[10638] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CCN's Clarification re: Internet Local Loop
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Civille)
Thu Mar 3 06:23:49 1994
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 21:04:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Civille <rciville@civicnet.org>
To: Gary R Wright <gwright@world.std.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <CLysFD.9s6@world.std.com>
On Tue, 1 Mar 1994, Gary R Wright wrote:
> You can buy today in many locations flat, unlimited access to an
> Internet connected host for $10 - $20 dollars/month. All you would
> need would be a cheap modem and a dumb terminal and you can access
> email, newsgroups, etc. If you want to download files/software etc,
> you'll need to buy a computer.
We're talking about a more robust level of service, in keeping with
desk-top connectivity possible within large institutions. The level of
service you are talking about is great, in several large cities, and you
are also talking about the best you can get if you are an individual
consumer or small business. We don't think this is good enough any longer.
Why even talk about an NII if we're not even willing to leverage our
existing investments?
Often such service tends to be slow (one small host) and busy (modem hunt
groups in use.) It is however, about the best that many can do. Perhaps
soon it will be time to do better? We think so.
> Certainly there are many places where this type of service is not a
> local phone call away but Internet service providers are sprouting up
> all over. Probably faster than any regulations could ever keep up with
> them.
You still have to call into them, unfortunately in too many places through
a measured service tariff. And, also, to reiterate our position, in no
way are we proposing to regulate Internet services -- just the onramps.
> Why is fixed rate local-loop Internet a more cost efficient scheme than
> analog modem dialup to a local Internet service? Maybe the government
> should subsidize these local Internet service providers instead of
> focusing on the local loop? I think the market is going to find solutions
> to these problems *much* faster and more efficiently that any
> legislative process could ever hope of matching.
We're not proposing a subsidy, we're proposing a tariff on the regulated
local-loop that is currently and will be for some time, a monopoly service
provider of communications -- that controls the local onramps to the
precursor of the NII, that is, the Internet. And it won't be the first
time that it took some government action to leverage more efficient use of
existing resources.
> Perhaps, sometime in the future, Internet access will be a service
> that we consider indispensable, but it certainly isn't anywhere near
> that today. Why are we talking about regulated access to something
> that is easily justified (IMHO) and purchased by a business or
> non-profit organization but for personal use is really a luxury?
Why do you see individual use of the Internet a luxury? That just baffles
me. Do you think it will be a luxury in 2 years, 5, or 10? We have to
think ahead, in order to effectively think through the evolution of
universal service.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Civic Networking Richard Civille
P.O. Box 65272 Washington Director
Washington, DC 20035 rciville@civicnet.org
(202) 362-3831
------------------------------------------------------------------------
