From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 09:36:40 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Cyberspace, Crypto Anarchy, and Pushing Limits
Message-ID: <9404041635.AA27428@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sameer writes, in response to Tim:
> > - a general move away from "commons"-oriented systems, which breed the
> > notions of "fair access" and such. If the "problem" is that poor
> > people cannot--it is alleged--afford a $17 a month Net connection
> > (what Netcom charges, in about 25 cities and growing), then my
> > solution would be to simply _subsidize_ their bill. (I'm not
> > advocating this, nor do I think it wise to subsidize anyone's phone,
> > Net, or dinner bills, but better this than "nationalizing" networks
> > and thus creating more confusion and less efficiency for all.)
> 
> 	We don't need subsidized bills for cheaper access.
> 	Just cheaper access. It'll happen. Market pressure + all that.

Tim's point, though was that we don't "need" cheaper access,
and government-regulation solutions to achieve this pressing social need
are not only bad, but unnecessary - if the government really wants
to provide people with cheaper net access, it can hand them money,
with less distortion of the market than regulation.

One of the problems with the EFF open access proposals is that they
tend to favor, or at least tolerate, regulation of the networks,
which is an invitation to disaster, however well-intentioned it may be.

		Bill Stewart