sweeping changes as the federal court- mandated break-up of AT&T into several companies, and the ‘open net- work architecture’ policies advanced by the Federal Communications Com- mission, new forms of telecommunica- tions product and service competition have become possible. With a new national playing field for competition, many issues that had previously been addressed by the federal government suddenly became more relevant to, and the province of, state-level policy makers, particularly state public utili- ties commissioners. However, it is not unreasonable to doubt whether state- level governance is anachronistic or at least inadequate to the task of realiz- ing the ‘coherent’ plan the authors claim to provide. There are a number of reasons for doubt. one being that the geographic ‘units’ that make the most cultural, political and economic sense as cohesive rural locales do not necessarily obey state boundaries. Sometimes cohesive locales are small- er than state level, while in other cases they include geographic territory from two or more states. Developing poli- cies that are adequately reponsive to cross-state rural units on a state-level basis is likely to be a cumbersome process, for it would entail coordinat- ing the sometimes conflicting agendas of the policy makers and development experts from different states. Another complication is the fact that the break-up of AT&T resulted in the formation of regional, interstate telecommunications companies. The seven post-divestiture ‘Bell operating companies’ (BOCs) do not have geo- graphically parallel legislative or reg- ulatory policy makers responding to their business practices the way the former AT&T once had at the federal level. The BOCs do regulated busi- ness not only within their designated multistate areas, but they also do un- regulated business in other states and in other countries, which makes it difficult for state-level regulators to monitor or to have much effect on BOCs’ out-of-state business practices, regardless of whether those practices affect in-state rates, products and ser- vices. It is not clear that the lowering of political emphasis from the national to the state level brings us much closer to understanding and accommodating the regional specificities of rural eco- nomies. Indeed, with 50 states, each having its own difficulties of coordi- nating regulatory and development policies, the problem of arbitrary boundaries cutting through rural areas appears to be exacerbated. This prob- lem illustrates the more general point that 18th and 19th century political geography is increasingly circum- vented and weakened by the progres- sive globalization of capital. In the absence of stronger recommendations for interstate coordination. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONML Electronic Byways does not adequately address how state-level policies can help rural America face the challenges of global markets. Despite these and other shortcom- Book reviews/Letter to the Editor ings that warrant further inquiry, the book should be mined as a rich com- pilation of details about rural telecom- munications in America and for its thoughtful arguments and provoca- tions about a subject of growing com- plexity and importance in telecom- munications policy - the place of ad- vanced telecommunications in rural development. The authors have pro- duced a flawed but impressive study. Andrew Calabrese School of Journalism and M ass Communication Boulder, CO, USA A response to this review from Edwin Parker and Heather Hudson is pub- lished below as a Letter to the Editor. Letter to the Editor Providing practical strategies Andrew Calabrese raises some impor- tant issues that deserve further dia- logue in his review of our book, Elec- tronic Byways: State Policies for Rural Development Through Telecommuni- cations, in this issue of Telecommuni- cations Policy. Our goal in Electronic Byways was to propose telecommunications poli- cies that can reduce inequities in ac- cess to telecommunications in rural America and thereby contribute to improved living standards and quality of life. Qualitative case study and quantitative statistical evidence were presented to support such policies. Earlier evidence for this position is presented in our previous book, Rural America in the Information Age: Tele- communications Policy for Rural De- velopment, and in several other stu- dies and reports.’ There are four major attributes of access to telecommunications: facili- ties, services, connectivity and price. We have addressed these attributes in the book’s policy recommendations, which are designed to provide practic- al strategies for regulators and policy makers to ensure that quality of ser- vice in rural areas is comparable to urban areas; that services will not be provided in communication islands that are unconnected to each other; and that pricing does not unduly penalize rural residents by making ser- vices that are available through a local call in a city unaffordable in rural areas. Calabrese correctly points out that not all models and definitions of de- velopment are the same and that im- provements in aggregate quantitative measures, such as gross national pro- duct, may result from policies that bring little or no improvement in the quality of life for rural residents. National quantitative statistics do not, by themselves, prove that rural invest- ment will lead to improvements in the rural economy. He also currectly points out that the two states of Ore- gon and Washington, for which more detailed rural data are provided, are not necessarily representative of all of rural America. As Calabrese points out, much useful further research could be done to determine other fac- tors necessary for development and how telecommunications interacts with other factors. Nevertheless, the cumulative body of evidence from both quantitative and case study data does all point in the same direction. TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY January/February 1993 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJ 91