We are all aware of the CAS fiasco. The cable operators provided bad service and consumers did not have adequate choice in their cable TV channel selection. So the government mandated the universal usage of the set-top box. The argument being that this would offer more choice to the consumer. The argument is of course flawed; we cannot increase choice by reducing competition. If indeed CAS is beneficial enough, consumers will demand it, and the free market will ensure its introduction and spread. There is no need to enforce its use through laws, regulations and orders that eliminate its competitor.

Today, my parents struggle with multiple remote controls and poor quality while they pay more than they used to. They would like to go back to the good old days of pre-selected channels, single remote and lower monthly charges. But they do not have that choice anymore.

Another example is that of technology standards. Recently the establishment (academia and government) voted in favour of a single standard in the internet space, whereas the industry voted to accept the simultaneous operation of more than one standard. Life may be simpler if there is a single standard, but the consumer knows what is best for her. If the industry (the consumer) feels that they would rather have a choice of standards, by all means allow it.

As I type this out using a standard QWERTY keyboard, I know that I am using something that is not the best possible. Experts have measured efficiency and quality and found this keyboard quite inferior to others. Thankfully, they did not ban the use of such a keyboard. Had they done that, I would have gone to the black market and bought one, or asked someone to surreptitiously make one for me. As an user, I know that QWERTY is the best for me, whatever the experts may say.

... contd.