Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
I have stayed quiet on this topic but now feel I should put my views forward. 1) I feel the government, in this case and others, should never force the adoption of any particular technology (ISDN, ATM, etc) 2) While I am pro-market in the Extropian Way, I think that what we need from the government is the following: a) recognize that Cable and Telco are the same business b) set very minimum standards required for basic services (basic telco, basic cable (e.g., local broadcast channels) c) I don't see data as a basic service d) apply the same regulation to both companies. e) Let cable and telco compete head to head 3) Let the rich pay for it ;) There is this liberal idea that only the rich will get the "good stuff" That their kids will study on-line with Nobel prize winners while the poor kids will still be using chalk and erasers in the "slums." The same liberals what to raise taxes "on the Rich," so they can pay for things. I feel if you don't "push" for universal access the systems will be build that way anyway. They will cost $$$, and the "rich" will buy into it. As economies of scale and scope come into pay, the cost of these systems will come down and the poor will get it too. Thus, the rich have paid for it, and the poor have got it cheap. There is one problem with this. In NYC, the "POOR" are already bigger users of CLASS services (call waiting, three way dialing, etc.), and of Cable premium channels; no marketer is going to leave this group unwired. No one is going to do an Interactive Test Market in the Lower East Side, but trust me systems will be built there. -- Harry S. Hawk - Extropian habs@extropy.org In Service to Extropians since 1991
habs@panix.com (Harry S. Hawk) wrote:
1) I feel the government, in this case and others, should never force the adoption of any particular technology (ISDN, ATM, etc)
2) While I am pro-market in the Extropian Way, I think that what we need from the government is the following:
a) recognize that Cable and Telco are the same business b) set very minimum standards required for basic services (basic telco, basic cable (e.g., local broadcast channels) c) I don't see data as a basic service d) apply the same regulation to both companies. e) Let cable and telco compete head to head
3) Let the rich pay for it ;)
The one and only thing we need from the government is one that you forgot to mention. All we need the government to do is to allow all interested parties equal access to the utility easements that the gummint has already set up. (Make the gov't follow the constitutional requirement of equal protections under the law.) This will allow free market competition of ALL communications services (well, I guess you sort of said that in (a) and (e).) b) is irrelevent (or could be) because of free broadcast media. In d), what kind of regulations do you want? And c), I don't see the distinction between "data", and telco...the government should recognize it as all the same, right? Kind of sounds like that crazy "modem tax" the FCC tried a few years ago. Oh, and of course, let the rich pay for it. :)
1) I feel the government, in this case and others, should never force the adoption of any particular technology (ISDN, ATM, etc)
Right on, but this would conflict, at least in spirit, with your points 2)b) and 2)d). Are your for govt. involvement or not?
2) While I am pro-market in the Extropian Way, I think that what we need from the government is the following:
a) recognize that Cable and Telco are the same business b) set very minimum standards required for basic services (basic telco, basic cable (e.g., local broadcast channels) c) I don't see data as a basic service
Pardon me, but this is preposterous. You have here proposed that a many-to-many communications medium, which requires data service, is not a basic service despite its many benefits, but that cable and broadcast tv are, despite the obvious limitations (not to mention detrimental effects) of the medium. I hate to even say this, especially to you, but that's just not a logical stance, especially for a networker. I'm actually shocked to see you say that.
d) apply the same regulation to both companies. e) Let cable and telco compete head to head
e) conflicts with a).
3) Let the rich pay for it ;) [...] I feel if you don't "push" for universal access the systems will be build that way anyway. They will cost $$$, and the "rich" will buy into it. As economies of scale and scope come into pay, the cost of these systems will come down and the poor will get it too. Thus, the rich have paid for it, and the poor have got it cheap.
But not just the rich will pay for it. *I* will have to pay for it, and I'd rather see it be cheap and affordable to all. You seem to have mistaken the empowering technology of networking with some new toy, like Nintendos.
No one is going to do an Interactive Test Market in the Lower East Side, but trust me systems will be built there.
