Universal Access Conversation May 4-15 - Markle Foun
Brian Bartholomew
> I don't understand. We already have universal access to e-mail and
> the Internet. Anyone who *wants* to buy it, *can* buy it, typically
> for less than the cost of their telephone or cable subscription.
> That's universal access. Why are you proposing to do something which
> is already a reality?
I read your URL. As Russ said, email is cheap enough that anybody who
wants it can buy it. Are you proposing to subsidize it down to
"free", so you can assume everyone has it, and then the government can
use it to communicate?
Perhaps you should back up a few steps, and justify why it's in the
middle and upper class' interests to give money to the poor. I would
expect to see arguments like "if you turn the poor into peasants they
will riot", "feudalism takes most players out of the economic game",
etc. Justify handouts to the poor as an investment in middle and
upper class lifestyle. I'm sure there's something to your position,
just explain to me what it is. Treat it as an exercise to teach
idiots like me who came through the US school system.
A member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/lpf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bartholomew - b...@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA
Pete Farmer
Various people have given various arguments over time in favor of
income/wealth redistribution. I find some points of such arguments to
be persuasive. (Note: I won't choose to debate them in this forum,
because they are not highly germane to the commercialization and
privatization of the Internet.)
But even a flaming liberal like me starts to have problems with plans
that *mandate* how the redistributed resources will be used.
It's a bit paternalistic for one to say to a lower-income person, "I am
going to take resources away from one set of people and give it to you
*provided that* you use it for Internet/e-mail, and the reason is that
*I* have decided that this is in *your* best interest."
I'm not wiling to tell anyone else that I know better than them how to
use their resources. Who's to say that a year of Internet access is
'more important' to a poor person than, say, books for their children,
or an improved diet, or, for that matter, going to a restaurant or a
movie from time to time? Not me.
Given the value of an educated electorate to a democratic society, we do
mandate choices in establishing public education. (This isn't without
controversy, however.)
Perhaps one could contend that Internet/e-mail also is critical to an
educated electorate and is therefore justified. But that's a stretch.
By the same logic, one might provide free TVs to the economically
disadvantaged so that their children can watch Sesame Street, or free
cable service so they can get The History Channel.
If there is to be income/wealth redistribution, I think it's best done
on a macro level, without getting into micro-level spending decisions.
Pete
______________________________________________________________________
Peter J. Farmer E-mail: pfa...@strategies-u.com
Strategies Unlimited Voice: +1 650 941 3438
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205 Fax: +1 650 941 5120
Mountain View, CA 94040 WWW: http://www.strategies-u.com
ch...@mhv.net
Actually I see less of a need for E-Mail than Web access, since that is
where the majority of the "information" that people could need exists.
For example, if everyone had access, there would be no reason for all
those millions of copies of the tax forms in the Post Office. Just at
the IRS, Library and on the Web.
My approach to this was to give access free to libraries, and allow them
to have their clients use the libraries computer for access. Not perfect,
but what in life is?
All this reminds me of the plans of putting access points in the Post
Office, a very chilling thought in my book. Almost as good as the Post
Office selling Internet stamps for reliable e-mail (we all know how
reliable the US postal service is).
Going to be a hard sell for e-mail. It has several real world
equivilants, isn't needed for a life-line, and has very little information
contant. If the Postal Service isn't free, why should E-Mail be?
If you want to argue the cost/enviornment savings of Web based info and
public access terminals vs the current tree-killing mass distribution
method, then we have a basis of talking. For me, it isn't a money issue
as much as a purpose. For most US citizens in the Middle/Upper category,
giving money for services we do not receive is nothing new. However, is
the purpose worth the cost.
The last killing point I see is apparent. If E-Mail is so needed, why
doesn't more of the population who can afford it have it?
Chris
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Brian Bartholomew wrote:
> I read your URL. As Russ said, email is cheap enough that anybody who
> wants it can buy it. Are you proposing to subsidize it down to
> "free", so you can assume everyone has it, and then the government can
> use it to communicate?
>
Matthew James Gering
I am adamantly against Universal Access in its past, current and
potential form.
But...I could justify a public access terminals in the name of
electronic government. Post Office I believe is more universal than the
Public Library.
Such universal access (not necessarily convenient, not competing
significantly with private access, and certainly not regulating or
funded by private access) would allow for the requirement that all
communique between people and government agencies (from voting to tax
filing to policy debates) be in electronic form.
On step short of asking them to stop looting my wallet (which I do, but
they don't listen), is to ask them to spend it efficiently.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Bartholomew [mailto:b...@wv.com]
Tony Rutkowski
>But...I could justify a public access terminals in the name of
>electronic government. Post Office I believe is more universal than the
>Public Library.
Has anyone considered addressing algorighms?
[name]@[full postal code].US
Would some entrepreneur set this up nationwide in exchange
for the right to send junkmail?
Surely this has to be in someone's business plans.
--tony
David Schwartz
>Various people have given various arguments over time in favor of
>income/wealth redistribution. I find some points of such arguments to
>be persuasive. (Note: I won't choose to debate them in this forum,
>because they are not highly germane to the commercialization and
>privatization of the Internet.)
[snip]
>I'm not wiling to tell anyone else that I know better than them how to
>use their resources. Who's to say that a year of Internet access is
>'more important' to a poor person than, say, books for their children,
>or an improved diet, or, for that matter, going to a restaurant or a
>movie from time to time? Not me.
Oh, God! Pete, tell me you don't see the contradiction here. I can't
believe you!
DS