The battle for wireless
Increasingly, technology and media companies have been faced with the choice to innovate or stifle. To "innovate," a company would have to change its business model to meet with the new challenges of the Internet, which is a very different marketplace from those that companies were used to. To "stifle," a company could use political influence to have laws changed so that they can make the Internet conform to the practices of the old marketplaces.
Guess which one they've chosen.
Costa Rica may criminalize VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol, a method of making phone calls by sending data over a broadband Internet connection) if the Costa Rican (non-state-owned) telecom monopoly has its way. Most U.S. government agencies have ruled that VoIP is a data service, not a telecom service, and as such, should not be regulated. But that won't stop Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (Costa Rican Electrical Institute, ICE) from demanding regulation or, in a worst-case scenario, forbidding VoIP.
Why? ICE already has telecom infastructure in place. And it's getting money from that infastructure as well as from the services provided over that infastructure. VoIP is super-cheap, and given the option, most Costa Ricans would probably opt for broadband + telephone service instead of individual services (and Costa Rican phone services are none too good, either).
ICE doesn't want its customers to be able to make cheap phone calls. It will lose customers to VoIP. So, it's decided to use its influence to attempt to ban VoIP altogether, rather than change its business model.
A similar situation is popping up in municipalities around the United States. Cities and towns want to establish free, city-wide wireless networks (so-called Wi-Fi, but that's a dumb name, for reasons I won't get into right now). Telecom companies don't want them to, and as such, have pushed for state-level laws (like ones in Texas) banning the implementation of municipal wireless networks.
Back in the old days, companies would change their business models to fit a changing marketplace. Now, companies use their political influence to destroy the new marketplace, forcing it to adhere to the standards of the old one (cf. MPAA, RIAA). The Internet is not a Wal-Mart, and should not behave like one. Attempts to make the Internet into an older marketplace will ultimately fail, of course, as the Internet is more untamed than the "real" world and hardcore h4xx0rz will find ways around roadblocks imposed by corporate America.
Comments
The steel tariffs were promised to win votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia in the 2000 election and were only lifted when the EU threatened trade sanctions across the board. And lifted over a year a head of schedule, I might add.
However, there are good national security reasons for protecting a functioning steel industry. Namely, wars require steel; and foundries require a lot of time and money to set up. So, it's best to ensure that we have at least a few steel manufacturers around in case we need Newport News to throw a few aircraft carriers together.
That's not to say the same thing is happening in Costa Rica. But, since the difference between transmitting a voice or a data packet over a wire is practically nil, why should the government regulate one group of companies but not another? If they're holding off on regulating the new technology companies in order to give them room to grow, are they planning on regulating them in the future? If these regulations are so onerous that they can kill a new business model, perhaps their goals should be closely examined. How are we protected or helped by these laws, and should we be? And, if private enterprise is the name of the game here in America, is it fair to expect startup companies in a fledgling industry to compete with taxpayer financed government services? Now, if I had any use for Wi-Fi, I'd love to have city-wide access for a reasonable price and I wouldn't care who was providing it. But if I were considering starting a company to fulfill that need, I'd have to think twice before competing against the government. I mean, they set the rules of the game so who's to stop them from legislating or regulating any competitors out of business? After all, the primary power of government is "legitimate force" and everything else springs forth from that. Sometimes it's good to remember that the reason that you and I have to obey the law is that the government has more and better guns than we do. In a lot of ways it's akin to religion. Don't do this or go to jail. Do this or go to hell.
Man, I sound like a Republican and I'm not sure if I had a point. But, I'm on pain medication and a muscle relaxer at the moment so you'll have to forgive me.
Posted by: Scott | March 2, 2005 7:58 PM
I'm dumb.
Posted by: Bud-dy | March 2, 2005 10:38 PM
Correction Mr. Scott, they have more and better guns than you have, but not perhaps all of us are in the same boat (I'm looking at you Cathy).
Posted by: Wolf | March 5, 2005 6:36 PM