[12730] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [long]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Fri May 27 09:27:37 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 17:25:28 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, don.wills@swc.com, djw@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199405262200.SAA24251@eff.org> from "Stanton McCandlish" at May 26, 94 06:00:35 pm
> > The hell it doesn't.
> >
> > Let's say that each "user" has 128kbps of bandwidth available to them.
> >
> > If 15 of them "use" it at once, then there is NOT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND.
> > Therefore, you must buy TWO T1s, which now certainly DOES cost you more
> > money. Or, you can leave your customers twisting in the breeze with
>
> You've missed the entire point.
....
> In other words, it does not cost the telco any more to provide us a T1
> line that is used by more than one person that it would to provide a T1
> used by only one person.
It certainly does if the line is in adaquate to HOLD the traffic. Then it
costs <every> user of the line -- or the person providing the line -- to
keep the performance as people intend and believe they will get.
> Your entire diatribe has *nothing to do with the subject at hand*. Who
> cares if a libarary would have to buy another line because they have too
> many users? So maybe they'll have to have 2 copies of Webster's
> collegiate dictionary too. It is completely and totally unrelated to the
> issues of whether or not libraries will be or should be subsidized, and
> what drives the telecom and information (or book) markets.
Ok, Stanton, four <yes> or <no> questions I would like answers to. No more
dodging the questions:
Does the EFF, now or in the future, support, lobby, act towards legislation
or advise legislators in any fashion that the following should occur:
1) Internet providers should, in any way, shape or form, perform
cost-shifting under government mandate to provide a subsidy
to libraries.
YES or NO please
2) Internet providers should, in any way, shape or form, perform
cost-shifting under government mandate to provide a subsidy
to individuals who currently do not have access to the Internet
due to any reason whatsoever (can't afford it, live in rural
areas, etc).
3) Telephone companies should be required to provide access to the
Internet as a part of their basic phone service, or provided
at a regulated cost set by any government agency.
YES or NO please
4) Monopoly telephone companies should be permitted (or required) to
cost-shift the cost of providing Internet access to their subscribers
to the general rate-paying public.
YES or NO please
Will the EFF make their stance on the four points above public, and make a
statement to the same, under penalty of fraudulent misrepresentation
charges brought by their membership should they be shown to have lied
in the future?
Basically, I am asking you if the EFF stands for the destruction of the
current Internet Service Provider marketplace -- or not.
I await your <official>, on the record response.
Thanks.
--
--
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