Not if the medium fails to catch on, due to being too expensive for anyone but the upper class. This is precisely why most people *don't* have satellite tv. -- Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org 1:109/1103 EFF Online Activist & SysOp O P E N P L A T F O R M C R Y P T O P O L I C Y O N L I N E R I G H T S N E T W O R K I N G V I R T U A L C U L T U R E I N F O : M E M B E R S H I P @ E F F . O R G
a conscious being, Stanton McCandlish wrote:
Pardon me, but this is preposterous. You have here proposed that a many-to-many communications medium, which requires data service, is not a basic service despite its many benefits, but that cable and broadcast tv are, despite the obvious limitations (not to mention detrimental effects) of the medium. I hate to even say this, especially to you, but that's just not a logical stance, especially for a networker. I'm actually shocked to see you say that.
Data may become a basic service, some day, but the market is not ready for it today. I am against forcing companies to offer products that no one wants. (no one = a major part of there market). Current efforts like PSI IP over Cable and $500 Hayes modems that can talk 230+ kbits per second (w/ compression|V.Fast) will provide plenty of cheap networking for those who want it. /hawk
[Re: tv as basic service, but data not]
Data may become a basic service, some day, but the market is not ready for it today.
I am against forcing companies to offer products that no one wants. (no one = a major part of there market).
I'd say that the 30%+ of US households with computers, and the 10%+ (and VERY rapidly growing) with modems is "a major part" of the market. Far fewer people had phones once upon a time, and even fewer had cable tv boxes a decade ago. Or to put it in a format that advertisers will understand: when my grandmother, who can't even set the clock on her VCR, is inflamed with the desire to particpate in internet, simply from reading the articles on it, and gets ready to buy a Mac and subscribe to AOL, despite a good deal of technophobia, I think you've got a market brewing. -- Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org 1:109/1103 EFF Online Activist & SysOp O P E N P L A T F O R M C R Y P T O P O L I C Y O N L I N E R I G H T S N E T W O R K I N G V I R T U A L C U L T U R E I N F O : M E M B E R S H I P @ E F F . O R G
a conscious being, Stanton McCandlish wrote:
I'd say that the 30%+ of US households with computers, and the 10%+ (and VERY rapidly growing) with modems is "a major part" of the market. Far
Their are 95 million homes in America. Their are 90 million homes with TV 65 million homes have Cable. Advertisers consider National Broadcast TV to be a major market. Even to this day, Cable is not seen in the same light as National Broadcast Networks. The fact that 9.5 million homes have modems, or 21+ million homes have computers, does not a real mass market make. Not enough to force companies to put in special data services; people who want data can pay between $50 to $530 for a modem and get from 2400 bps to 240,000 bps. Let the market grow until people actually want data before you put it into the bundle of regulated basic services. I am saying, don't regulate data, and thus don't force any carrier to offer a special data rate. When 60 - 70 million homes have active use of Data, then you can have congress set some minimum standard.
fewer people had phones once upon a time, and even fewer had cable tv boxes a decade ago.
And note, without any regulations in terms of basic services, Cable has grown from serving a small town in Penn. to servicing 65 million homes in N. America. Cable is better suited to offer voice and high speed multi-megabit services than are phone companies. Clear proof that market forces can produce the results we need. (Cable passes over 90% of all homes in this country).
Thus sayeth Mr. Shapiro **> Their are 95 million homes in America. **> Their are 90 million homes with TV **> 65 million homes have Cable. Don't forget 150 million lectric users. All are racing towards needing network addresses for (as Sagan would say) "beelions and beelions" of devices. Now's the time for smart developers and consumers to hedge their bets, pick several key encryption technologies, and pair up with some networking compaies. Big bucks potential. -- Steve Blair "Unix is not your mother. It is a tool for people who have specific needs" "and who can accept the trade-offs that come with the "bleeding edge" of" "networking."------ Jim McCoy
I'd say that the 30%+ of US households with computers, and the 10%+ (and VERY rapidly growing) with modems is "a major part" of the market. Far
Their are 95 million homes in America. Their are 90 million homes with TV 65 million homes have Cable. Advertisers consider National Broadcast TV to be a major market. Even to this day, Cable is not seen in the same light as National Broadcast Networks.
