Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!umn-d-ub!nic.MR.NET!tank!mimsy!secd.cs.umd.edu!anderson
From: anderson@secd.cs.umd.edu (Gary Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Revolutions and Fidonet
Message-ID: <14610@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 17 Nov 88 23:27:29 GMT
References: <8811171648.AA12727@multimax.encore.com>
Sender: nobody@mimsy.UUCP
Reply-To: anderson@secd.cs.umd.edu (Gary Anderson)
Organization: UMIACS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Lines: 95

In article <8811171648.AA12727@multimax.encore.com> bzs@ENCORE.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: secd.cs.umd.edu!anderson@mimsy.umd.edu  (Gary Anderson)
>>Is it reasonable to use revenues collected from 
>>poor families who have no
>>computers in order to finance a computer network 
>>for relatively well off academics and business persons?
>>
>>How can we address the redistributional aspects of providing this
>>important public good?
>
>The product currently being "redistributed" is not the network, the
>network is a vehicle for education and research. It's the result of


If there is a network, some of us are paying for it.
If the network is in use someone is benefiting from its existence.

It may be fair to say that on the Internet most of the traffic reflects 
conscientious scholars sharing important current research results, and
that the benefits of this activity for society in general will more 
than offset the cost. 
That's my perception/hope although I don't know that anyone has done any
serious analysis to support this contention.

I am however skeptical that the traffic on a "Fidonet" would have benefits
which extend far beyond the user community which is able to
connect and interact.
I do not intend to imply that a non research network is not also valuable 
society in general and its users in particular; I merely want to raise
the question of cost and benefits when with current technology and prices
a truly "populist" network is not feasible.
If its not populist in orientation, and its purpose is to provide useful
services to an easily identifiable group on networkers, then I suspect
that those who benefit most will gladly pay the most for the network.



>that education and research which are supposed to be redistributed. We
>buy test tubes for laboratories but don't wring our hands that the
>poor aren't getting their fair share of test tubes, no?

I agree that whenever possible, it is always better to measure and value
both outputs  and inputs associated with a given enterprise when 
trying to assess the success of a project.


>

>And, as things develop, there are plenty of direct applications of
>such networking for everyone (eg. public schools and libraries.) I

Here here. I agree, I hope these applications will develop, but again
who will pay? Indeed who will find it profitable to develop them?


>don't think it takes a lot of imagination to see how the sharing of
>information can be democratized. As volume goes up price should come
>down, it doesn't take much to get on a network (in theory) if you
>really want to, it could be done with leased equipment for $50 or so
>per month today, if you really can't afford that then it's probably
>the least of your problems.

There are a great number of people who could not afford $50 per month.
And you are certainly correct that they often have other problems to
worry about. 
There are some people who would allocate less of society's scarce 
resources to building infra-structure or even research 
and more to addressing some of their  problems.
Given that Congress or state legislatures would probably
beecome involved in funding any non-private
network, they will have to consider such tradeoffs.
Consequently, if you want a publicly funded inexpensive network,
 you may as well start using your "imagination" 
now "to see how sharing information can be democratized".






>which need to be developed.
>
>Read Stu Levy's book "Hackers" and the story about Lee Felsenstein who
>put a terminal in a public mall area for anyone to leave messages on,
>interesting experiment.



Thanks for the reference,

I will take a look.


Gary