[11651] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The EFF and Universal Access -- and Andrew Carnegie
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Rothman)
Tue Apr 12 20:04:12 1994
In-Reply-To: <199404121336.AA18362@radiomail.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 12:45:19 -0400
To: "Bill Frezza" <frezza@radiomail.net>
Cc: brodsky@radiomail.net, interesting-people@eff.org,
farber@central.cis.upenn.edu, opfer@radiomail.net,
stahlman@radiomail.net, com-priv@psi.com, ggilder@mcimail.com,
barlow@eff.org, jswatz@well.sf.ca.us, kgs@panix.com,
media15@radiomail.net, spiff@radiomail.net
From: "David Rothman" <rothman@netcom.com>
Reply-To: rothman@netcom.com
>Go read it, particularly the first Policy Priority in
>Section B entitled: Redefine Universal Service and Ensure Necessary
>Funding. I quote from the [EFF] document
>
>"Extending this guarantee means ensuring that new basic
>digital services are affordable and ubiquitously available. Equity
>and the democratic imperative also demand that these services
>meet the needs of people with disabilities, the elderly,
>and others with special needs. Failure to do so is sure to create
>a society of information "haves" and "have-nots"."
I'm worried. Are you implying that EFF might also approve of
entitlements like public schools and free public libraries? My own
theory is that EFF is the product of a secret cabal organized by the
Carnegie Foundation. Andrew Carnegie was a cunning Marxist then, and his
spiritual brethern today are equally subversive. Think about it.
Carnegie would give away money for the construction of public libraries,
but he would not fund their operation. He believed that the taxpayers
had that responsibility. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin would all have
approved of this Communistic redistribution of income. :-)
Kidding aside, Carnegie was just one of a number of capitalists who
believed--and believe, present tense--in the link between mass education
and democracy.
Without free libraries and public schools, just how much does the vote
mean? Would you like a society in which people's exact voting power
reflected the sizes of their bank accounts? That's what the late
billionaire H.L. Hunt proposed. Or how about just a good, old-fashioned
government without frills, except a program to make the trains run on
time? Why squander tax money on civics classes or on gophers with
government information? Neither is cost-effective in a bottomline way
that would make your heart pound with joy. But consider the
alternatives.
Clearly, then, government has a role in making it *possible* for
*individuals* to improve themselves and vote sensibly. The question is:
Just what's involved here beyond Plain Old Telephone Service? I myself,
just me speaking, no group, do not think we all have a right to free HBO
or even free CNN. But we certainly are all entitled to free public
schools and libraries, and their digital equivalents.
So that we read your own postings in perspective, I would love to know
your general philosophy of government. Must every road be a toll road?
Must we privatize the Pentagon? And, most of all, just where do you
stand on public schools and public libraries? To get really basic, who
do you think should have the right to vote--a question that's highly
relevant, given the link between mass education and democracy? I'm not
being rhetorical here; I'd appreciate knowing. Thanks.
-David Rothman
**************************************************************************
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
rothman@netcom.com the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
**************************************************************************
