[10899] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The FCC strikes the Internet (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Mon Mar 14 02:12:41 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: love@essential.org (James Love)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 20:30:00 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, nelson@crynwr.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.85.9403132152.A2015-0100000@essential> from "James Love" at Mar 13, 94 09:08:53 pm
> On Sun, 13 Mar 1994, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> stuff delete on the same point
>
> Karl, I don't know who you are talking to. I can't recall ever making
> any proposals for free internet access for anyone. Am I missing
> something here, or do you just enjoy assuming that anyone who is
> interested in broader access to the Internet also believes the service
> should be available for free?
What do you call ENFORCED flat-rate Internet pricing promulgated by regulatory
policy enacted through law? I would call that "free", especially when the next
step (as it always is) is to define it as a "right" which is then
subsidized by the government. Witness the "lifeline" services which we all
pay for, which then got turned into flat-rate phone access at the same
price.
Guess who pays for that "free" access. You and I. We subsidize those who
"need" a phone, just like we will subsidize those who "need" Internet
access.
The only winners in a flat-rate Internet vehicle promulgated by regulatory
authority are the telcos. Period. Everyone else withers on the vine.
> > People have to put in an EFFORT to get things. This is as it should be,
>
> Yeah, and some people should put a little more effort into listening
> before they go on the attack.
>
> - jamie
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> James Love, Taxpayer Assets Project; internet: love@essential.org
And some people should quit pontificating about how the government has to
get involved in the Internet.
Again, James, if you want to get involved in this AT ALL, go after the
problems with long-haul telecommunications and the local loop. You can
start by finding a way to get rid of the MANDATED per-minute charge assessed
at BOTH ENDS of the LEC <> IXC link.
Note that I did not say "mandate flat-rate interconnection". Nope.
NOWHERE do I advocate that the government FORCE this. I advocate that the
government NOT force the imposition of settlements on the
telecommunications companies. As it stands right now those settlements are
a matter of law.
Doing this would be a TRUE good to society. You'd accomplish a number of
things:
1) Make flat-rate national phone service possible.
2) Make flat-rate CELLULAR phone service possible.
3) Remove ALL the communications inequities between rural and urban
areas EXCEPT those directly related to the location of the person
(ie: higher wire cost to get from the CO to the house).
4) Make flat-rate email, Internet and other services available to
everyone on a national scale, overnight.
5) GREATLY enhance the competitive marketplace in the provision
of Internet services.
6) Piss off a lot of LECs, and make a lot of companies that would
compete with the monopolists VERY happy.
Now what was that about "serving the public good" again?
--
--
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.
