Laserfiche WebLink
MACTA WHITE PAPER <br />Page 4 <br />provider. Cries of "Foul" emanate from other providers of the same service who are regulated <br />by another scheme because of who they are and not which service they provide. <br />Hence, the primary assertion of this policy discussion is that a new regulatory scheme <br />must be developed not tied to the provider, but instead tied to services. Whoever provides <br />regulated services must play by the same rules. <br />Two general branches of regulation will be developed- -one for essential, utility <br />communication services, and one for nonessential, non - utility communication services. The only <br />determination which needs to be made when a new technology emerges is whether it is a utility <br />or not. Public decision makers would then apply the appropriate scheme. Public decision <br />makers could keep up with one such determination without having to amend (piece -meal) the <br />statute in response to each emerging technology. <br />This serves the public policy need to not only foster competition, but to level the field <br />so that competitors can compete on an equal footing. If providers of similar services are <br />regulated under different statutes, this will not be the case. <br />Under the current scheme, providers can be expected to argue that it would be better if <br />no one was regulated under any scheme. Public policy makers find themselves confused by the <br />providers' retreat to existing statues which address them as providers, regardless of the service <br />to be provided. Significant public policy interests are sacrificed in the name of "leveling the <br />field" and letting competition take its course. <br />A key problem is the fact that public policymakers have not defined effective competition <br />related to any particular service. While the existence of monopolies in the delivery of utility <br />service should be favored, competition, on the contrary, should be favored for nonessential <br />services. Absent a clear defmition of effective competition (which may vary for various <br />services), important public policy issues are lost as providers define themselves as utilities and, <br />by association, attempt to include all services they offer as utility services. As a result, policy <br />makers must also clearly define utility/essential service and distinguish such services from non- <br />utility/nonessential services. <br />Providers would have policy makers believe that leveling the field means eliminating <br />regulation. A premise of this discussion, however, is that it is possible to regulate similar <br />communication services (regardless of the provider) without eliminating regulation altogether. <br />Such a discussion must then begin with the identification of public policy concerns <br />inherent in the use of public rights -of -way for profit by providers of communication services, <br />absent effective competition. This discussion anticipates that many public policy concerns <br />will arise from such circumstances. <br />Page 5 <br />