John Blair (I think) writes:

I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that a very basic net connection, with minimal services (access to government records, public domain postings, and similar information) should be provided either free or at a very minimal cost. It is not difficult for me to envision a day when paper based sources of info (newspapers, magazines, etc.) may be impossible to recieve in paper format, and when participation in our political system will depend on having access just as much as it depends, for all practical purposes, on having a stable residence. Groups which cannot afford net connection in the future may very likely become a politically excluded group. Its important that we set the precedent now that these basic services not be dependant on a certain minimum economic standing. This is what I understand "fair access" to mean.

But how is this any different from providing subsidized or free newspapers or news channels to the population? How is a Net connection any more usable than a free CNN channel? Or C-SPAN, which is in fact subsidized by the cable companies? If we decide that the government needs a subsidized channel or network to make avaiable its laws, its debate, its position, then we have just created a publically-funded propaganda channel for them. (Earlier, I took a position that making government docs available by ftp, gopher, WWW, etc., would be a good thing. I still do, but I worry that the channels would just be platforms for government bureaucrats to pitch their policies and plans. I have no doubt that when the commercial networks are reluctant to carry speeches and press conferences by Clinton, that he'd really like to have subsidized channels that _had_ to carry him. Of course, few would watch, but that's another topic.) So, if we need a National Information Infractructure, why not the same thing for newspapers, television, radio, etc.? Why not guarantee everyone a daily newspaper? After all, they need to be informed. (I don't want to drift into sarcasm about this, as I think Mike Godwin and others are making serious points. But bear in mind that the purported needs for communicating with the public are often the justification for "State Radio" and for the UNESCO-sponsored proposals to restrict the "private press" in many countries. Put it this way, do you really want President Robertson or President Perot to have his won subsidized channels of communication? Perot can of course _buy_ a couple of networks, but that's not the same as an official network.) CNN, the Clinton News Network. --Tim May P.S. I cancelled my entire cable t.v. subscription several weeks back. Too much shit, too little quality, too confusing a monthly bill. I have a sneaking feeling we're going to have about 500 channels soon, with a couple of hundred of them available cheaply enough. -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.