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