[9762] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: More on Telco
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pres Smith)
Thu Jan 20 06:39:41 1994
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 06:39:10 -0500
From: Pres Smith <PGSMITH@ucsvax.ucs.umass.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
X-Vms-To: IN%"com-priv@psi.com"
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 10:25:13 -0600
> From: Willis Marti <willis@cs.tamu.edu>
> Subject: RE: Another quickie on levels of telco service
>
I wrote:
> > Could I point out that for most of us the benefits of long distance
> > telephone service are hardly applicable. Some on this list may be
> > able to afford long distance calls. In the real world they are a
> > luxury on top of local service that, not matter how reduced in cost,
> > cannot be afforded.
> > [...etc]
> Over the past 20 years the amount of subsidy *given* to local service has
> fallen (taken from long distance profits) -- pricing has gotten closer to the
> actual cost for both local and long distance. Part of the justification for
> this has been "universal access", meaning everyone should be able to have a
> phone. Many people (myself included) think a way should be found for
> universal data access.
>
> But when you want prices lower, say *who* you want to subsidize your costs,
> and *why*.
> Z
>
I happen to be in favor of attempts at "universal access", preferably
as in the USPS, and subsidized by the general taxpayer.
But this is irrelevant to the point being made in earlier posts,
which was generally that competition lowers prices. With that general
idea, barring the usual abuses, one can hardly disagree. My point was
that many of those on Com-Priv are presenting evidence based on their
rarified experience, rather than the general, and that citing cost
reductions in long distance service, while it supports the argument
for competition there, is beside the point for the majority of us with
little discretionery income.
Getting the cost of essential local phone service down, rather than
the frills, is trickier--to say nothing of computer, modem, local
Internet, and public information/education database access. Competition
--if there is any--will reduce prices, as presumably will the scale up
to more general access. But despite the prospect of cable, telco and
cellular competition in local markets, the effect may be temporary as
monopolies emerge or a "mature" situation among several firms leads
to the usual "administered" industry.
Beyond that, the real idea of "universal access" is to permit
the sharing of public, social and educational resources--libraries,
museums, databases, etc.--while the thrust of competition is to
control access to such services for private profit, via copyright,
restraint of trade, etc., which are normally features of the
marketplace, whether regulated by such weak and permeable barriers as in
our long experience with the FCC, or not.
Ironically, the cost of Net entertainment may well come down and even
diversify, while education/information prices increase relative to
current conventional sources--public education, libraries, etc.
Prescott Smith pgsmith@educ.umass.edu
