RETRY - Re: Monopolies & "hooey" (sent: 02Aug99)

["Robert.Reese" <robert.reese@mindspring.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rick Dahlgren said:

...
I've proposed to the Senate that they set goals for all Americans to
have
access to advanced telecommunications services (broadband) in a
manner
that:

<snip>
>4) Government sponsored and subsidized construction of a public
>infrastructure to do so. (Revenue Neutral or positive through
>affordable access to networks.)  
>
>My vote is for number 4.
>
>Sewer, water, electricity, roads, mail, libraries, schools and
>bandwidth. 
...

Rick,
There is one small problem with government-subsidized network
interfaces and access facilities: spam.  The one main thing that
allowed AOL to successfully sue CyberPromotions was that spam is not
considered protected speech.  Unfortunately, that landmark ruling is
weak because of mostly a technicality: the government, while helping
create the internet, does not participate in offering public access,
per se.  Basically, if "Spamford" Wallace had used a government
subsidized or government run ISP, then his spam would have been
considered protected speech.  Can you imagine the attraction a
government-involved ISP would be to spammers, hate-mongers, and
others?  Personally, I am a Libertarian, but there are limits on
freedoms when they interfere with others' freedoms.  If spam was
considered protected speech, people would have little recourse in
stemming the impending flood.  In fact, it would be so bad as perhaps
even destroy email as a way to communicate.

In my occasionally humble opinion, whomever has control of existing
infrastructure has an unfair advantage where monopolistic power is
concerned.  In several unrelated emails, the "last mile" has been an
issue for both cable and telephone services.  You may recall such an
email about the future of ISPs if the local telecos impose a "toll"
on your physical line running to your home.

It is prohibitively expensive for all but the most well-funded
telecoms to lay new line.  However, this WOULD create a brand new
market for companies that specialize in installing new wires.  A
company could easily decide on installing new wires to everyone in
their city or area, and do so only one time.  Then they could go to
various telecommunications companies and say, "We're going to dig up
the roads in this area in order to bury new wires.  Would you be
interested in having us drop in a line for your company?"  More than
likely the telecom would eagerly agree.  The company doing the
digging would make a fortune of each company (as they've all done for
decades), and the telecom companies would get a great deal. 
Competition not only on new telecom services is created, competition
on installing new services would be a benefit.  Average Joe Shmoe
gets LOTS of benefits; not just by having different PRIVATE providers
to choose from, but also not having to endure someone else digging up
his favorite commuter route every three weeks (which would invariably
disrupt existing infrastructure in the process).  I once worked to
install underground utilities, so I know all this is extremely
feasible.

The government, by the way, could help install the physical
infrastructure, as they did power, phone, and roads.  However, do we
REALLY want more beauracracy involved with the internet?  One that
may impose a tax on the internet?  Then, impose laws on the internet?
 We could call the new agency the Procedural Agency for
Network-Dependent Organizations Requiring Assistance, or PANDORA for
short.  Or, how about Bandwidth for Internet Groups Buying Required
Organizations That Help Economies Run (B.I.G. B.R.O.T.H.E.R.)  Sorry
folks, but for the internet, government is not a "good thing"
anymore.

My 2 Cents,
Robert Reese~
robert.reese@mindspring.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBN68zlKpdw8UvZE5IEQJwswCgqUCfMNNZhJEbdNbb86/F4yzShAwAoPW0
OQWpumFPSACd/NQsxZkdHMDu
=9ZWI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----