Re: Krugman On the Connectivity Power Shift

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
Date: July 25, 2007 11:54:46 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: jg45 () mac com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Krugman On the Connectivity Power Shift

"Greed" is the answer to why the ideal does not arise easily.  The other
side of that is "Free Ride".  The greed of the incumbents stems from  
basic
human nature.  (I'd like that to change, but I am not holding my  
breath.)
Greed also gets us innovation as a benefit.  Unchecked greed gets us the
below mentioned things like global climate change and inferior
infrastructure.  The other side of the coin is the free ride.  New  
things
are built on top of old things.  Like the Internet was built on top  
of the
phone voice system.  MacDonalds was build on top of the US Freeway  
system.
The difference is that the phone companies think they deserve to get  
a huge
cut of the Internet "value add", but the road owners (taxpayers mostly)
don't seem to want a cut of "free french fries" because they built the
roads.  Anyway, innovation has to rid on top of something old and  
thus get a
"free ride" to get rolling.  The old infrastructure players also are  
trying
to stop or cripple things like fixed wireless in order to keep  
collecting
their tolls.  It is all complex.  It usually takes a generation to  
depose
the old order.  We are half way there.  Is the glass half full or half
empty?  Depends on who you are.

Dan


On 7/25/07 6:53 AM, "David Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Jock Gill <jg45 () mac com>
> Date: July 25, 2007 9:11:07 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: Jock Gill <jg45 () mac com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Krugman On the Connectivity Power Shift
>
> Dave,
>
> For IP if you wish.
>
> With respect to the comment below, I suggest we honestly consider
> what the "magic of the market place" has wrought and whether or not
> we want more of it. Considering that a first class economy requires a
> first class communications infrastructure and that the US private
> sector has failed to deliver this, while at the same time blessing us
> with global climate change, I have to wonder.
>
> The deep insight in Krugman's article was not that one sector is
> better than the other, but that the only way forward is to form
> something greater than the sum of the parts out of the parts we
> have:  the public sector and the private sector working together.
> For too long our strength has been sapped and our status in the world
> degraded by the false dichotomy of the private sector vs the public
> sector.  Neither sector has perfect knowledge and both sectors make
> lots of mistakes all of the time, and always will, as a result.  But
> they work better for all of us when they work together than when they
> tear us apart fighting over dogmatic and ideological constructs.
> Especially when those constructs are false. The evidence of the price
> we pay for the ideological warfare of the public vs the private is
> obvious: global climate change, inferior infrastructure, bandwidth
> scarcity, energy dependence, etc.
>
> Isn't past time to try some new approaches that give us the benefit
> of being greater than the sum parts?  The benefits of collective gain
> from collaboration at the edges, as David Reed so aptly describes it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jock
>
>
>
> Jock Gill
>
> O: +1 (781) 396-0492
> C: +1 (617) 449-8111
> G: +1 (802) 548-4100
> S: +1 (802) 659-4532
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/groups/camerasketches/>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:21 AM, David Farber wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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



Tel. 707-967-0203   Cell  650-776-7313
My assistant is Dori Kirk   Tel. 707-255-7094  dori () lynch com





-------------------------------------------
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