I wish I had a dollar every time
I see and hear regulatory uncertainty vilified. In telecommunications
regulation and policy, stakeholders involve RU as the reason for any ailment.
RU prevents capital investment; RU stifles innovation; RU kills jobs; RU hurts national
competitiveness. RU causes the common
cold.
Here’s a
news flash: unless one operates in a market completely free of regulation,
there always will be some degree of uncertainty what the future regulatory
climate will be. Speaking of uncertainty,
who knows what the cost of capital will be in a year, what law suits will confound
a particular company; what technological innovation will challenge the status
quo?
Regulation
constitutes one of very many variables for which a commercial venture cannot control. Companies have to deal with it, but in this
day telecom executives speak in complete opposites depending on the audience.
To Congress, the FCC and the court of public opinion corporate executives trout
out RU as a terrible scourge. To buy
side analysis and in commercial practice the very same executives accept RU as
one of many variables in business.
Has RU
prevented wireless companies from making substantial sunk investments in next generation
network spectrum and plant? If RU is
such an abomination how can AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson tell one constituency
AT&T has had to curb capex investment while at the same time the company pays
45 billion dollars to acquire DirecTV and may offer its own mobile video streaming
service?
So let me
get this straight: RU curbs innovation and investment even as billions of
dollars in mergers, acquisitions and new ventures continue to sprout.
1 comment:
Good point. The legacy incumbents also mischaracterize their natural monopolies as competitive markets, further confusing matters.
http://eldotelecom.blogspot.com/2015/12/comcasts-and-at-unfair-competition.html
Post a Comment