Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU!mwm From: mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, I'll think of something yet) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Networks, who pays Message-ID: <8811142205.AA15782@violet.berkeley.edu> Date: 14 Nov 88 22:05:31 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 26 >> 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. Government subsidies come from taxation, which means that all the taxpayers get to fund this thing. This is silly, since the people who actually want, and can use, a real community network are also the ones who have money to fund it anyway. Those who can't use it are largly the disadvantaged who don't have a lot of spare cash anyway. You want to get the government involved? How about adding regulation to an existing regulated industry instead of creating a new one. Local cable companies are required (in some areas, anyway) to reserve one or more channels for "community broadcasting." I.e. - the "loccal" shows produced by people in the area they serve. Just require them to reserve one or more channels for data transmission, including rental of RS232<->coax boxes, or something similar. I've tried things like this. It didn't fly. Because most of the community didn't care about the "techno-freaks" and saw no reason to give up channels so that some trivial minority (which describes us) can have new toys.