[10863] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Two-way Internet service from Continental Cable?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barney Wolff)
Sat Mar 12 20:31:19 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 94 16:24:47 -0500
From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
>Date: Sat, 12 Mar 94 12:30:44 EST
>From: stpeters@swan-song.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters)
>
>> Given the growing distributed information economy there is the capability to
>> even the playing field a bit with respect to the small business have-havenots.
>
>>From one perspective (size), yes. From another (location), it tilts
>the playing field even more steeply. The networking that was supposed
>to free people from the need to concentrate in urban areas is turning
>into just one more business necessity not available in the countryside,
>one more reason why the rural poor won't see many of the new jobs.
When rural dwellers are willing to subsidize fancy doorlocks, car alarms,
window bars and bullet-proof vests for urban dwellers, then urban dwellers
will be more willing to subisdize network connections for those who live
in clean air, beautiful scenery and peace :-).
When cost differences are *real* it is not legitimate to call it tilting
the playing field. Universal access sounds noble but in practice is an
immense tax on businesses and urbanites, with the handouts based entirely
on location, not need.
Sorry to sound testy, but it so often seems that universal access is treated
as a law of nature rather than a less-than-universally-held philosophical
position. Before we buy into it, hadn't we better ask the price? In the
name of universal access, my health insurance premiums tripled when the
insurer was forced by NY to go to community rating. I felt so proud
knowing I was subsidizing smokers and dirty-needle users!
Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
