[12660] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [long]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Don Wills)
Wed May 25 21:16:08 1994
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 13:15:20 -0600
To: djw@eff.org (Daniel J. Weitzner)
From: don.wills@swc.com (Don Wills)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, mech@eff.org
With regard to the following position in EFF's Open Platform:
>2. Direct subsidy to end users: EFF has supported direct goverment support
>to subsidize network access for libraries, schools, and other public
>institutions, where those institutions could not otherwise afford to be
>online. We first made these arguments during congressional debates about
>internet commercialization, and still, as far as I know, support this
>notion. In 1992, when internet commercialization was still a relatively
>unknown quantity, we predicted that market forces would go a long way
>toward lowering prices and increases access, but that some institutions
>might still need direct support. At the time, the monopoly internet
>provider (ANS/Merit) and its supporters argued that if you opened the
>internet market to competition, then many public institutions would never
>be able to afford net access. As an alternative, EFF favored direct
>support as a way to enable users to purchase service on the competitive
>market, and because we recognized that some institutions would just never
>have the resources to purchase access to the net.
>
Do you really advocate the federal government funding to local libraries
and schools? Or do you advocate free or reduced rate network services to
libraries and schools?
If the latter - Why do we allow book and magazine publishers to charge the
same or MORE for their products to libraries than they charge to
individuals? Could it be that they wouldn't sell to them otherwise? Maybe
we need to force (via regulation) book publishers to provide universal
access and reduced rates to libraries and schools!
Don't you folks at EFF understand how ludicrous your position is?
Don Wills
