IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Friday, April 1, 2005

A Good Great Debate
(previous | next)

Yesterday my friend James Gattuso and I participated in what was billed as the "Great Debate" at the "F2C: Freedom to Connect Conference". Our debating opponents were Tim Wu, who is spending this semester at the University of Chicago, and MCI's Rick Whitt. The debating point: "Resolved, That the Communications Act should be replaced by a horizontal regulatory system."

Maybe "Great Debate" is too much hyperbole, at least for a participant, to latch onto. But it was actually a very good debate.

You can read Tech Daily's write-up here, and TR Daily's here. [Subscriptions required].

As reported by Tech Daily, here was part of my core argument arguing against adoption of a "layers" model: "It would be a mistake to take an approach which everyone acknowledges is actually based on these techno-functional characteristics -- capabilities that are designed in terms of functions and technologies used -- and replace that framework with a framework that is also based on another set of techno-functional capabilities. It's very difficult to anticipate how technology is going to change."

And TR Daily zeroed in on another point I made in response to the almost ritual incantation of the "incumbent" label as a basis for regulation:

Mr. May said that, if competition is better than regulation, carriers and service providers must have incentives. "In order to do this, you don't take over their property,” he said, adding that cable companies, by way of example, have invested billions into their networks since they were deregulated. "Just by calling someone an incumbent - that's not a policy," he said. The layers model is ultimately not helpful to the FCC, Mr. May said.

posted by Randolph May @ 10:34 AM | Communications

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation