Originally published: May 6, 2010
Last updated: May 6, 2010 - 3:29pm
[Commentary] With the Federal Communications Commission and most government actors obsessed with incentive creation, it makes sense to determine whether and how a regulatory or deregulatory action causes some desired outcome. Consider the creation of incentives to invest in physical plant. Incumbent carriers have spent a lot of time, money and effort arguing that regulation creates investment disincentives and deregulation does the desired opposite. This simplistic and not always correct premise constitutes the prevailing wisdom in the US. Using this mindset, sponsored researchers have argued that next generation network plant skyrocketed soon after the FCC abandoned local loop unbundling and other "sharing" requirements. Let's probe this assertion.
Links to Sources
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related
- Which is the Primary Driver of Telecom Investment: Strategic Opportunities or Deregulation?
- Who Gets Priority on the Web?
- About the Verizon/Google "Deal" on Net Neutrality
- McDowell: FCC Should Lead Coordinated Consumer Protection Effort, Not Reclassify Broadband
- Framework for Broadband Internet Service
- How Clever is That? -- More Thoughts on the Google-Verizon Deal
- More Reaction to FCC Broadband Classification Plan
- Verizon: Title II Classification Would Cause Widespread Harm
- Minority groups to oppose FCC reclassification
- Net Neutrality End Run
- Smart Grid Pilots Require Regulatory Change and Better Consumer Focus
- Industry Groups Offer Legislative Deal On Network Neutrality
- Verizon, AT&T split on approach to FCC
- The Battle Is Raging for Control of the Internet -- and Big Corporations May Come Out on the Losing Side
- Network neutrality foes to label policy a 'job killer'
Ratings
Login to rate this headline.

