coming...

..."but that doesn't mean government isn't good or isn't necessary and took a shot at people who call for smaller-government."

Two steps forward, one step back with these folks.

Immediately I thought "ok, here's a clear example of how things can work." Why shouldn't it be the case everywhere else including health and education?" Where should government be involved and why should it be so big and expansionary?

Why not lessen the load and impossible expectations on government and politicians. Why not act with wisdom and usher in visionaries into the system?

We should be questioning the government's role and results across the board. Our economic times demand it. We have no excuse not to. The President does a huge disservice selling a big government agenda.

Government should pick where it wants to be involved - conditional on the approval of the people - and focus on those areas with utmost efficiency.

As it stands, they're addicted to spending. They spend and tax. They coerce people into actions they see no benefit in. Notice the charter school issue in America. People are already pushing America into a direction Obama's Democrats don't want. 


It's not extremism at work. It's good old fashioned sensibility. People are reacting to their environments and coming up with solutions that work sans l'etat. People more and more feel they don't need Washington.

And that has big government types freaked out.

***

Speaking of taxes. To me, a society that over taxes (ie Quebec) is a defunct one. I was talking to a friend of my wife. Highly intelligent (a person of the new age. Despite being a teacher, she has all the professional skills needed in the tech era....and is a robotics enthusiast), like most rational economic beings, she has concluded it's foolish to shop here. Between the artificially inflated prices (probably attributed to regulatory policies somewhere in the equation), and high sales taxes she does what most of us do. Shop at the retail level. See what you like and go buy it on Amazon or physically in the United States where prices are substantially lower.

As I've pointed out, Vermont has a 7% sales tax. Socialist Vermont understands this simple axiom: Keep taxes low to keep the circulatory system going; to keep blood flowing.

Not Quebec. Quebec has to keep its corrupt infrastructure in place while trying to maintain and sustain a pseudo-Scandinavian welfare apparatus increasingly difficult to manage.

All this nonsense costs us money. Where I can save, I will.