LETTERS - Letter to the Editor

Industry Standard, The, Feb 5, 2001

OF ALL THE ENDLESS COMMENTARY I'VE read regarding Bush v. Gore, I thought Lawrence Lessig's "The Rules of Politics" [Jan. 22-29] was the most incisive and relevant.

THE BENCH SHOWS WHO'S BOSS

Putting the decision in the context of the precedential value of neutral rules for the flourishing of society, and the AOL decision in particular, was great because it focused not on the presidential outcome, which is probably of modest importance, but on the fundamental importance that the powers that be devote their energy to articulating and maintaining rules, rather than simply issuing rulings.

One thing Lessig didn't stress was that the country as a whole maintained confidence in the rarely used constitutional machinery that began to come into play. We would almost certainly have had an orderly transition to a Bush presidency on a state-by-state delegation vote, but the Supremes alone showed panic while the country remained calm, patient and amused by the giant civics lesson unfolding. Perhaps due in part to their isolation, what we got was a lesson in power.

Daniel Egger

Managing Partner

Eno River Capital

degger@enorivercapital.com

TECH MINDS ITS OWN BUSINESS

REGARDING "UNNATURAL ALLIES" [JAN. 22-29], high-tech executives' perspectives on Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft make one thing abundantly clear: It's all about the money. Social ramifications, legal compromises and ethical repercussions apparently are unimportant, as long as they don't affect the cash flow.

It would appear that, in spite of its legacy of criminal intent, abuse of power and ultimate economic downturn, it's safe to return to the '80s. As Ashcroft himself might implore, may God have mercy on us all.

Peter Altschuler

Chief Creative Officer

Wordsworth & Company

altschuler@wordsworthandco.com

SHEDDING LIGHT ON POWER STRUGGLE

KEVIN RODERICK AND ERIC YOUNG ["Power-Hungry in California," Jan. 15] write that California's energy problems are the result of a failure of a "deregulated" energy market. The facts they report contradict this.

Under government management, no new power plants were being built. Transmission lines were not updated and are now old and inefficient. Only in 1996 did the government pass legislation to correct these deficiencies.

That legislation deregulated only wholesale prices. That partial deregulation has been in effect only since 1998. The government continues to mandate consumer prices below the actual cost of purchasing and delivering power. Further, no new plants are likely to "win approval in the near future."

The article does not mention that more than 20 new generation-plant applications have been filed since the 1996 legislation, and that governments failure to approve them is the root of the shortage.

Charles Pugh

Partner

RTGlobal

chas@rtglobal.net

THE PROBLEMS IN CALIFORNIA RESULT from partial deregulation, not from proper deregulation. The state deregulated wholesale power prices, but not retail prices. (Would you buy a commodity at $100 if you could sell it only at $25?) If retail prices had been deregulated as well, power users would have adjusted their electricity usage in response to the prices they pay. The result: no shortage.

It is my understanding that the utilities bear a share of the responsibility as they contracted to pay those unregulated wholesale prices without taking into account the possibility of a large increase in those prices. The state law, however, prevents them from buying power ahead of demand and hedging against those very high prices.

Most of the responsibility, however, lies with the state of California and its wish to have low power costs for consumers while preventing companies from constructing power sources instate to meet those demands.

Robert L. Kief

Senior Technician, Motorola Service Station

Mobile Communications

rk00253@alltel.net

THUMBS DOWN ON NET MOVIES

I READ "HOLLYWOOD IS READY FOR Action" [Jan. 9], and while I thought there was some excellent information on the digital Hollywood issue, the overall tone and especially the photo caption ("Why go to movie theaters if you can download the flick for free?") made me crazy.

Despite the potential Napster-like concern for the studios, the fact is listening to music and watching a new movie are completely different. A great deal of music listening is done alone or in small groups -- in cars, at the office, while working out and, of course, at parties with friends.

Seeing first-run movies is a completely different experience. The movie is just one piece of the entire experience. It's the popcorn, the Sno-Caps (let's face it, without movie theaters we wouldn't eat Sno-Caps at all), the theater itself. It's a social experience, something we do as a group. It will take more than file-swapping capabilities to change that.

Take this test at The Standard: Ask staffers if their significant others will consider it a date if, instead of going to a movie theater, getting popcorn and watching a movie, you download the film at home -- just the two of you with some microwave popcorn.