<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
One way out of the impasse is to look at the treatment of these
issues differently than the traditional neoclassical economics
sense...<br>
<br>
Oligopoly has its privileges and costs - but are tolerated
particularly in enterprises with high fixed costs and the need to
maintain/enhance capabilities/innovation.<br>
<br>
Lower prices to consumers is the classical spread of benefits...
there is also the German Historical School economics that focusses
on the ability of entrepreneurial firms pushing up both wages and
profits - the collusive spread - that has other synergistic effects.
<br>
<br>
In other instances, would access be facilitated even more by sharing
of infrastructure for network coverage (forms of cooperation not
evident in many countries where there is capital shortage (or high
cost) as UNCTAD previously indicated? I.e. is the liberalisation
competitive model the most efficient in its own terms, or can it be
improved by policy (i.e. no policy policy vs a policy)? I mean
haracter for character SMS seems to be the highest cost telecoms
(even in some cases when compared to satelite comms)... <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/10/12 09:46 AM, michael
gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:000401cda845$99a883a0$ccf98ae0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] The problem
with your perspective, Michael, is that it does indeed
represent the classic telecom monopoly perspective which
is often held by the governmental Ministries and national
telecom monopolies in LDCs. Basically they see
international traffic not as an industry that supplies
goods and services that benefit the consumers who pay for
them, but as a source of monopoly rents that can be soaked
to “distribute” wealth to their favored businesses and
political causes. This concern with “equitable
distribution” inevitably ends up both being massively
inefficient and thus stifling growth, while not even
achieving equity either, because it will always be a few
privileged, well-connected businesses and politicians who
benefit from setting up the national toll booths. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">[MG>]
I know that is your position Milton, which at that level
of ideological pandering/name calling is no different from
Kende's argument and we hear it often enough. What I
would very much like to see though, is some evidence to
back it up. What I'm curious to see, and that was the
point of my original note, is some research/analysis which
starts not from a definition of "benefits" as dictated by
Google, Microsoft, and Uncle Tom digerati and all but
rather one which starts from the quite specific policy
contexts and dilemmas of the folks in LDC's who seem to be
bearing a rather large amount of short term cost in the
service of purported long term benefit (and not
incidentally alongside rather significant short term
benefits adhering to already extremely well provided for
DC beneficiaries). And if they don't publicly object I
will, not all of those folks or dare I say even most
(countering again some ideological and even should I say
xenophobic posturing rather than systematic analysis and
research on your part) are as you imply, corrupt and
despotic. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
myself am of two minds on this issue. I well recognize the
value/benefits that could flow from Internet access even to
the poorest of the poor and the overwhelming benefits that
Internet access provides to those for example in civil society
who can take advantage of its more or less unlimited free flow
of communications and information (including through
undermining various repressive political regimes). On the
other hand, the unlimited unregulated policy environment
advocated by reports like that of Kende and others of that
ideological ilk would I think, lead almost directly to a
further enrichment of the already stupendously wealthy and
overall a signifcant transfer of wealth and benefit from those
with the least to those with the most.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] I am glad you
are honest about this two-mindedness. Factually, there is
just no way around it. The liberalization and deregulation
of telecommunications has massively increased access,
decreased costs, increased diversity and innovation.</span></i></b></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>