[12695] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [long]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Thu May 26 12:58:11 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: djw@eff.org (Daniel J. Weitzner)
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 21:38:01 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, alt-politics-datahighway@cs.utexas.edu,
frezza@radiomail.net, don.wills@swc.com
In-Reply-To: <199405251745.NAA15467@eff.org> from "Daniel J. Weitzner" at May 25, 94 01:45:24 pm
> Frezza is at it again, flooding the net with his extreme right wing
> diatribes. He uses the term "tax" the same way that the word "communist"
> was used in the 50s during the red scares. Well, EFF has been "tax-baited"
> by someone who disagrees with our politics in the same way as HUAC used the
> epithet Communist to discredit political opponents.
>
> EFF has never directly called for an "information tax," in Frezza's words,
> but everyone should be aware that we have supported two kinds of public
> support for net/information access, which, certainly could be characterized
> as taxes. They are these:
>
> 1. Universal services in the current telephone rate structure: In the
> current telephone rate structure there are many internal funding flows from
> certain classes of users to others. For example, it costs more to provide
> telephone service to some users than to other, either because of distance
> or population densities. We implicitly support this kind of rate structure
> in the current monopoly residential phone market. We explicitly rely on
> this kind of pricing to keep single user access to the Internet, other
> information services/networks, and ISDN affordable.
Whoah! That right there should be enough for EVERY customer of ANY current
ISP to rip up their EFF cards, mail 'em back, and enclose a pound of dog
crap with them. What you have proposed right there is the destruction of
an ENTIRE INDUSTRY in favor of the current telephone monopoly!
You ALREADY have access available from HUNDREDS of providers. FIX THE DAMN
PHONE SYSTEM SUBSIDIES THAT PREVENT LOW COST, FLAT RATE LONG DISTANCE and
you'll have more competition for Internet customers than you can imagine --
and costs will hit the FLOOR.
I was wondering when you would come right out and say it -- that is, speak
the truth. You've now done so. You wish to roll the Internet into
everyone's phone bill, whether they want it or not, and you want to destroy
an entire industry that is currently growing at a phenomenal rate.
Oh, and one which has driven costs DOWN by over 50% in less than two years!
All because you are UNWILLING to attack the REAL problem that makes
Internet unaffordable to those in the sticks -- the phone system price
monopoly imposed by mandated-by-law SETTLEMENTS.
So, instead, you go for the easy target -- a group of firms with no
existing serious lobbying effort, and one which has <supported> you up
until this point!
I suspect you just fixed THAT problem. I call for all customers of ISPs
now extant, and the ISPs themselves, to denounce the EFF in public. These
folks want to destroy the marketplace that has brought you affordable
Internet access <TODAY>.
> A network that only serves a limited part of the
> population is useless, therefore it makes sense to price it so that
> everyone (almost) can be online.
Fix the phone system.
> The precise choice of mechanism will depend on what the market
> structure looks like, and EFF is not in a position to predict that. We
> will have to deal with that over time as actual competition evolves.
Actual competition HAS evolved. You haven't been watching.
> 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.
Yes, and HERE you find no argument. Where you find argument is with your
position that basically amounts to the destruction of an industry.
> 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.
Funny how the cost of that access has dropped over FIFTY PERCENT (before
accounting for inflation) over that time period.
> What if Stahlman and Frezza were around when the Communications Act
> of 1934 was debated? That law guarantees all of us access to affordable
> telephone service. Frezza would probably have railed against the
> "entitlements program" being created, claiming that we should just let the
> market take care of providing phone service to rural areas and
> hard-to-serve regions.
As of right now, that is EXACTLY what I would argue. We HAVE the
technology available TODAY to give every man, woman and child ANYWHERE IN
THE US access to a telephone which works. It won't be free, and it will
cost more than in the city. Such is the price of being in the boondocks.
That is a CHOICE that people make.
Choices include COSTS.
> We have also worked for affordable ISDN
> tariffs in a number of states.
Name 'em. You didn't get to Illinois, that much is certain.
> EFF believes that there is a need to gradually upgrade the
> definition of universal services, so that if and when people come to depend
> on multimedia information access for important economic and political
> activities, that no one will be denied access to such services solely
> because they can't afford the cost of transport.
I need a car to get from point "A" to "B" in a reasonable time and at a
reasonable cost, but can't afford one.
The government should provide it by direct subsidy.
I can't afford a house, but really need one.
The government should provide it by direct subsidy.
And on, and on, and on....
> accessible. Market forces will hopefully play a role in keeping prices low
> and quality high, but we should not be so naive as to expect that the
> market alone will meet all needs.
You obviously do NOT understand the first damn thing about the high speed
switching gear required. For instruction in the truth about this, I send
you to the price lists for high speed router equipment over the last five
years. That's a good start.
Explain why the cost of a PC has dropped in real dollar terms per MIP of
power by some 90% or more in that time, while the cost of that high speed
infrstructure equipment has NOT dropped much at all!
Then tell me how you're going to get high speed access in an affordable
fashion to people given these truths.
> This kind of regulation is not a matter of charity to poor, but
> serves to ensure that we have a seamless national communications system.
No, it is a matter of the destruction of an entire industry.
> Ironically, in light of Frezza's sharp critique of
> EFF-as-welfare-statist, we believe that the Open Platform proposal is
> critical for promoting the emergence of a free, open market in new digital
> information services.
Nonsense. You wish to turn it over to the monopolists. To which I say
"bah!", and I hope your membership numbers accurately reflect that in the
months to come.
> Stahlman has nationwide access to MCI Mail because
> of a ubiquitous, affordable telephone network, another result of government
> regulation.
Oh, but if THIS is true then you DO NOT NEED TO REGULATE ANYTHING in the
Internet arena. You can ALREADY buy full Internet access for under $10 a
month, or HALF the cost of a local phone line from most RBOCs!
So what was that about needing to "regulate" this industry?
Just who is paying for your salaries these days anyway? Could it be the
Telcos? Could it be the very monopolists who would win by your proposals?
Naw..... couldn't be.
I call for the EFF to open its books fully to public scrutiny. Who is
contributing what, how much, and when. Down to the penny.
> In closing I want to stress that comments made by Stahlman and
> others on these lists have been of real help to EFF's internal policymaking
> process, just as I hope that they are informative for others on the net.
> EFF makes no promises shape our policies for every political stripe of the
> online world, but we will do our best to listen and engage in active
> dialogue about these issues.
> ......................................................................
> Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Policy Director <djw@eff.org>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation 202-347-5400 (v)
> 1001 G St, NW Suite 950 East 202-393-5509 (f)
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> *** Join EFF!!! Send mail to membership@eff.org for information ***
Riiiight.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
Ask me about Loyalty Pays(tm)| WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net