This may have something to so with the large number of cable stations that don't allow advertising, and have not since day one, because people are willing to pay extra for ad-less tv. This also has to do with fact that the most popular shows are on network broadcast TV, not cable, for a number of reasons. Advertisers go where the people are. Your entire point seems to be that because advertisers decide that the cable is a lousy market, it does is not "major". The actual relationship is quite the opposite. For many reasons the cable market was kept from being a "major market" for advertisers, and so advertisers do not advertise via cable as much as they do via airwaves. This is all quite peripheral.
The fact that 9.5 million homes have modems, or 21+ million homes have computers, does not a real mass market make.
? This is a nonsensical statement. You seem to presume that a computer-net market must perforce directly compete with a tv-net market, when there is room for both. The slothful and apathetic will happily vege out in front of the new supertube, and fortunately be mostly selected out of the memepool, while those with a glimmer of imagination and intelligence are likely to find a use for interactive communications and information services. It's certainly the first time I've ever heard someone say that 21 or even 9 million people is not a mass market.
Not enough to force companies to put in special data services;
Who's talking about doing so? Companies are *fighting* to put in data services right now; why should this stop? The issue is one of access and expense, not of will it happen or not.
I am saying, don't regulate data, and thus don't force any carrier to offer a special data rate. When 60 - 70 million homes have active use of Data, then you can have congress set some minimum standard. [...] And note, without any regulations in terms of basic services, Cable has grown from serving a small town in Penn. to servicing 65 million homes in N. America.
What evidence have you that fact that the absence of basic service regulation was the source of growth in the cable industry, particularly when other heavily restrictive regulation was affecting it, and preventing it from being a free market?
Cable is better suited to offer voice and high speed multi-megabit services than are phone companies.
These are not logically comparable categories. Coax cable, as a conduit, is certainly better than phone wire. But why should it be better for cable companies to offer voice and video services? I'd think the evidence points in the other direction. Cable programming has heretofore been 80 or whatever channels of one-way garbage. At least telephone communication is 2 way, relatively private, uncensored, and can be used to reach online services with many-to-many information exchange. TCI may say they want to bring that about via "CableNet" too, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Clear proof that market forces can produce the results we need. (Cable passes over 90% of all homes in this country).
No, clear proof that people wanted cable tv. Period. No more, no less. Until I see an attempt to bring data (which should not require any new cabling for a while) to everyone, and see the people from the service providers being told to beat it and being chased off with brooms by enraged renters and homeowners, I feel fairly confident that there is a very worthwhile market for data services, and that at very least it would be a far more worthwhile experiment that cable ever was. Seems funny that you claim that free market theory would yield this 90%, when the cable "market" is not much of a market at all, but simply a collection of govt-supported local monopolies. There are good points, but I still question whether cable (or any other form of) tv has any business being a "basic service". Personally I find tv to be a basic disservice and an utter waste of time (others probably disagree, but oh well.) What rationale is there for including it with POTS as something to be subsidized? If you firmly believe that govt. subsidization/regulation will harm a medium, then say so. But as it stands I get the feeling that you think it will be good for the provision of "basic services"; but when challenged you point to the good that comes from *lack* of regulation. Which is it? If the govt. *does* need to subsidize [useful service X] because it should be a basic service, then let's see data included. If subsidization (and the regulation that comes with it) are lousy and screw up the market, then let's not see *anything* subsidized (unless we actually want to damage it; might be a good idea for tv >;) -- Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org 1:109/1103 EFF Online Activist & SysOp O P E N P L A T F O R M C R Y P T O P O L I C Y O N L I N E R I G H T S N E T W O R K I N G V I R T U A L C U L T U R E I N F O : M E M B E R S H I P @ E F F . O R G
participants (5)
-
habs＠panix.com -
Harry Shapiro
-
Matthew J Ghio -
sblair＠upurbmw.us.dell.com -
Stanton McCandlish