[12762] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [long]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel J. Weitzner)
Sat May 28 03:24:10 1994
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 12:05:06 -0600
To: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger), mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
From: djw@eff.org (Daniel J. Weitzner)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, don.wills@swc.com, com-priv@psi.com
Karl,
You've asked 4 relatively straightforward questions and I'm going to try to
give relatively straightforward answers.
For a more complete answer to these questions, you should actually look at
my response to Barry's Shein's post of Wednesday evening, where I explained
that we make a big separation between regulation of bit transport carriers
(wireline and other physcial layer transport providers) and valued-added
network providers (those who provide IP services, etc.)
I tried, two days ago, to indicate that all of our discussion of universal
service funding involves regulation of transport providers, not value-added
networks.
Let me be very clear, thought, that this position is based on assessment of
what is currently the most effective way of achieving the goal of broad,
affordable access to an open infrastructure. That goal is the principle
that we are working for. Free market mechanisms in the IP services arena
seem to be the most effective way of getting to that goal, and, I have
every reason to believe, will continue to provide quality service at a low
price.
But for those who revere the market above all else, I want to make explicit
the implication of the above paragraph. We are working for the sake of
broad access, not merely for the sake of a free market. EFF believes
strongly in the virtues of market-driven production, but that is not the
only value that guides us.
Sorry for having to articulate a nuanced position, but it happens to be
what we believe.
At 5:25 PM 5/26/94 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>Does the EFF, now or in the future, support, lobby, act towards legislation
I'm not going to predict the future, ours or anyone else's. But I will
answer based on our current position.
>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
No
>
>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).
No.
>
>
>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
No. But they should provide high-speed transport and equitable interconnection.
>
>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
No.
>
>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?
No.
**************************************************************************
"Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy."
--Orson Welles
......................................................................
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 ***
