One comment someone made at WTF!?! was whether people who work for monopoly telcos know they are doing evil [in holding back the tide of human progress]. There were many references (including my own) to the big, bad telcos. I’d just like to put my amateur economist hat on for a moment, and pass comment.
I’m in essence in agreement with Professor Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago, who believes that business’s sole duty is to make profit. I think we all acknowledge that there are ethical bounds that surround that mission. You can’t bump off your competitors too literally. But declining to extract the maximum from your customers isn’t an ethical issue. You MUST do it. And it’s a good thing.
Why? Because that’s how the price mechanism works. It sends a signal that attracts competitors with better, faster, cheaper products. You can argue that the price mechanism is ineffective because the telcos work to avoid competition by rigging the rules. But that doesn’t mean eliminating the monopoly price signal is wrong. Regulated prices just entrench the status quo forever.
So, no, telcos aren’t evil. They have no moral scale you can pin them on. They just are. If you don’t like it, go set up some competition, or agitate to change the political rules that keep them artificially in business.
Posted by Martin Geddes at 12:55 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/215.
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When evil is good:
»
Telcos are not evil after all ... from dougdaulton.com
One comment someone made at WTF!?! was whether people who work for monopoly telcos know they are doing evil [in holding back the tide of human progress]. There were many references (including my own) to the big, bad telcos. I’d...
[Read more]
»
Telcos are not evil after all ... from dougdaulton.com
One comment someone made at WTF!?! was whether people who work for monopoly telcos know they are doing evil [in holding back the tide of human progress]. There were many references (including my own) to the big, bad telcos. I’d...
[Read more]
The word is "amoral" -- morality, good, bad, Christian, twisted or otherwise, just does not affect their motivation or behavior. This is the main reason why the law should not treat corporations as individuals with rights.
Posted by: at April 7, 2004 07:01 AMOh. I think your too kind. Evil is an ethical question. So sure you can possibly declare them un-evil by placing their behavior into an ethical frame where in the behavior is acceptible; i.e. the rent seeking positive feedback loop of the free market.
But this logic breaksdown the moment the market is no longer free. The moment the field of action shifts to the public good regulatory environment provided by the state; then the question becomes a political and cultural question.
The capture of the regulatory mechinism is unethical and given it's degree it approachs "evil." The political process exists to work out our differences, not to encourage one constituency to capture it all. When on constituency plays it's politics that way they become evil.
Further, and more fundimentally, we have the forces of nature. The shifting foundation of technology is like plate techtonics. Firms that fail to address those geologic forces aren't evil; they are fools. Firms that use regulatory capture in an excessive attempt to frustrate the playing out of those forces are close to evil given the consequence on the rest of the economy. It might not be evil, but it certainly isn't nice to frustrate nature.
If the CEOs of the legacy telcos didn't spend their time working on regulatory capture, then their boards would replace them in a heartbeat. The problem is exogenous to the telcos. Yes, the focus on politics instead of business model change is likely to ultimately prove fatal. But it was the regulatory and political environment that created the monster telcos as we know them (via PTTs or de-facto equivalents).
So I think David is only half right. Telcos are indeed "non persons" and amoral. But the regulatory environment is not.
So the correct question is not whether you can work at a telco with a clean conscience, but rather whether you can work at the FCC (or non-US equivalent) and operate antediluvian anti-competition rules with a clear conscience. (I needn't even ask if having a conscience is related to being a politician who helps create those rules.)
Martin
Posted by: at April 7, 2004 09:16 AMI wasn't really wondering if their consciences were bothering them. I was asking (although of course I didn't state it as well then as now) if they truly believed that the intelligent network was better than the stupid network.
-russ
I don't think most telco execs are explicitly aware of the issue. This may be somewhat surprising given that it is the central organizing force of the industry. I have seen plenty of comments to the effect that "we don't want to be a dumb pipe". But you have to be *for* something as well. I would be surprised if the classics of the end-to-end literature have been read by more than a tiny fraction of the heads of telcos.
As to the individual conscience issue, I'm with Deming and attribute errors to systems ahead of individuals. The issue is as much one of the quality of representative democracy and the ability of monied interests to set the rules of the game as anything specific to telecom. Vote! Campaign! Rebel!
Posted by: at April 7, 2004 10:51 AM"But declining to extract the maximum from your customers isn’t an ethical issue. You MUST do it. And it’s a good thing."
"The wise shephard shears the sheep, he doesn't skin it."
Posted by: at April 7, 2004 07:03 PMAn Aussie journalist was in New Zealand doing stories where he saw a Kiwi farmer doing unnatural things with a sheep. He approached the Kiwi and firstly asked, "What sort of sheep is that?" He scribbled down the farmer's reply - "a Merino". The next question was, "Do you shear them?" The farmer replied hastily, "No! Go and find yer own!"
(Sorry, Hamish, I couldn't resist)
Posted by: at April 7, 2004 08:25 PM