Re: Krugman On the Connectivity Power Shift

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Krulwich <krulwich () yahoo com>
Date: July 25, 2007 5:27:49 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Krugman On the Connectivity Power Shift
Reply-To: krulwich () yahoo com

What is best for our country is complicated.  If you look at what  
countries like S Korea did to get to where they are today, you'll see  
that there was a lot of government involvement that was far from free  
market, but which made access cheaper and more pervasive.  Very  
analogous IMVHO to the AT&T monopoly in early US phone service.   
While this is a good way to jump-start pervasive access, it's not  
clear that it's a direction that's best for the US long-term.  Yes,  
hands-off free market has its risks, but overall it sure seems better  
than heavy government involvement.

--Bruce


David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
What nobody seems to want to talk about is *what is best for our
country.* Should we take the attitude that what is good for AT&T and
Verizon is good for America? If so, hasn't the last decade of abysmal
failure taught us anything? What good will a national broadband
policy do for us, in real terms, if we do not understand what the
long term goals are and what will be needed to achieve those goals?

As someone who has spent nearly every waking minute of the last ten
years of my life working to address these issues, I can state without
reservation, that unless we make some very serious policy changes -
immediately - the damage we will do to our future will resonate for
generations to come.


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com