[12817] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Information subsidies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Mon May 30 03:33:41 1994
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 14:36:30 -0400
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@sprint.net>
To: com-priv@psi.com, fidelman@civicnet.org
Regarding providing access in rural areas:
I don't understand why providing access in rural areas should
be subsidized in any way -- Internet is NOT a telephone system
and allows pooling resources of several customers to achieve
incredible cost savings.
In fact, having telcos to shift costs to subsidize "unprofitable"
markets will kill opportunity for thousands mom-and-pop businesses
aka small regional service providers. A small town of 8000 in
the middle of nowhere can easily afford a $1000/month T-1 pipe to
a national service provider. It's only $10/mo from 100 subscribers.
What info-subsidy people do not see is that TELCOS ARE NOT ABLE TO
PROVIDE ANY REASONABLE INTERNET SERVICE ON LARGE SCALE -- because 90%
of what Internet service providers are selling now is better described as
education and consulting. Hooking up to Internet requires much more
than just connecting a wire. That's why the "cushion" of small
NSPs purchasing *transport* from big NSPs (some telephone companies
already can sell you quite decent IP transport for reasonable prices)
and reselling the capacity PLUS initial set-up, consulting and education
(and often other computer-related services) is necessary.
Telephone companies are good at what their business is -- namely providing
data transport. They cannot (and shouldn't) provide end-user consulting.
Wrong structure, no adequate human resources.
In EFF's world those small NSPs will loose the vital source of revenue
and will be forced out of market -- and since there are no other
structures which can fill the vacuum the quality of services will
degrade enourmously; and since there will be nobody to help end-users
to navigate and use Internet it will turn into another medium for
centralized advertisement and brainwashing.
Not to mention that that destruction of Internet will be paid for by
taxpayers and urban population.
The current Internet market is quite healthy and there is no need
to "fix" it. And, then, i'm always suspicious of a group which has
common interests with Bill G.
--vadim
DISCLAIMER The statement(s) above represent my personal opinion(s) ONLY
and in no way should be interpreted as position(s) of
my present and/or former employers. This message is NOT and
is NOT intended to be an offical statement or presentation
by Sprint and/or any other organization.
