Study Finds Regulation Good For Telecom Customers

jfruhlinger writes "Customers are always better off when government bureaucrats get out of the way and let the market work, right? Well, maybe not in all cases. As described at ITworld.com, a recent study compared the regulatory regimes and telecom environments in various European countries. The study concluded that in countries where regulators had more power to levy fines and punish monopolistic behavior, customers paid less and got more services." From the article: "The report, conducted by Jones Day and Strategy and Policy Consultants Network Ltd., showed that investment in telecommunications, which leads to better services for end users, is lower in countries where there is little competition."

Comments

Re:I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, Sweden is "a pretty small country" (a whooping 53 countries are larger. Sweden is also a country with very low population density (154 countries are more densly populated.

Re:Phobia

[rsheridan6]

Folks who talk about deregulation or decriminalization being "dangerous" do so because they fear their neighbors. They project that because some "government" wouldn't be holding a gun to other peoples heads, those people will act in irresponsible and evil ways. It is a very pervasive irrational belief.

On Planet Libertarian, people only want to enrich themselves through the Free Market, which ultimately benefits us all. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the world is full of irresponsible, idiotic, or just plain evil people who are out to do harm to others. Hell yes, I want the government holding a gun to the head of my neighbors keeping them from driving drunk down my street, looting my house, contaminating my water, etc, etc.

It's actually very easy to imagine deregulation. No more excuses that "we were following regulations, so you can't sue us." The airline's insurance company does not want to pay out, neither do passengers want to die. Therefore, they will make efforts to be safe and reliable in order to get more business. It might indeed raise the price of a ticket on a reputable airline, but that price is paid only by those who choose to use that service. No tax-supported bureaucracy, no regulatory overhead. The actual "costs" to "society" are reduced dramatically, and there are more resources available to do something productive.

This is wrong in several ways:

1. You're not describing deregulation - you're describing regulation by the courts. Courts have a non-zero cost, and lawyers are quite expensive. Probably more expensive than the regulators we have now. And what are the courts but a gun to your neighbors head, anyway?
2. There is also a non-zero cost to knowing all of the "good" brands and companies. In your perfect libertarian world, I have to do research to buy a damned toaster if I don't want it to catch on fire and burn my house down, or buy an expensive one. In my imperfect world, I can buy the cheapest toaster at Wal-mart, confident that it meets safety standards.
3. Somebody else's safety choices can affect me. When the apartment below mine caught fire due to faulty wiring, it affected me. If a driver chooses to buy an unsafe vehicle and we have a collision, it's my problem, not his choice. Even in your airplane example, somebody is going to be on the ground when it crashes.
4. It's not always possible to know which businesses are reputable and which ones aren't. A "good" brand could become a "bad" brand if some manager decides he's going to throw away the companies reputation to increase this quarter's profits, and it'll take awhile to figure that out even if you do your homework. It wasn't long ago that Arthur Andersen and Enron were considered reputable.
5. Finally, you're probably lying. People who think like you are generally in favor of tort reform, which would eliminate your idea of regulation by the courts.