[10900] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Schenectady [was Two-way Internet service]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kent W. England)
Mon Mar 14 02:29:51 1994
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 18:46:04 -0800
To: <stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com>
From: kwe@cerf.net (Kent W. England)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
At 12:30 PM 3/12/94 -0500, Dick St.Peters wrote:
>
>>From one perspective (size), yes. From another (location), it tilts
>the playing field even more steeply. The networking that was supposed
>to free people from the need to concentrate in urban areas is turning
>into just one more business necessity not available in the countryside,
>one more reason why the rural poor won't see many of the new jobs.
Dick;
I suggest that if some coalition in Schenectady were to get together, build
some local infrastructure and attach to the national infrastructure through
a couple of local PoPs, Schenectady could become part of the information
infrastructure at bandwidth commensurate with Cambridge or any other metro
area.
There are certain to be advantages for Schenectady over other metro areas
(lower priced homes, less traffic, better schools?) I'd like to see
Schenectady, Aspen and Nantucket join the infrastructure. I'm glad San
Diego is already plugged in. :-)
Seriously, in future the global information net will be global but still a
sparse matrix. However, there is no reason that smaller metro areas can't
become players and I am sure that many will. I seriously predict Aspen as
one of the first, since so many info professionals have already relocated
there and conduct business today with fon, fax, FedEx and planes.
--Kent
