But seriously, are President Bush and Prime Minister Blair using the same playbook? This from today's Computing:

Blair told delegates at the Labour Party conference that if re-elected in the General Election, expected next year, he wants to 'end the digital divide' and ensure broadband is available to every home that wants it by 2008.

According to a Tech Daily story [subscription required]: "The European Court of First Instance, the European Union's second-highest court, ruled that the commission no longer had the power to prohibit the merger because the plan had been abandoned by the two companies."

Okay, I think I get it. Over four years ago, MCI and Sprint withdrew their merger proposal after running into problems at DOJ and before the EU Competition Commission. Despite the withdrawal of the merger proposal by the parties, the Competition Commission went ahead and adopted an order in June 2000 blocking the merger on the theory that the proposal might be revived in the future. Now, the Euopean Court of First Instance has ruled that the Commission lacked power to block the merger.

Perhaps MCI, having survived a near-death experience and reportedly for sale, might again hook-up with Sprint. But I doubt it. The telecom world has much changed since the US and EU got exorcised about the potential dominance of the "long distance" market if MCI and Sprint got together. (Remember when the "long distance" and "local" markets were distinct?)

Well, I'm glad the Court of First Instance cleared all this up. And, considering it took four years to unblock a merger that had already collapsed, that body is not likely ever to be called the "Court of Anything Close to Instant."

The KMB Videojournal meets twice a year in Tampa as a confab of state regulators and policy types. This session is devoted to rewriting the telecom act. The early report is that we are not quite ready to rebuild the tower of babel. That said, based on some of the comments, Jeff Pulver has reason to be scared where VoIP regulation will be headed if some of the views expressed here hold sway. The "universal service" values that have driven telecom policy from the start will not go quietly into the night. Because of this, the internal logic of regulation and universal service needs to bring any new services and platforms within its purview so as to maintain the power to tax and subsize (which 'universal service' is a pleasant euphemism for). I'll post my remarks on universal service delivered to the conference last night soon, once I clean up the written text.

My colleague Jim DeLong has an excellent post over at IPCentral.info on the common law's ability to adapt to different social and technological circumstances as it relates to intellectual property laws. I cross-reference it not only as flagrant cross-promotion, but also for the applicability of these principles for the regulatory arena. In particular, I think the contrast between the common law reasoning-style of antitrust with the rigidity of administrative regulation is quite salient. (This contrast is more than a tad ironic since administrative regulation was meant to be adaptable, but maybe it's too adaptable with things like property and contract rights).

The European Court of Justice holds that the European Competition Commission was wrong to block the WorldCom-Sprint merger one day after the companies called it all off anyways. Talk about crossing the "limits of antitrust."

According to the EU Observer:
This ruling sets a crucial legal precedent as it means that companies may now pull out of merger deals if they fear an unfavourable ruling from the EU's competition body.

Let's not get carried away here. For instance, I would guess that this doesn't really set a "crucial legal precedent" for domestic telcos, who already need to withstand superfluous* antitrust scrutiny before the DOJ, FCC and 50 state PUCs. But it does illustrate that a wildly aggressive EU will only add to the transaction costs and uncertainty when these deals are contemplated.

*Today's Communications Daily reports that an Illinois appeals court reversed an Illinois Commerce Commission decision which required SBC to invest $600 million annually in its network as a merger condition when it acquired Ameritech in 1999. According to the article, SBC has invested 3.7 billion in its Illinois network since then.

Lynne Kiesling and Tyler Cowen properly rail against the inevitable hoary story that the destruction from all the hurricanes will be economically beneficial. As Lynne said, she was just wondering how long it would take for this story to pop up--and, presto, it did. Next, stories on the benefits of digging ditches and filling them back in.

As evidence of the great economic benefits from the hurricanes, take a look at these stories, noting that the hurricanes will likely cost BellSouth 4 cents a share on earnings, and that CenturyTel and Progress Energy (parent of Florida Power & Light) are revising earnings guidance because of storm damage.

The Senate Commerce Committee has narrowly approved the "Wireless 411 Privacy Act." The Wireless 411 directory, as it is being developed by six of the major wireless carriers and CTIA, would allow customers to opt-in and make their numbers available through a directory listing service - those numbers would not would not be published nor, as its proponents state, made available to third parties such as telemarketers. During the Senate Committee hearing, a representative from Verizon Wireless stated that "a Wireless Telephone Directory would be a terrible idea, and we will not publish our customers cell phone numbers or otherwise participate in the plan you have heard about today."

