« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Tech at Night: The FCC subsidy game is on, Sprint reveals more of what it actually fears

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  October 28th, 2011 at 11:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tech at Night

Not much to say tonight, which is good because I think I’m getting sick again, and if I had a lot to say I’d probably just skip tonight’s Tech.

It’s official: the race for FCC handouts is on, as the FCC voted to repurpose the old rural telephone subsidy, the Universal Service Fund (a fund that comes from your special tax dollars) into a grab bag of Internet subsidies.

In 2013 we should look at repealing the whole thing, just as Republicans continue to press for Net Neutrality repeal.

I’ve said it again and again: Sprint Nextel’s actions do not match the actions of a firm that believes it will be an oligopolist with price setting power after the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. Its actions match those of a firm that fears greater 4G competition. Becuase competition is indeed what it fears, and certainly not from T-Mobile, a firm with no subsidized iPhones on offer.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • creinstein

    I commonly tell people I want to get a Doctorate or three in math.

    I even tell them I know my thesis.

    It is on monopolies.

    While many may not consider it, if something has a location, or a time value it represents a monopoly. The seat you are in cannot be taken by another while you are in it (they can force you out, but two cannot occupy the same space), and your reading this post has a monopoly on your time.

    Not all monopolies are bad, but some are destructive.

    In this case I feel that T-Mobile is needed. I would go so far as to say perhaps we should split the top two carriers. The reason for this is that while there is market desires, the production (or in this case service) is not being directed to please the market desire. The desires of the market on face value seem reasonable so it would seem that they could return to the markets path, but something is pushing them away.

    Ofc we probably would not need to do so if the FCC was only able to auction bandwidth and nothing else (I suspect a cellular boom would happen).

    I agree whole heartedly in prohibiting agencies from self implementing rules on society including the proposed limit on the FCC.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    In your world, property rights apparently only exist until the Glorious People’s State confiscates them without rights or compensation.

    Cool story bro.

  • acat

    If the German outfit who own T-Mobile aren’t allowed to sell it to AT&T, that sure looks like government picking favourites… Sprint.

    Mew

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • creinstein

    Your the first person to accuse me of pro big government.

    To be honest Big Government is the most powerful monopoly of them all.

    But I digress.

    You used a Saul Alinsky style attack, or so it appears, to make me look like a liberal. After this post if your truly a conservative I expect an apology, though if liberal I just expect more labels and attacks.

    But I digredd again.

    The heart of the issue is monopolies. Any good mathematician will say they are destructive.they will also say they hamper other businesses, especially small business and that they should not be allowed.

    Modern examples exist right now.

    Though OPEC does not have an absolute monopoly on oil it does have an effective monopoly on the price of oil.

    China while not having an absolute monopoly on Rare Earth Metals does control 97%of of the current mining of them, and has established trade barriers on it, and more recently they announced they would not sell any for a month.

    Now a strict Constitutionalist. Or an average Libertarian might defend the rights of businesses to form monopolies a Conservative like myself understands an absolute need exists for some laws and regulations even as we fight to keep it as minimum as possible.

    No where did I ever imply I was for a big government. On the contrary by indicating I was for prevention of monopolies which means I am free trade minded

  • creinstein

    Just in a world where Monopolies are undesirable AT&T cannot buy T-Mobile, nor can Sprint, nor can Verizon. As those are the ones with the cell towers and others lease off them, consolidatiion here is monopolistic.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You’re here to promote the Obama administration’s big government tactic of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, with the goal of a Soviet-style command economy.

    Your position has more in common with the Occupiers than the TEA party.

    I stand for liberty. You stand for big government intervention in the radical progressive mold.

    You talk of tactics. I talk of principles.

  • creinstein

    I am Michael Harrington

    I am running for State Representative in Portland Oregon against the Democrats leader in the Houst Tina Kotek.

    If I were somehow President in 2012 I would walk througha number of departments saying “you serve at the pleasure of the President, as the President I am not pleased, you’re fired”.

    Those who know me understand I disagree with most of what Bush did let alone Obama.

    I formally endorsed Cain as I think the other front runners are to liberal (I would vote Newt if he was not a $_=&&*(&= opportunist acting as a Conservative.

    I also believe in some regulations, for example I am currently a Over The Road semi truck driver. I know if no rules existed some fleet manager would tell some driver he was not going to be employed if he did not deliver his load on time. Hell tons would. The problem is I know how hard a tough drive in Wyoming can be, and I do not want a driver driving for 20 hours with explosives in his trailer at 55mph on iced roads. Exxageration? Probably… I certainly hope so.. but some regulations must exist.

    Now do not get me wrong… The FMCA 2011 rules are insane, and not needed. Hell existing truck regulations could be slimmed by 40% in my honorable opinion (imho).

    However I find Libertarians to be excessively ignorant on this sort of thing. Are you one? If so I will just start ignoring you right now, just like most of society.

