From: Clay.Olbon@dynetics.com (Clay Olbon II)
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 02:52:42 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
Message-ID: <v01540b00adbcda0ed8ac@[193.239.225.200]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:08 PM 5/9/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>From:  IN%"educom@elanor.oit.unc.edu"  9-MAY-1996 22:01:14.77
>
>>REGIONAL BELLS WANT RATE HIKES FOR WIRING SCHOOLS
>>The United States Telephone Association would like to raise the average U.S.
>>monthly phone bill by about $10 over the next five years to pay for wiring
>>schools and libraries with new lines for phones and computers, and to
>>subsidize poor and rural customers.  The proposal assumes an $11 billion
>>cost for wiring schools and libraries, with local phone companies paying
>>about a third to a half of that.  The rest would come from a surcharge on
>>other services, such as cellular.  "No single industry should be held
>>responsible for fulfilling this major goal," says USTA's president.  "Each
>>has a role and should make a significant contribution to the national
>>education technology mandate."  (Investor's Business Daily 8 May 96 A7)


OK, someone tell me why the END USERS don't pay for this!

If a school wants to be wired, the local school board can pay for it (and
the local taxpayers can vote for the millage increase).  If you don't think
every five year old needs a net connection (maybe because you are afraid of
them seeing nekkid ladies, or because you just think teachers should teach
and not rely on technology to do their jobs for them), you can vote against
spending the money.

As for subsidizing rural customers, those people made a choice to live in a
rural area, for whatever reason.  I see no reason to subsidize that choice.
Unless of course they want to pay higher taxes to subsidize the costs for
my living in the city.

        Clay