From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 93 15:28:43 PST
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
In-Reply-To: <199311092227.OAA16955@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199311092324.AA04888@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim May writes:

> How is a Net connection any more usable than a free CNN channel?

For one thing, I get cypherpunks here.

> So, if we need a National Information Infractructure, why not the same
> thing for newspapers, television, radio, etc.? Why not guarantee
> everyone a daily newspaper? After all, they need to be informed.
 
I note that those who produce newspapers, television, radio, etc., also
use the same highways and the same phone system. Good infrastructure
design unleashes free markets.

> (I don't want to drift into sarcasm about this, as I think Mike Godwin
> and others are making serious points. But bear in mind that the
> purported needs for communicating with the public are often the
> justification for "State Radio" and for the UNESCO-sponsored proposals
> to restrict the "private press" in many countries.

Tim, I think one has to distinguish between "guaranteed access" along the
Local Access Cable model and access along the "universal service" model.
Local Access Cable is next to useless as a democratic medium, and EFF
would not support any guarantee of access along those lines. But
universal service, along the Theodore Vail model, is different.

Remember, we have universal service now, but people still have to pay
their phone bills. And when we get competition in the local loop (a
competition that will require changes in the infrastructure), people's
residential phone payments will, in general, pay for the cost of operation
of their service.

Ithiel de Sola Pool's discussions of how to get government-supported
and -regulated monopolies to move to free-market models are extremely
helpful here. Just sticking with the status quo is not enough.


--Mike




u 

 Put it this way, do
> you really want President Robertson or President Perot to have his won
> subsidized channels of communication? Perot can of course _buy_ a
> couple of networks, but that's not the same as an official network.)
> 
> CNN, the Clinton News Network.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> P.S. I cancelled my entire cable t.v. subscription several weeks back.
> Too much shit, too little quality, too confusing a monthly bill. I
> have a sneaking feeling we're going to have about 500 channels soon,
> with a couple of hundred of them available cheaply enough. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ..........................................................................
> Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
> tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> 408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
> W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
> Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
> Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
>