Political Silly Season

[Commentary] Some simply decide to describe the “political market place” in that way for a variety of reasons. It can be easy to be dismissive of politicians and it is hard work to really get below the surface and find the facts. And it may suit the purposes of some better simply to either dismiss or ignore evidence to the contrary and conclude that all politicians are the same. I feel that way when I hear some advocates talk about competition in the broadband market.

Here is an example from a hearing that occurred just the other day that partially focused on competition in the mobile market place:
“Consumers are being locked in to the few large incumbents offering service and competitors are being locked out of the marketplace.”

Or take this statement from the same hearing by another advocate:
“The dominant firms in a communications industry, whatever they may say, have little interest in competition. Left alone, history suggests the industry will drift toward monopoly or duopoly.”

The implication of these comments is that consumers have little or no choice, that carriers don’t have to work hard to satisfy and attract consumers, and that the market is dominated by big companies. Of course the essence of a competitive market is consumer choice. Consumers drive markets that are working well. What is interesting about these comments – and about the testimony of these advocates – is that while consumer choice is at the heart of what makes a market competitive, neither advocate cited any evidence that consumers are not making or are not able to make choices. They cited a lot of other data but nothing on this fundamental point. Why? I think it is for the same reason that some castigate politicians for all being the same - it is simply easier to ignore evidence to the contrary.