[9772] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: More on Telco
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pres Smith)
Fri Jan 21 01:11:18 1994
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 17:26:45 -0500
From: Pres Smith <PGSMITH@ucsvax.ucs.umass.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
X-Vms-To: IN%"com-priv@psi.com"
Clay Shirky comments >, quoting me >>:
>> I happen to be in favor of attempts at "universal access", preferably
>> as in the USPS, and subsidized by the general taxpayer.
>Would this not lead to a regressive situation where people who can't afford
>networking (or computers or modems) but nevertheless pay taxes end up
>supporting access for the middle-class?
Not as long as the income tax system is progressive, rather than
regressive, as under Reagan. Do you object to the Post-Office, too?
One of the original proposers of the postal system insisted that
such a communications was essential to the development of a nation,
to its education, culture and citizens' training for their roles
in a democracy. Guy named George Washington, who with a few other
do-gooder types did some "social engineering" called the Constitution.
>> 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.
>As a starving artist, I resent the idea that I have some rarefied level
>of disretionary income; this is I assure you far from the case.
Do you think "starving artists" have a lot of company on com-priv?
> Net access
>is a business expense for me.
Ah, you're one of those people who deduct their business expenses
from their net income and accept a government handout from the
general tax payers who lack such a shelter? Such subsidies to
business probably perform a worthwhile social purpose, as many other
subsidies do. Is it a regressive burden on the poor? Possibly,
but perhaps it provides more jobs than would otherwise exist. So
like other social goals, it probably makes sense, and I think you're
quite welcome to it.
> The point about the discussion on com-priv
>is that our experiences here are likely to apply to the general case sooner
>rather than later. Consider the case of privatising the internet at all. At
>the beginning of the decade I could not have gotten local net access for
>love or money. I can now get my own IP address for less than $500/year.
>Long-distance rates have given us a model which might be more generally
>applicable to lowering the barriers to _everyone's_ access, and the courts
>have agreed by allowing competition for local markets.
Possibly the model is valid; that's what the discussion is about.
>[.....]
>> 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.
>Your proposal for "universal access" looks alot like more like an administered
>industry than this competitive model, especially if we take steps to insure
>that there is a common carrier model for access to the net for people who
>want to offer products and services without being in the business of
>administering a network.
I think you're misunderstanding the reference to "administered
industries". When 4-10 companies secure a stable position in key
segments of an industry, it becomes more advantageous to cooperate
in certain areas than to engage in all-out competition. Even if
an eventual monopoly is avoided, after the initial weeding out,
an "administered" market will almost certainly appear, as it does
in other areas.
>> 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.
>Your presumption here is that regulated media serve their communities better
>than unregulated ones. Take the cable industry; the poor have greater access
>to a wider variety of programming for less money in areas where there is
>competition for services than in areas where there is one Government-mandated
>franchise.
As has been pointed out on Com-Priv in the past, cable companies
have already moved to an "administered market" situation and rarely
compete. In the few cities large enough for them to do so, the posts
here indicated some disagreement about the extent of any benefits
where it existed in theory.
> As for the sharing of public, social and educational resources,
>there has always been a place for civic not-for-profit establishments to use
>shared resources in whatever medium,
That has been true for subsidized books and periodicals in the
postal system. I know of nowhere else. Are you speaking of the
tennis lessons on Public Television, or automobile buying advice
on click and clack on NPR?
I'd kinda like to see the communications medium--for which tax
payers paid a bundle over 20 years to develop to the point of
commercial interest--continue to provide a major role in public
services, not just Saturday morning cartoons and games.
> and Al Gore has made it clear that he
>means that situation to apply here as well.
If you take Al Gore's jaw boning at face value, you're in an
even smaller minority on Com-Priv.
>For-profit and not-for-profit corporations co-exist in the real world. Why
>should it be an either/or choice here?
I haven't proposed an even/or choice. The commercial sector has
a large role to play in any scenario. I would like to see the public
role for education, libraries, museums, data not squeezed out as they
have been in radio and television. You don't see the problem with
the current state of affairs, so it's difficult to explain how things
could get even worse as databases are tied up or priced off the Net,
email lists, ftp sites, gophers and distance education courses become
"profit centers" for hard-pressed Universities, the Library of Congress,
the Louvre, etc. But it is a possibility unless steps are taken to
avoid it.
>--
>Clay Shirky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prescott Smith pgsmith@educ.umass.edu
