[10894] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The FCC strikes the Internet (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Mon Mar 14 00:41:37 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: love@essential.org (James Love)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 19:41:27 -0600 (CST)
Cc: nelson@crynwr.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.85.9403131541.A1116-0100000@essential> from "James Love" at Mar 13, 94 03:49:41 pm
> On Sun, 13 Mar 1994, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Arrrrrgggghhhhh!!!! I pay my $25/month to PSI, and I get to send and
> > receive as much email as I want. I have flat rate phone service, so I
> > can stay on the modem all day for all it costs me.
> >
> > I REALLY don't know what your problem is, Jamie. If you want email to be
> > "as free as the air", then it's going to end up as polluted as the air.
>
> Well hold on a moment Russell. Flat rate pricing, which you have now,
> isn't free.
Correct. And, IMHO, it shouldn't be free. Nothing is really "free",
James. All you can do is shift costs from one person to another. Those
who clamor for "free" access to the net are really arguing for a tax so
they can have their net.fix.
I can make the same argument for a "free" car for everyone. I can make the
same argument for "free" electricity. I can make the same argument for
"free" cable TV, HBO, Showtime, and CNN.
Of course, I bet you only look at one of these as needing to be "free".
Internet, right? Yet there are lots of other people who would argue for
"free" items in other areas.
Certainly, if there is something that ought to be "free", it would be
housing and food. Yet NEITHER OF THESE BASIC NECESSITIES IS, IN FACT,
FREE. Public assistance, WHERE AVAILABLE, fails to cover the cost of these
necessities in many areas of the country.
People have to put in an EFFORT to get things. This is as it should be,
IMHO. "Free" turns into "I have a <right> to this" awfully quick and then
you have a nation of couch potatoes who don't give a damn about working for
that which they are "entitled" to.
> There are two problems with internet access that concern us. First,
> while some cities have low cost flat rate access available, many cities
> are not so lucky.
In your fervor to provide "free" access, you would put companies like
mine out of business. Instead why not get legislation passed which forces
FREE long distance phone service, or FREE local phone service. Then all
those who are "have nots" can get low-cost flat-rate Internet access from
the ALREADY EXISTING providers.
I know its politically inexpedient to take on the telcos, but in fact
low-cost flat-rate telephone service would bring MUCH more societal benefit
than forcing telcos to provide Email service at some fixed price. Not only
can you move data, you can actually talk to someone as well!
> Second, we are concerned that the current settlements
> policies might change as the NSF funding disappears. Others are not
> very concerned about this.
I'm not. The CIX agreements run for two years, so the MINIMUM timeline
for this is two years from any announced CIX policy change. Worry about
it when that happens.
IF it does, I'll be the first to set up an equivalent of the CIX here in
Chicago (nice central location) with a "no settlement" policy. I suspect
others will do likewise. Too many people, including some rather large
companies, have too much invested in this path to change their tune
tomorrow.
> James Love, Taxpayer Assets Project; internet: love@essential.org
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