An editorial in yesterday's Denver Post questioned whether VZ Wireless' stance is good for its customers, but supported cementing in privacy guarantees through legislation due to fears of telemarketing and spam.

First off, the notion that there is a need for governmental involvement here is nonsense. In a "but for" scenario, the participating wireless carriers already have the incentive to comply with whatever reasonable provisions that could be included in legislation. This is being driven by the competitive environment within the industry itself - and as VZ Wireless' position against the directory illustrates, there are plausible ways to compete by differentiation. It should be noted that the fear of telemarketing is further mitigated by the existence of the federal do-not-call list (which includes mobile phone numbers) and prohibitions against auto-dialing and telmarketing calls to cell phones.

Ultimately, this issue really boils down to a property rights question and an application of the Coase Theorem, which compels the rather glib conclusion of "Who cares?" Parties will negotiate to an efficient solution, especially since the externalities created by a wireless directory are both positive and negative and impossible to accurately predict in advance. The traditional rationale for a directory listing is that it can create a positive externality (hence, wireless customers who currently want to be listed in the White Pages must pay a fee). On the other hand, the number of subscribers to the federal do-not-call list is plainly evident of negative externalities. In this light, it would appear that the proper equilibrium is the general approach being privately pursued under the 411 Plan.

9/27 UPDATE: Declan McCullagh has a nice perspective piece on News.com today, accurately entitled Legalized extortion by any other name

The "Smith USF Reform Bill" made it out of the Senate Commerce Committee by a 13-9 vote yesterday. The bill seeks to modify the formula used by the FCC to determine "non-rural" (interpreted as "rural") cost support, which constitutes about 7% of the USF high-cost fund and is one of the more curious USF distribution mechanisms out there. Mississippi, West Virginia and Alabama currently receive over 80% of these subsidies, while Nebraska, with a third of the population density of Mississippi, receives nothing. By replacing the current methodology, which compares the average statewide cost per line to a national benchmark, with a formula based on the cost of serving wire centers, the Smith Reform bill would spread more of these subsidies to rural carriers west of the Mississippi. In short, good for the Big 12 Conference, bad for the SEC.

Off to Chicago today for The Heartland Institute's Emerging Issues Forum and Anniversary Dinner. My panel on regulation and digital technology will reunite me with Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics faculty member Lynne Kiesling, who should be pitching her house-buying/renovating/econ insights to HGTV as their next reality series. Should be fun, but I am still trying to figure out how to make it to the south side for some Harold's Chicken Shack goodness. If Joe Bast really wants a special 20th Anniversary for Heartland, he'd have Harold's cater it.

Randy May chides USA Today for their glowing account of Danville, Virginia's municipally-owned broadband network. I used to think that way too. It seemed to me a dubious proposition that local governments could run a broadband company.

But I have seen the light and think the model should proliferate. I think now that all industries should be entered by governments, particularly industries where there may only be one or two providers in the local market.

Newspapers, for instance. Too many towns are only served by one newspaper, thus limiting the views and vitality available to towns that don't have private newpapers of sufficient quality and quantity. Towns with more newspapers can create more jobs, and have a more robust, vibrant local economy. It's a matter of economic survival. And Gannett, Knight-Ridder, Tribune and other chains are just too slow in getting these communities the newspapers they need. Like Danville, towns with municipal-owned electric utilities should use their reserves to start newspapers. Good things will follow, because goverments will have a great business sense for running newspapers. What's worse, those monetary reserves from the electric company otherwise would just go back to consumers or into necessary electric projects.

And restaurants, I think too many small towns don't have good enough restaurants. Municipalities should look into this business. And hardware stores. I love Home Depot, but many communities don't have one. Municipalities should open their own competitors to Home Depot to bring the benefits of "Big Hardware" to their communities. And bowling alleys...we are worried today about becoming a nation that "bowls alone," but with more bowling alleys and a concerted local government effort to promote bowling at the government bowling alley, we could recapture that golden age of bowling leagues, just as was portrayed on The Flintstones.

Only with this entry, will these communities get that which seemed so unlikely just a few years ago: hope.