Re:As a free market libertarian, I vote against th (Score 1)

I'm trained formally, as an economist, and I think these kinds of issues come down pretty much like this: My assumptions: 1) Wireless phones are a good thing for society because they lower the cost of transmitting information. 2) It requires lots of capital to produce an effective national wireless system. 3) No one likes risk and they will require profitable compensation on the matter. 4) Persons who build national wireless networks assume lots of risk, because building networks is a speculative endeavor. ----- Supplementary to assumptions: 3) & 4) - are patently economic axioms, so I'm not going to belabour those. 1) - Whether cell phones use is transmitting information, or setting of car bombs, I don't think anyone will dispute how useful the technology is. Systemtically, we must accept the cell-phone network as equally useful. 2) - This is largely empirically driven: if you don't believe it's costly, feel free to examine the last ten years of Verizon Wirelessess cash flows and income statements. ----- My analysis of this situation: Given my set of assumptions, I think the lynchpin of this situation isn't a discussion of "free-markets," and defending the rights of the networks. This isn't to say we must open them -- but at least think about what that would mean. Society benefits currently from these networks. Let's say 40 million persons in the USA have cell-phone contracts. They happily pay and engage in these contracts deriving benefit. Let's say the network providers, after operating and deprecation, re-invest 30% of their profits into expanding their network. They re-invest to expand and improve their network. Why would they do this: to expand market share, and continue to increase their levels of revenues. The network providers have little interest in decreasing marginal profits, and they seek to avoid these situations. This doesn't make them evil: this is simply a function of what they are definitionally. There is no benevolent free cell-phone network, not yet at least.... Network providers, are also, members of society. This isn't some kind of Enlightment-Era social contract argument, but just opening the door to the possibilities of government intervention. [Now I trot out my economics tool-box]: Let's suppose, of the 40 million subscribers, every user generates 1 use-point when they use their phone in their daily life over the course of the year. All cell-phone subscribers use their phones in many different ways and in many different contexts. Cell-phone subscribers also pay different prices for their contracts and add-ons across providers. Let's bracket that off, and simply say the average of the 40 million is $40 a month for their 1 use-point. Every year society gets 40 million use points from cell-phones. How do we know people get use points? They pay their bills and limit their consumption of other goods. (By my estimates, $40/$8.99 = many drunken nights on cheap beer, which is my equivalent metric of consumption). Let's suppose, government regulation opens up these networks and lets them retain a "fair" profit. This seems to be pretty common in the United States. I'm from Illinois, and our government regulates our nuclear power from ComEd by some kind of legislative process. In Massachusetts, I think the result will be the following (and this is based on supply & demand reasoning from economic axioms): Let's say this reduction means that providers go from 30% re-investment, as earlier, to 15% re-investment to maintain marginal profits. Simply put: 15% of their expansionary profit-base has been sliced away in the bargaining process. 1) Increased competition = Less monthly costs for contract 2) Decreased revenues = Lower profits then network providers forecasted on 3) Network providers cut back on network maintance, advertising, and labor pool to buoy company. 4) Previously constricted consumers sign up for cheaper plans from 1). It's 4) that's critical here. Suppose the quality of our network stood still or grew at a much slower rate -- counterpose this result with 80 million cell-phone users. Which world is in a better state? I know slashdotters get in a tizzy with free-markets and free-information and Duke Nukem Forever; but the point of these kinds of question oughn't be about defending an ideology, but evaluating the efficency of a possible change in our society