[12701] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [long]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Russell Nelson)
Thu May 26 14:44:03 1994
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 00:24 EDT
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
To: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199405251838.OAA16870@eff.org> (message from Stanton McCandlish on Wed, 25 May 1994 14:38:33 -0400 (EDT))
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 14:38:33 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: djw@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com
By contrast, a constantly connected data line, like our T1 for
instance, does not cost any more or less to use or provide whether
one person or 5 or 15 are using it.
But whoa, Stanton, that's like saying that a superhighway to my town
does not cost any more or less to use or provide whether one person or
5 or 15 are using it. There's a HUGE capital cost involved in putting
a superhighway through. Our government was able to build our Defense
Interstate system because of the threat of commie invasion. Heck, for
that matter, it was able to build the Defense Internet for the same
reason.
The commie threat is gone, to be replaced by the deficit/entitlement
threat. As much as I support what the EFF does, every cent of
spending must justify the borrowing needed to support it. And the
only reason to borrow money is because it's going to save you more
money later. And the only reason you might have to spend money later
is for the same reason you would have to spend it now (e.g. to NOT do
so would be inhuman).
And the only reason for government to spend money is because people
aren't going to choose to spend it themselves, yet the people would
benefit from having the money spent. And the only time that happens
is when you the market has (not that you believe it will, but that it
has) failed to supply a good that clearly benefits everyone.
(Frankly, I don't believe there *is* any such good).
And the market is very happily and cheaply supplying Internet
connectivity. In many places in the US, you can get on the Internet
part-time for the same amount of money you might spend on cable TV
full-time. So it's clear to me that there's still a lot of economies
to be made. As cheap as Internet access already is, it's going to get
a lot cheaper.
The net effect of consumer advocates actions will be to lock in a
certain price or technology which will be attractive when introduced,
acceptable when enacted, but would be obsolete shortly thereafter
(because of the time needed to pass the bill).
Oh damn, there I went off on a rant again. If I wasn't wasting so
much time trying to convince you that Internet access IS going to be
cheap and universal (and the only thing the government can do is make
it more expensive and less available), I'd have more time to MAKE
Internet access cheap and universal.
For example, one of the public schools in my county can afford to go
out and buy a 56K leased line. They didn't do it last fall because
they were waiting for the state bureaucracy to get around to doing it.
Now they tell me "We just want to do it and we're tired of waiting.
We have the money; tell us where to spend it."
Sigh. I'm still ranting. Someone, press the send button before I
rant some more!
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
