From: Robert Brooks <rb@hprrb.rose.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 17:55:59 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
In-Reply-To: <199311170118.UAA02018@eff.org>
Message-ID: <9311170153.AA18597@hprrb.rose.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> [re: EFF NII proposal, ftp.eff.org, /pub/Eff/papers/op2.0]
> 
> > As I understand it, for both telephones and cable TV, it is still common
> > for local governments to "grant" "franchises" to single companies for
> > phone and cable wires.  If there were one thing to change, that would be
> > it.
> 
> Why should that be the main focus?  I for one consider modelling the
> coming "data highway" on an Internet-like model to be of more concern).  I
> have precisely zero use for cable tv (or broadcast tv for that matter),
> and very little use for the phone system except as a convenience and a way
> to transport FidoNet mail.  Since FidoNet-via-Internet is soon to be a
> reality in all likelihood, even that begins to fade. Over 90% of my
> communicating is done on Internet or in person.  This is not to say full
> privatization of the phone system would not vastly improve Internet, but
> at least the net is fairly stable and works.  It's a good place to start.
> 
I, like Tim May, also cancelled my cable-TV subscription a few months ago,
and would have long before that if my kids didn't like the Disney channel
so much.  None the less, the data highway _is_ being built, right now, by
the phone and cable companies, and digital video-on-demand and videophone
capabilities seem to be basic assumptions.  I can reference articles in
EE Times and elsewhere, and people who watch TV already know this from
things like AT&T's "you will" commercials.

> The creation of a new "infrastructure" (rapidly becoming my least
> favourite buzzword) that is modelled on TV rather than many-to-many
> networking, would appear to me to be a much more grave danger than the
> temporary perpetuation of the current telecom and cable system, which can
> be the next thing to work on, once we are ensured the coming BigNet will
> be worth the lines it's carried on. 
> 
Seems to be that a general videophone capability is the only building block
that's needed.  Seems to me the only possible roadblock is regulatory, that
is, the phone companies being prohibited from doing video and the cable
companies prevented from doing phone service.

Robert