From: qut@netcom.com (Dave Harman)
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 11:06:28 +0800
To: CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com
Subject: Re: "Too cheap to meter"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960518020843.19939E-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <199605182056.NAA15181@netcom9.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


You write:

! On Fri, 17 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
! 
! > At 2:38 AM 5/16/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:
! > >Hey, let's build faster and faster fiber-optic networks. Let's create
! > >bandwidth so cheap that it won't even pay to meter it.
! > 
! > "Too cheap to meter"? Wasn't that what nuclear power promised in the 1950s?
! > 
! > (I'm actually a supporter of nuclear power, for a variety of reasons, so
! > this is not meant as just a cheap shot against nuke plants. But this was
! > one of the "selling points" of nuclear, later shown to be a falsehood.)
! 
! Actually, nuclear power, per se, is damn cheap. It's the collateral
! effects (real, i.e., waste disposal and keeping fissile materials secure
! from terrorists, and imagined, i.e., overregulation) that are so
! expensive.
! 
! Just like the net. We could have a virtually free flow of information, but
! that's not exactly what the gubmint wants, is it. Not to mention that it's
! not exactly what we want, either -- Canter & Siegel are only the tip of
! the iceberg of the Tragedy of the Commons we'd see on a truly free
! network. 
! 
! We don't need the CDA or anything quite that stupid, but I'll drink to
! overpriced, arbitrarily restricted net access any day.

CAPITALISTS' SUCK

! -rich