Legacy Regulation a Barrier to Network Modernization?

Nothing is more normal in the communications business than contestants lobbying for regulations that support their own business interests, whatever the "public policy" implications might be. Equally normal is the "lag" between regulatory frameworks that represent a technology neutral approach to getting citizens and consumers the "best" services at the lowest possible price.

It might be tempting to blame regulators for being "behind the curve," but that isn't quite fair. Regulators work in a highly political environment where substantial political pressures have to be accommodated. Many competitive communications providers simply acknowledge that larger enterprises in the communications business have more employees, hence voters, hence influence.

Likewise, small rural telcos have incumbency in their favor: they are the established providers of "last resort" communications services in isolated or rural communities, and regulators are loathe to upset them. None of that has prevented upstart competitors, including satellite, fixed wireless and even "dominant" mobile service providers from making the argument that the best way to provide advanced services in rural areas is to support efficient providers that can deliver services the fastest, at the lowest cost. 

But there always are political issues. Economic issues are a factor as well. Though the Federal Communications Commission has in past years given subsidies to mobile and fixed network providers, few argue that such disbursements, supporting two or more providers in an area, make as much sense as choosing one provider and targeting resources.

State regulators increasingly agree, and are regularly granting wireless providers status as carriers of last resort, meaning mobile service providers are eligible for subsidies that in past years have gone exclusively to landline telcos. 

Beyond that, competing providers are governed by industry-unique rules. Satellite, cable TV, competitive local exchange carriers and fixed wireless providers, for example, operate under distinct regulatory frameworks, though providing the same services. 

In a world without politics, that might not happen. But we do not live in a world without politics. And for that reason, virtually all competitors will complain, from time to time, that the rules are unfair. They are.