A job advertisement in today's edition of The Economist newspaper tells us much of what needs to be known about the predicament facing modern telcos. The small ad is for a "Head of Regulatory Strategy" and the strapline asks, 'Have you got what it takes to succeed in this regulatory arena?'.

Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that eircom, the Irish PTO that is the originator of this particular piece of recruitment advertising, is in any way unique. On the contrary, incumbents the world over (and their new entrant rivals) are positively wedded to the notion that, by playing the 'game' of regulation, commercial advantage can be legitimately sought and oft-times won.

Today's downsized telcos have in most cases resisted the temptation to shed 'fat' in their regulatory arms even while ditching basic or applied research capabilities and resources. On paper, lawyers ought to be easier to fire than engineers but in practice they are sacrosanct. Perhaps the truth is that the former are more likely to countersue in defence of their rights.

The reason is clear. A minor regulatory skirmish won in the name of corporate interest and "strategy" may produce a one-off or recurring windfall of millions of dollars in revenue. In contrast, an engineering innovation has roughly a one-in-a-million chance of turning a buck. Added to which, most successful innovations originate by accident or from without the confines of a dedicated organisation.

It is therefore a funny world in which technology companies rely on "regulatory strategy", rather than technology itself, to determine their fates. And here we were, thinking this sort of nonsense only happens in America. No guys, it's everywhere.
Jim Chalmers