    Big business if taken to the monopoly level is almost as bad as a big government switching to a socialist model.

    There is a reason Republicans and Conservatives backed the splitting of Ma Bell. There is a reason we made laws concerning monopolies and why those laws are not ever going to be revoked.

    I am not into picking winners or losers… I am for preventing the loss of our freedom of choice. I chose a Verizon phone for my political phone based on choices I accept. My personal phone is a no contract cheapo phone from personal choice. I want market options, not a situation where as there are less players more abuse goes up.

    Sorry if you think being limited to Communism, Socialism, Fascism, or Liberalsm for choices works I want Conservatism… now quit trying to super consolidate it into the others, leave me options!

    And no I am not picking winners or losers despite your post. GM should have been allowed to die and be bought up by dozens of companies. Chrysler the same. In car terms we have, in my opinion, too few options if limited to US manufactorers, but barely enough with Asian and European manufactorers. I would not pay a red government penny for another maker either, but prevent any from buying another.

    To bad we have these stupid CAFE rules. Toss them out and I bet we get more companies making cars and pickups.

    Also on my resume:

    Combat Infantry (Mortars) in the 101st Airborne
    Technical Support
    Web Designer
    Call Center emlpoyee
    Security Officer
    Victim Domestic Violence
    Political Activist, Conservatism

    Now will you admit Libertarianism or concede my views are ones within the Conservative ideals?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You come to me and start defending the Obama/Holder agenda, I’m going to expose it for what it is.

    You come here and start pushing for government to dictate to private shareholders who they can and can’t sell their company to, and I’m going to shine a light on that command economics.

    You start speaking in ignorance about how this merger will reduce wireless competition, because you read some high school economics textbook written by a radical, and I’m going to encourage you to get educated about the facts before you spout off Obama/Sprint talking points.

    Get your mind right: It’s not your freedom of choice that’s at stake here. It’s the freedom of choice of the shareholders of T-Mobile USA and of AT&T.

    You remind me of the occupiers, demanding your right to control another’s property.

  • mikefisk

    You speak of monopolies in the abstract sense, while failing to address the fundamental question: What would make a merged AT&T/T-Mobile a monopoly?

    Clearly these questions should be left in the hands of applied economists, and not mathematicians.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’d rather we leave it in the hands of the people, per the 9th and 10th amendments.

  • poorredman

    It’s Neil’s MO to act his way whenever someone tries to create discussion. Of course, looking at the typical number of responses to his Tech at Night diaries, most people don’t enjoy his hack commentary and don’t even try.

    Neil has some sort of grudge against Sprint. He thinks everyone in America has a “right” to high speed internet on thier cell phones. What Neil fails to discuss in his own posts, is that control of wireless spectrum is not like many other free market businesses. We The People own that spectrum, so we (thru govt.) have a vested interest in ensuring that the businesses that use it, do so to the benefit of the public.

    I’d like to see Neil compare his positions on the cell industry to that of TV programming access. How has the consolidation of cable and satellite interests helped prices?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Cry some more, crybaby.

  • creinstein

    Thanks for not attacking outright but using a legitimate question.

    While true my current srrength is in statistics I have been putting thought into this for two years. Now that my life is recovered I am pushing hard on many things which does not help much even with two years.

    However I would argue that most, if not all, economists have a love (or high understanding) of math.

    Economics is not to terribly hard overall if you accept the Laffer Curve. Keynesian or classical not so easy.

    However in due time you will see me posting about economics… it is a favorite topic of mine, and a Political Platform as well… I am just waiting for my diary to show up…

  • creinstein

    I see now that discussions with Neil are impossible, he will end up on my personal ignore list I guess.

    I have had far better conversations with minarchists…

    But you are a breath of fresh air at the moment poorredman.

    ______________________________________

    The Tea leaves, they say 2012 will be a good year but not for Barack

  • mikefisk

    …I think the government may have some role in addressing concerns of abuse of market power, but I’m very skeptical of its application, mostly due to the fact that the government tends to look at “antitrust” issues where there is no clear-cut case of market power, let alone any evidence showing that said market power is being used to distort the market. The problem is how to give the government that power and not have them abuse it. In some ways I wonder if it’s even possible, but that’s another argument.

  • mikefisk

    I’m finishing my MA in Applied Economics (with a concentration in Political Economy), but I have a Mathematics minor from undergrad and a sequence of Economietrics in grad school (so I have a pretty good statistics background as well, much to the consternation of my liberal arts-studying friends).

    I’m a bit unorthodox with my approach to economics, however – I’d best describe myself as a Neoclassical economist with a fair bit of respect for Chicago, Austrian, and Real Business Cycle schools. (Also have a near utter contempt of macroeconomics due to what I perceive as a limited level of robustness about macroeconomic modeling as well as the faulty conclusions made about its predictive power.)