Even that was only a temporary improvement as the seven sisters that were spun off merged back into just a handful of survivor firms. During the period when there was actual competition we had a burst of innovation, everything from modems to cell phones. Since the consolidation innovation has slackened off and all that is happened is that some internet type services have migrated to phones as well. The infrastructure is poor compared to other countries. In my neighborhood we have a choice of two providers, the phone company and the cable TV company. Their offerings are almost identical

So, while there has been "something" going on I'm not sure it is directly connected to regulation.

What I see as the fundamental problem is the weakening of democratic mechanisms. The trend in the US has been towards more and more expensive electoral campaigns with fewer and fewer restrictions on spending. Recent attempts (McCain - Feingold) were quickly bypassed.

Elections are now measured by how much money a candidate raises, not by how popular they are or their positions on key issues. Obama was supposed to prove that this wasn't so because he got lots of small donations, but the bulk of his funds still came from the big money interests.

The effect is more pernicious in legislative races where even a seat in an unimportant district can have a campaign costing $1 million per candidate.

What this means is that only the wealthy or those beholding to the wealthy get elected. Since they are wholly owned subsidiaries of big business and the super wealthy they pass legislation which benefits their funders.

Democracy in the US is barely functioning. This is why there has been a rise in wealth inequality and the associated distortions in social welfare. It seems that things are different in most of Europe (UK excepted) where restrictions on buying elections are stronger.

He who pays the piper choses the tune.


Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape