Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!millar.UUCP!bowles
From: bowles@millar.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re:  Networks, who pays
Message-ID: <8811141443.AA06499@lll-crg.llnl.gov>
Date: 14 Nov 88 14:43:12 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 37


	From: lll-crg!wash-vax.bbn.com!KWALDMAN
	Subject: Networks, who pays

	I tend to agree with the above.  But as long as we are here in the 
	beginning of things lets use some of our wisdom generated from
	"cars and roads."

	Let's NOT burden the taxpayers (i.e. you and me ) with another
	special interest group, that lobbies for Uncle Sam to pay for
	networks, as happened with roads, etc.

Forgive the tone, but this sounds like something Reagan might have written.
Notice how the "free market" system has improved telephone service :-( and
ultimately, airline pricing :-( :-(

	I say that if new networks are setup with free market principles, we
	will be able to bypass some of the problems that cars and roads
	have now. Yes, I know right now we don's have a "traffic" problem
	and technologies giving us bigger bandwiths every day.

What if you approached "network access" as a utility, like electricity or
telephone service? The government doesn't DIRECTLY provide utilities, but
it does arrange for them to be available to everyone who asks for them.

Utilities don't have to be based on the free market system, nor government-
sponsored. Look at the electricity or phone companies (don't flame me on
technicalities, please). The free market system, that is, letting private
companies decide what to provide based on profitability, isn't enough.

	The point is I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT IF I DON'T USE IT,
	AND AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO IF I DO. Remember TNSTAAFL.

That has nothing to do with the free market system, it has to do with
government subsidies.

	Jeff Bowles