[2016] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The "national highway system" analogy is incorrect.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Schryver)
Fri Jan 17 18:07:53 1992
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 15:06:44 -0800
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
To: com-priv@psi.com
>From: Steven.Grimm@Eng.Sun.COM
> I've heard the NREN described as a "data superhighway" a number of times,
> ...
> The highways are used by commercial traffic every day -- much more so than
> by the government. I don't know a single person who objects to paying
> for the highway system because it subsidizes businesses by providing cheap
> travel. ....
On the contrary. Most (all?) heavy commercial traffic is required to
pay extra to use the public highways. In many jurisdictions you pay per
"ton-mile". The "log books" truckers and trucking companies are required
to maintain are not just to try to keep drivers from relying on chemicals.
Light commercial traffic is also treated differently than family station
wagons. Consider the lisenses for taxicabs and buses.
In the jurisdictions I once knew about, only "farm" trucks were exempt and
so explicitly subsidized. If your family farm sold both "farm" and
"non-farm" stuff, you would pay the P.U.C. for miles your truck traveled
hauling one but not the other (or returning from hauling). Of course, the
distinction between "farm" and "non-farm" was a little legalistic.
Second, many people object quite strongly and loudly that the usage fees
paid by commercial traffic do not pay for all of the wear and tear it
causes.
Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com
