Even while the government is in shutdown mode, here at the
Free State Foundation we continue to work hard. In other words, we keep on
thinking.
After I founded the Free State Foundation, when my mother
was alive, we had this little routine going. She would say: "Randy, I
don't get it. What do you do in a think tank?"
And I would respond: "We think!"
And my mother would say: "Randy, what do you think
about?"
And I'd always answer: "Well, Mom, I've got to think about
that first!"
Well, over the weekend, as I was looking back over our work from
the past couple of weeks, I found myself thinking about consumers and consumer
welfare – and about how the focus of our work is, or at least always aspires to
be, about promoting consumer welfare, and not
the interest of any particular company or industry segment over another.
In other words, it's not about whether any particular
company, product, or service ultimately thrives or survives. Some will and some
won't. It's not about "leveling the playing field" for the benefit of
one company or another, for, in reality, "level the playing field"
pleas are often just cries for government intervention by one set of
competitors seeking advantage over others.
No, it's about whether the marketplace is working – or, especially with respect to the
communications marketplace, whether the marketplace is allowed to work – in
a way that enhances consumer welfare.
Our orientation at FSF is, unabashedly, in the free market
direction. That is to say that when sufficient marketplace competition exists,
such marketplace competition generally protects consumers better than
government regulation. Or put in more economic lingo, the costs of relying on
government regulation in such a situation generally are greater than the
benefits. Or, in such a situation, the marketplace is more efficient and welfare-enhancing
in protecting consumers than government regulation.
Now, I appreciate that there are differing views as to the
extent of competition that is sufficient to forego regulation and the extent of
competition that presently exists in various communications market segments.
Fair enough.
I don't propose to resolve those differing views here. I'll
just say, having watched – and participated in – the evolution of the
communications marketplace for over thirty-five years now, in my view
sufficient competition now exists in most communications market segments for
the FCC to regulate considerably less than it presently does. The agency needs
to rely more on marketplace competition to protect consumers and less on regulatory mandates.
In reading over several of our pieces this past weekend, I
was reminded how effectively – at least to my mind – they make the case for
less regulatory intervention by the FCC and more reliance on the marketplace,
all with the welfare of the consumer foremost in mind. Here I just want to list
some of these pieces, with their links, in case you haven't had a chance to
read them, or would like to take another look. The subject matter ranges from
net neutrality mandates to video navigation device deregulation to incentive spectrum
auctions and more.
It's The Consumer, Stupid! – Randolph May
Two Sides of the Internet’s Two-Sidedness: A ConsumerWelfare Perspective – Justin (Gus) Hurwitz
Let Them Eat Cake and Watch
Netflix – Justin (Gus)
Hurwitz
*
* *
Now, a final
note: At the outset I mentioned the government shutdown. And throughout this
piece, I have suggested that the FCC ought to be intervening in the marketplace
less, considerably less, than it presently does. It follows that if it implemented
this less regulatory course and reoriented its mission, the agency could, and
should, be slimmed down.
But this does
not mean that there are not, at present, important functions for the FCC to perform,
or important work for the agency to do. And nothing I have said is meant to
imply that the FCC commissioners, and the vast majority of the staff, are not
dedicated, knowledgeable public servants. They are. When the shutdown ends, I'm
sure they'll be back on the job doing their best.
Posts
