From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 13:05:58 MDT
Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote regarding his cell phone plan:
roaming agreements with the other operators, often at a global European rate
of 0.8 euro/min. This is quite expensive, so many people keep different SIM
cards for use in different countries. It is not cheaper than in the US, but
my point is that it is a very good system, very easy to use, that permits
freely moving in Europe with the same phone and being online (voice + data)
all the time, and getting better and better.
### Well, if it's not cheaper, not technologically better, and the
geographic area covered is not larger than the area available to me (and I
can get a plan without roaming charges, at the same price but with less
airtime included), then there is no reason to hold the European system as a
shining example. By extension, whatever bureaucratic entities developed the
system are not in any way superior to the less regulated forces responsible
for my calling plan. In fact, I would surmise that the calling plan you have
exists *despite* the bureaucrats with their, as you wrote "hundreds of
person years of committee time, and tons of paperwork", not thanks to their
undoubtedly well-intentioned efforts.
-------
Well I suppose that if a new operator decides to launch a non GSM wireless
voice/data service, they would be legally able to do so, but I doubt they
would be profitable. The system has reached a critical mass "a la Microsot"
that protects itself. Now the uniform standard improves everyone's life and
this is what I regard as a positive example of "big government", the
European way. Please note that I am not saying that massive state
intervention is alays good, only that it is not always bad.
### But what reasons do you have to believe that the uniform standard exists
thanks to the government, and not despite it? We also have a system which
improves everyone's life, but without the good folks in Washington decreeing
that it should be built their way.
If you look at a clock, you will most likely see the standard clock face, 12
hours, with hands moving in the, unsurprisingly, clockwise direction. This
design standard emerged spontaneously hundreds of years ago from a wild mix
of competing designs. At that time governments dealt mostly with direct
armed extortion and military land acquisition, hardly ever with standard
setting.
Actually, despite of what I wrote above, I agree with you that governments
*can* in principle be sometimes modestly useful, also in the area of
standard setting. A government can perform the function of
information-gathering. Certain types of information are expensive, very
useful but cannot be easily commercialized. This pertains to basic science
research, as well as some reference designs. One of the very important
features of basic science is that it is not a government mandate but rather
the expression of an objective reality. No threat of force is needed to
convince reasonable, independent thinkers to follow the results of
metallurgical research into the phase transitions of iron-carbon alloys, and
to use them in their designs of e.g. bridges. Similarly, a good reference
design, or software protocol will be followed by all those who find it
useful, and the best design will be followed by almost everybody, without a
coercive intervention. So, in this case the usefulness of the government is
in developing and placing in the public domain an expensive, very useful but
hard-to-commercialize product or service, which otherwise might appear later
or never. Importantly, as long as the government does not intervene
coercively on behalf of this product, avenues for even better products
(independent standards) are still open.
This is why I was so curious whether the EU government is using force to
implement their wireless standard (as many governments like to do), or if
they simply leave the choice to the individual consumers (as it should be
done).
I previously advocated a similar way of thinking about other areas where the
government intervenes. I suggested replacing the coercive FDA with an agency
dedicated to providing the best information on drugs that research money can
buy, and making sure providers of drugs punctiliously inform their customers
about the drugs they sell. I even think that taxes could be made into fully
optional payments! (the details of this groundbreaking concept are too long
to fit here)
Governments can be useful but not when they "massively intervene". It is the
gentle persuasion and increasing, rather than limiting the choices for
individuals that constitutes the (limited) claim of a good government for my
benevolent cooperation.
As it should be.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:54 MST