Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!hayes!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: TDD Long Distance Discount
Message-ID: <8566@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 90 00:36:47 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 101
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 408, Message 3 of 4


I guess I should comment, although I'm not sure whether I can
adequately cover in one message all of the subtopics that are now
tearing off in all directions.  I tend to wax philosophical, so bear
with me...

As a professional, I agree with John Gilmore that rewarding
inefficient transmission with lower rates seems counter-intuitive, and
I can understand the appeal of Libertarian arguments to put everything
on a pure pay-for-yourself basis.

But Karl Denninger is correct when he writes that:

>However, the issue is not
>bandwidth, nor is it the information able to be transmitted per unit
>of time.  It could be a matter of perceived public service, or any one
>of a number of other factors.

It's simply impossible to consider technology in isolation; economic,
political, and moral considerations all contribute factors that are
almost always far more important.  I learned this many times over
while working on our Deafnet project and participating in the PUC
hearings for California's TDD distribution program, and got so
depressed and burned-out by this exposure to reality that for several
years afterwards I had no interest in bashing my head any further.

Technological:

High-speed data standards, batched e-mail, VLSI modems and other
technological fixes are fine and dandy, but the concepts were not new
twelve years ago when we demonstrated all of them.  Exercise for the
reader: Why do you think they haven't happened?  Analogous exercise:
why don't we have HDTV yet?

Economic:

Are the deaf economically disadvantaged?  In general, yes.  Anecdotal
evidence might work for Reagan, but not in this forum, I hope.
Regardless of many well-off deaf professionals you know, the data from
real surveys is not encouraging.  In general, the level of income for
deaf people is below that of the hearing population; for the
prelingually deaf the differences are more severe.  One of these
differences is a 6th-grade reading level, which is not exactly a
ticket to fortune (once again, movie stars notwithstanding).  While my
own experiences as a WODP must be considered equally anecdotal, they
are consistent with these surveys.  And were a rude shock, I might
add.

Political:

Why should some groups be subsidized?  A good question, which should
be applied to everything else such as local and rural telephone
services, hospitals, insurance, mass transit, PBS, and space
launchers.  Whether we like it or not, the representatives of our
society have already decided that subsidization is an acceptable
method to promote the greater good, and if you are arguing against
this concept, you are taking a radical position indeed.  In this
particular case, I believe some form of help for deaf telephone users
does indeed promote the greater good, but as for most other subsidies
it is hard to come up with definite proof of this.  We make do with
appeals to emotion, reason, and greed.

I don't know how the rate discount evolved.  I do know that the TDD
distribution plan in California was heavily influenced by TDD
manufacturers who expected to gain a windfall profit from sales to
telcos.  The situation of deaf people provided the emotional
sugarcoating that made the vendors' motives palatable to the
legislature and PUC.  Whether the equipment served the needs of the
deaf was secondary to whether it served the needs of the vendors, the
PUC, and the lobbyists thereof.  In retrospect, just normal politics.

Moral:

Modern western culture appears to have developed a general philosophy
that it is a Good Thing for advantaged people to help disadvantaged
people.  Aside from religious motives, this can be justified both on
the selfishly personal grounds that you never know when YOU will
become one of the disadvantaged, and the more noble but long-range
faith that it will contribute to society as a whole.  I use the word
"faith" because even when the economic numbers demonstrate the
advantages of things like subsidization, it's hard for most people or
businesses to think in such long-range terms.  Why should your money
support my telephone usage?  Why should my money support your PhD at
Enormous State University?  Why am I wandering off the subject?

In sum:

Personally I think that the additional traffic and business generated
by providing telephone access to the deaf will far compensate for the
"subsidization".  I don't think the rate discount is a particularly
well-conceived approach to the problem, but the other aspects (TDD
distribution and relay service) are essential.  The telephone has
become such an enormously important and crucial part of our society
today that any group which is prevented from using it, for any reason,
is indeed severely disadvantaged.

I just wish that it was easier to get technology out of the lab and
into the real world.


Ken