At 11:52 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote: >Sorry, I fundamentally disagree with the point of view that we need to >regulate free entry & free exit and throw these basic tenets of our economy >out the window to encourage continued poor decision making .
I'm not advocating that we need to regulate anything, only pointing out that the historic public policy position discourages service impacts to 3rd parties, and even more so when done without notice. If you carry essential consumer services, then there is already existing policy in this area. >There is no paradise behind that door. And I don't believe regulation should >be used to prevent people from making occasionally poor decisions, which in >turn will ultimately do nothing more than raise the price floor and create >additional barriers of entry in the market. If you don't have those events >happen, bad things never get weeded out. There really is nothing but bad news >in store for what you propose, because it isn't as simple of a thing to impose >regulation and have mostly good things happen. That's a fine set of beliefs (and I might even agree with some of them). However, they're completely irrelevant to the existing school of thought which is guiding policy and legislation in this area, which is probably best represented by last month's House Telecom committee draft: <http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/09152005_staff_disc.pdf> [1] There you go: mandatory ISP registration, interconnection, consumer protection, and more. Maybe these folks were too busy with other stuff to notice the Internet partition happen earlier in the week? Oh, wait, I remember now: these folks are only matter when legislating. /John [1] A readable (only-slightly-biased) summary: <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm860.cfm>
