[10784] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CCN's Clarification re: Internet Local Loop
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Robinson)
Wed Mar 9 10:21:48 1994
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 02:25:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>
To: Everyone Else Lurking on Com-Priv <com-priv@psi.com>
>From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
Dave Hughes <dave@oldcolo.com>, writes in list Com-Priv
<com-priv@psi.com> (newsgroup csn.ml.com-priv), as follows:
> Gary Wright writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
> The same arguement could have been made in 1934 when the
> Telecommunications Act was passed, making voice telephone a
> 'universal service' with regulated monopoly. Were voice
> phones 'indispensable' then? And should we NOT have passed
> that law?
>
> There is a lot of chicken and egg here.
The issues are entirely different. In 1934, telephone companies were
'regulated monopolies'. This was not done because telephone service
could not be provided without a monopoly, but because American Telephone
and Telegraph Company convinced regulators that phone service could only
be provided by a monopoly provider.
This allowed them to operate their service without having to worry about
competition forcing them to do better or lower prices.
Back in the 1910's and '20's, phone service in cities with two or more
phone companies was cheaper than in cities of comparable size where Bell
was the monopoly provider. In fact, the difference was so much it was
often cheaper to subscribe to BOTH companies than the price of the single
company in the monopoly area.
Internet connections are not a monopoly provided service, do not need to
be and can be provided by the free market whenever we want it. If there
is an area that is not getting it, the odds are good to excellent that
costs are not yet reasonable for that area, and what it probably means
it's a rural area where, due to long distances to carry connections,
communications services generally are more expensive.
---
Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
-----
The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message:
Keep grandma off the streets -- legalize bingo.
