At 1:27 AM GMT 5/15/96, Jim McCoy wrote:

BTW, while there may have been a decent argument against the electrification act, I think that you are paddling upstream when it comes to net connections. The value of your net connection (or any connection to the net) _increases_ according to the number of people who are connected to the network. Unlike

Au contraire! Speaking for myself, the value of _my_ net connection has been going _down_ these past few years as more yahoos (TM of The Yahoo Corporation) got connected and as congestion clogged the networks. So, on this basis alone I am opposed to the "Rural Datafication" public works project! But seriously, Internet connections are already quite cheap. We've had this debate a couple of times before here on Cypherpunks, and each time many of us remain unconvinced that something like Net connections, which are so well-handled by private enterprise and which depend so heavily on technological innovation, are best handled by a socialized effort. There are deep reasons why such government-led programs tend to freeze progress...this is a longstanding debate topic in many forums, so I won't argue this point right now. ...

Oh yeah, and you are already subsidizing their phone bill (at least the increased cost of running a line out to them and maintaining that line), and their electricity bill, and satellite TV took care of any need to run cable TV lines out there or else you would also be subsidizing their cable TV by now. So what was your point?

In point of fact, whether or not these things (electricity, phones) *are* in fact being subsidized by urban dwellers (and there is some doubt that this is the case, as it's frequently _much_ cheaper to string electrical and phone lines in rural areas than in congested urban areas), this is no reason to socialize Internet connections. (And my local ISP is certainly not being taxed to pay for lines in Mendota and East Gittyup, and I won't vote for any scheme which taxes _me_ to subsidize those locales.) Socializing Net connections would likely have various bad side effects, such as freezing the state of development of certain services. (And socializing access also plays into the hands of those who seek "democratic control" of content, always a bad thing.) By not socializing the deployment of Net connections, the eventual (and ever-evolving) solutions can be cleaner and better than if the deployment is done by government action, or with government complicity. Look at cable t.v. for an example of how local community government sought "universal access" by granting franchises for universal connections and forcing cable companies to provide service to uneconomical areas. The result is that most community cable systems are very limited, with a decaying infrastructure and heavy price regulation. (I should remind readers that a "Datification" program also implies rate regulation, endless hearings before rate increases are granted, and so forth. Before deregulation of several industries, this was how things happened. In cable t.v., it still happens this way.) A consequence is that many customers leapfrog right over local cable and go directly for satellite dishes. While the local community cable systems and their government partners could (and did) keep out other cable competitors, this became less and less possible with satellite dishes. Zoning laws were used to limit BUDs (Big Ugly Dishes, the big 8-foot and larger C-band dishes). But as the Ku-band dishes (mentioned favorably in my 1988 Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, interestingly enough) became available, even the most restrictive zoning ordinances became unenforceable....dishes could be in attics, on balconies, even covered with fake boulders! The cable companies and "community access" adovcates are having conniption fits. (This is having yet another interesting side effect: the wealthy who can afford digital DSS dishes are suddenly very uninterested in local cable problems, and the impetus for improvement is lost. Obviously the "poor" are then left with a decaying, outmoded infrastructure. Even as a Darwinian, I have to feel for them. They got sold a bill of goods, about how awarding "the franchise" to TCI or Sonic or Galactronic Cable would result in "universal access," and now they're stuck.) In my own case, I skipped cable and installed a DSS dish...150 or more channels, at least 20 movies on at any given time (not even counting the Pay Per View movies, of which there are at least 30-40), financial news, CNN, etc. Plus, a digital output connector for (Real Soon Now, they claim) a PageSat-type Usenet and Web page feed, using phone links for the back link. I submit this as an example of where the free market is providing a better solution than "community access cable" did. In fact, the socialization of cable held cable back. I don't want "Rural Datification" when there is no compelling need, and a lot of free market alternatives emerging. I doubt many farmers or Montana cabin dwellers want it either. --Tim Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."