Broadband Wi-Fi.

I agree with most of this:

You might have read books about icebergs, but you will
never know as much about icebergs as the captain of the Titanic did.
How do you explain the awesome and powerful without experiencing them
first hand? If bandwidth was given away, or at least priced at a
minimum, then innovation would take care of the rest: a million flowers
would bloom.

My take on this is that someone
should take the good and worthy folk who are trying to run our telecoms
companies and bang their heads against a brick wall. We should keep
banging their heads until these fools give up with their insane plans
to bombard us with new services, such as video and music downloads.
Just give the people cheap bandwidth, if you do that you set the genie
free.

Telecoms is like the road and water
system, it is a utility and should be run as a public good. There are
millions of engineers and entrepreneurs who are capable of
out-inventing and out-innovating any one inside a telecoms company.
Elsewhere in the world, particularly America, people are grasping this
truth and are taking matters into their own hands.

The
great English economist Ronald Coase won a Nobel Prize in 1991 for
giving his profession a wake-up call. He explained the importance of
transaction costs for the economy. Coase argued that, if you removed
transaction costs, all resources would flow to the places in the
economy where they could achieve maximum efficiency. Reducing
transaction costs is like pumping Prozac into the water supply,
everyone starts to feel happy.

WiFi can energise
cities and economies by beaming high-speed internet access to the parts
of the economy that wires can’t reach. The US city of Philadelphia has
grasped this and has announced plans to roll out WiFi. Mayor John
Street sees the project as a great way of promoting Philadelphia:
"Think of all the business transactions that could take place on
something as simple as a park bench. Philadelphia has the resources and
know how to make this happen," he says.

A utility, yes, a public good, quite possibly, build it and they will come, almost certainly, but I’m still not quite sure about getting cities like Philadelphia building it. As Coase himself noted, public goods can indeed be provided by the private sector. The question is, who will do it better?

Quite possibly (even probably) not the incumbent telecoms suppliers as they would simply be eating their own lunch. But that just means loosening the regulation to allow new entrants into the market. Not, necessarily, bringing in those who do such a good job of running the schools to do it.

5 responses

  1. It is astonishing that anyone can advocate public sector control of something lke this. Is the public sector best placed to pick the winning technology or will the market decide better? The answer is obvious. It is all happening without the dead hand of public sector control.
    There is a battle brewing between 3G technologies and Wi-Max. They may both have their place for wireless broadband access. But te consumer will (and should) decide.
    Incidentally, although Cambridge Silicon Radio now offers Wi-Fi (802.11) devices, it has got to where it is through another radio technology, Bluetooth – it is only a minor player in Wi-Fi. The guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  2. Remittance Man Avatar
    Remittance Man

    Ok, so the transaction costs are “eliminated” by the government providing the service. But providing that service still costs money; setting up the infrastructure, keeping it working, developing new and better technology etc. These costs would still have to be born by the provider, in this case some form of state enterprise. And if the money wasn’t raised through service fees it would have to come from the general fiscus (our taxes).
    So instead of the users paying for the service they get, everyone would pay, even the little old ladies who can’t work a toaster let alone a WiFi enabled multi-functional computer thingy. At best we would all pay for a system we didn’t all use.
    But this isn’t an ideal world. The people at whom the whole scheme is targeted, small businessmen, are very adept at working the tax system to their advantage, so they would probably pay very little towards the system they use. The other major users, teenage surfers downloading porn and MP3’s, don’t usually pay taxes either. So what you will have is the low or non-users paying for a service for other people. And this is fair, how?
    Oh and since it would be run by the government the service would be crap as well.
    Sounds like a bad idea from someone who doesn’t really know what he is talking about.
    RM

  3. Chris harper Avatar
    Chris harper

    And by providing it free at the point of use the state will, of course, render it much more difficult for those who can provide a better service with the next but two generations technology to do so at a price which makes the investment worth making.

  4. The article doesn’t make the point clearly, but I think the author is complaining that the telcos offer a bundle of products, whereas he would like to purchase bandwidth on its own.
    The telcos are using bundling to limit competition in what is a commodity product. The answer is for the regulator to force them to unbundle. Market forces will then do the rest.
    James

  5. Over in Canary Wharf we have free wi-fi. But then here in Thatcherland the area is owned by the private sector. The freeholders think it makes it better for the customers in a business district.
    Not so good for the Starbucks that used to charge for bandwidth…

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading