Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aipna!rjc
From: rjc@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Revolutions and Fidonet
Message-ID: <329@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 21 Nov 88 04:09:37 GMT
References: <621.23788C5A@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> <8811102118.AA12763@pinocchio.UUCP> <60@sopwith.UUCP> <14578@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna (Richard Caley)
Organization: Dept. of AI, Edinburgh, UK
Lines: 28
Dragon: Kalessin

In article <14578@mimsy.UUCP> anderson@secd.cs.umd.edu (Gary Anderson) writes:
>How much security? Who pays?
>How much access? Who pays?

For security, I can't see any reason for anything other than "user
pays". Just as with physical security. If you want more security you pay
more for your locks. A generally available network would require some
decent breaking and entering laws though.

>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?

The same could be asked about roads. It turns out that it is in
everyones interest to have decent roads since that makes it cheeper to
transport goods. The point is that it is not business people who would
benefit so much as businesses and that shoud force prices down. Of corse
it is open to question whether that would offset the cost of the
infrastructure.



-- 
	rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna	AKA	rjc%uk.ac.ed.aipna@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk

"We must retain the ability to strike deep into the heart of Edinburgh"
		- MoD