[10872] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Two-way Internet service from Continental Cable?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dick St.Peters)
Sun Mar 13 02:50:58 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 94 21:48:25 EST
From: stpeters@bird.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters)
To: barney@databus.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Reply-To: <stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com>
>From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.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 :-).
Barney, excuse me, but just when did I ask for a subsidy for anyone?
Are you urbanites so uptight that I can't even lament the passing of a
chance for you to escape without getting hassled about it?
>When cost differences are *real* it is not legitimate to call it tilting
>the playing field.
We speak a somewhat different language then. "Tilted playing field" is
a statement of condition, not one of cause. Rural people see the
playing field as tilted against them as a condition of where they live,
not as the result of some evil influence. (Well, ok, there are conspiracy
nuts in the countryside too.)
>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!
I'm sorry about your insurance premiums, but don't take your problems
out on me. I didn't argue for universal access. Learn the difference
between commentary and advocacy damnit! ... perhaps even between lament
and complaint.
Sigh ... now you've got me behaving like a city dweller ... I'll probably
even lock the door when I leave the house tomorrow.
--
Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, The Pearly Gateway; currently at:
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
