[1916] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Understanding Combits
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sean mclinden)
Tue Jan 7 23:49:52 1992
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 23:33:10 -0500
From: sean@dsl.pitt.edu (sean mclinden)
To: bzs@world.std.com, com-priv@psi.com
A number of arguments have been raised which deal with commercial/profitable
versus educational and who should subsidize what. There appears to be some
difficulty in deciding where is the dividing line and who should establish
it. The assumption is, of course, that if someone makes money off of it then
someone else should make money off of them. The alternative, socialism,
seems unthinkable since no one wants to be taxed any more than they already
are and clearly if services are to be provided to some (or all) at below
market costs then someone else must pay.
But is that really bad? We subsidize bus service, the air traffic control
system, roads, traffic lights, and a whole host of other things because
they promote the common welfare. Why do we need to assume a Libertarian
attitude towards, of all things, communication? Similarly, why do we need
to subsidize something which is clearly commercially viable (after all,
in this day and age does anybody *really* believe that a large highbandwidth
telecommunications backbone, even a T-3 backbone, carries a substantial
business or technoloogy risk?! Of course not; it just needs a deep pocket.)
The problem seems to be that government has gotten closer and closer
to the business of subsidizing business making one wonder who is supposed
to be subsidizing the those without money. Or do we still believe that
"What is good for GM is good for the country?" (substitute your favorite
computer company for "GM").
Sean McLinden
