Comments on: Bad tech advice for the president

Telecom expert Lawrence Spiwak warns that the Bush administration is relying on poor input in the formulation of its broadband policy.

[bobtheman22]

Build the infrastructure...

There is nothing stopping a company from building their own infrastructure. Qwest was able to do it in less then 10 years, Covad even less. UNE-L is still mandated under the Telecom Act of 96. Report the facts or don't report at all. I owned a CLEC we built our own infrastructure because what many, including reporters, don't realize is how poorly built the ILEC infrastructures is for broadband. Sorry, but there isn't some magic switch that can be flipped in the ILEC's infrastructure suddenly providing Gbps of bandwidth to everyone.

Bad political advice for Kerry

Someone in the Kerry camp is giving him VERY VERY bad advice. The part where they told him to be a socialist.

[John Kuzak]

Kerry camp

http://www.analogstereo.com/acura_cl_owners_manual.htm

[bobanavrin]

Bad Advice For The President

Look's like you need a new telecom expert.
Pronto was never about getting fiber to the premise. It was about getting fiber closer to the premise.

Bad advice on everything

I agree that Bush has gotten bad advice on technology--and so much else. The wireline telcos have successfully fought competition for well over a hundred years--despite the huge success of the AT&T divestiture (which resulted from an anti-trust case). But Bush seems to listen to incumbent business interests rather than to anyone who is seeking to promote a more competitive environment--or even seeking to increase economic efficiency.

In these days of remembering former president Reagan, it's worth remembering that Reagon was the president who oversaw the AT&T breakup and under whose FCC, real competition in the long distance market took off. Mr. Bush, I was at the FCC during the Reagan years and, well, you're no Ronald Reagan.

[bobanavrin]

Bad advice on everything

Isn't now the time there is real competition in the long distance arena, now that the ILEC's are able to offer long distance. Unless you consider MCI/Worldcom a success.

[David Arbogast]

Economists shouldn't talk Tech.

Lawrence is part of a legal and economic think tank. He is NOT a technology guru. Suggesting that Bush has bad information while denouncing new technologies without any substantial evidence is lazy, at best. I know at least a dozen people that have only cell-phone service, and they couldn't be happier. I have two DSL lines from Covad, and a VOIP service that has excellent quality. I no longer receive any bills from SBC and my service has never been better. Given that none of my existing service is tied to any unbundling laws regulating SBC, I fail to recognize legitimate concern. As long as competitive alternatives exist, there is no need to place further restrictive legislation on SBC.

So, what we have is an economist who thinks he knows more about communication technology than the chairman of the FCC and writes articles that are politically biased against the Bush administration. Fantastic news, this is.

Response...

Thank you for your passionate response to my op-ed.

However, I take issue with several of your comments.

As a general proposition, I am not denouncing new technologies; to the contrary, I am a big proponent of them. However, the correct policy question is not whether a bunch of technologies do the same thing, but whether consumers view them as close substitutes to affect Bell strategic behavior (something with which you are clearly dissatisfied).

For example, if you look on our web page (www.phoenix-center.org), you will see a tremendous amount of empirical data showing that while, yes, some people have "cut the cord" for mobile, most consumers still don't view mobile as a close substitute and, therefore, mobile telephony has no pricing constraint on Bell wireline pricing. (Plus, considering that after the AT&T Wireless/Cingular merger goes through, 70% of all US consumers served by a national wireless carrier will be served by a Bell owned carrier, it strains common sense to think the Bells want to have their wireless operation canibalize their fixed line operations.) If after review of this sophisticated analysis you still consider my views "lazy" for some "lack of substantial evidence", then I will buy you dinner.

Similarly, you state that you have two DSL lines from Covad -- good for you. However, where do you think Covad gets its lines from? That's right, it uses unbundled network elements from the Bell companies. Thus,I can assure you that Covad is greatly concerned about the current situation as its entire business model is "tied to ... unbundling laws regulating SBC."