[12806] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
was Re: What is required for information access? was
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Gingery)
Sun May 29 16:31:23 1994
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 00:59:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: Bruce Gingery <lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu>
To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.com>
Cc: Bill Frezza <frezza@radiomail.net>, com-priv@psi.com,
alt-politics-datahighway@cs.utexas.edu, djw@eff.org
In-Reply-To: <m0q7Q0o-000Bc2C@mercury.mcs.com>
On Sat, 28 May 1994, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > <We'd like to see an
> > environment where access is so cheap, that little subsidy is required, but
> > we are simply not willing to rely on market mechanisms alone to determine
> > who has access to information and who is without it.>
> >
> > Fine. To have access one needs to have a network connection and a computer
> > to plug into it.
>
> And therein lies the rub.
> Those people who are in "do-gooder" mode and wish to play the subsidy game
> have forgotten the most important issue in this debate -- that the computer
> is still a thousand-dollar (or more) item.
And therein lies a fallacy in the whole argument on BOTH sides. We need
an ultra-high-speed network to handle interactive multi-media ... Of
course we do. We need access available to prevent the further class
separation of "haves" and "have-nots" -- a reversion to a system where if
you don't have access to the (trade skills, cum) information you need,
you'll ALWAYS be stuck in a rut. -- again true.
Yet, the technological answer of providing mindless pathways for
communication by the illiterate does not address the problem of
illiteracy, nor does it take one or more thousands of dollars for the
computer/modem equipment which gives the possibility of connecting to a POP
for minimal access. MOST computers (many of which are now hitting
recyclers or headed for junk-yards) have the capacity of displaying text,
of controlling and using a modem, and even 1200bps (today considered
worthless) modems have the capacity of carrying plain text at a reading
pace (which is faster than I've seen, ie Gopher work most of the time).
Perhaps there are social driving forces being overlooked on all sides
of the question. Regarding libraries... Libraries are traditionally a
place to "find something out". Yes they also carry entertainment
materials, but that wasn't their ORIGINAL purpose. Is it possible for a
library to move into the next century and provide it's traditional TYPE of
service without interconnection via networking? I'd say not. Is it
possible for schools to provide the education needed without some serious
computer and networking use? -- again, I'd say not. Can such facilities
ONLY be available at the local library, in a "rich person's home" in
larger offices or local schools -- again -- NO!
The access has to be there, but if INCORRECT regulation, or too little
regulation invalidates any of these -- we're not going to avoid the
pitfalls that are foreseen now -- and I'm not just talking about US
government here, nor its political subdivisions! Perhaps I have no right
to criticize governments in other countries? Ok, I won't mention any
specifically. The problems are more concentrated in some countries in one
area, and in other countries in other areas, but most of the problems
blanket the world. The big difference, today, is that we have this
medium to try to pool resources to solve them.
> If you wish to argue for subsidies for public institutions (ie: libraries)
> so they can provide the computers and access for these folks, then make
> those subsidies <DIRECT CASH PAYMENTS>. Those I can support.
Here I agree with Karl. Transfer-payments end up costing too damn
much in hidden administrative costs, in wastage, and in beaurocratic
mis-management and "professionally obscured communications".
In other groups there have been quite a number of people decrying
"security by obscurity" -- the idea that if i.e. a computer manufacturer
and CERT and related service organizations do not publicize security holes
in computer programs, their effect will be minimized. The facts of life
don't support this. In government regulation, there has been a trend that
if programs are buried in enough politico-speak and enough layers of
beaurocracy, and levels of indirection, the costs will disappear. Yes
they may disappear from view (temporarily until someone has the ability to
trace the "pointers" through enough levels), but in overall effect, the
cost becomes higher.
Again -- what is needed is INNOVATION -- not so much argument and not
particularly calls for compromise.
Bruce Gingery
---
bruce@TotSysSoft.com
lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu
NeXT-mail and MIME-mail welcome
