IP Modernization: Regulate Means or Ends?

At least in part, one of the issues regulators and other policymakers face when trying to craft regulations that promote investment in new communications facilities and also protect consumers is whether to focus on "ends" or "means."

As states such as Kentucky work to deregulate some elements of communications, the hope is that more flexibility about "means" (how services are brought to consumers) will lead to more investment that achieves the desired "ends."

In other words, the Kentucky bill would allow service providers more freedom to use different networks or means of delivery, rather than requiring use of specific network platforms to do so. In most cases, observers believe, that will mean use of Long Term Evolution wireless networks, rather than the fixed network. 

On the other hand, the Kentucky bill also has provisions to protect consumers in rural areas.

Communities with fewer than 5,000 land lines would have to be served by the existing fixed network, unless another provider offered a similar service. Some observers will say that offers virtually no protection, since cable operators undoubtedly offer voice and data in most such markets. 

The point is whether the greatest good, for the greatest number, is provided when service providers have more flexibility, or whether better results are obtained when network choices also are specified.