Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?

[Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>]

[re: EFF NII proposal, ftp.eff.org, /pub/Eff/papers/op2.0]

> As I understand it, for both telephones and cable TV, it is still common
> for local governments to "grant" "franchises" to single companies for
> phone and cable wires.  If there were one thing to change, that would be
> it.

Why should that be the main focus?  I for one consider modelling the
coming "data highway" on an Internet-like model to be of more concern).  I
have precisely zero use for cable tv (or broadcast tv for that matter),
and very little use for the phone system except as a convenience and a way
to transport FidoNet mail.  Since FidoNet-via-Internet is soon to be a
reality in all likelihood, even that begins to fade. Over 90% of my
communicating is done on Internet or in person.  This is not to say full
privatization of the phone system would not vastly improve Internet, but
at least the net is fairly stable and works.  It's a good place to start.

The creation of a new "infrastructure" (rapidly becoming my least
favourite buzzword) that is modelled on TV rather than many-to-many
networking, would appear to me to be a much more grave danger than the
temporary perpetuation of the current telecom and cable system, which can
be the next thing to work on, once we are ensured the coming BigNet will
be worth the lines it's carried on. 

-- 
Stanton  McCandlish  mech@eff.org  1:109/1103   EFF  Online  Activist & SysOp
O P E N  P L A T F O R M   C R Y P T O P O L I C Y   O N L I N E  R I G H T S
N  E  T  W  O  R  K  I  N  G      V  I  R  T  U  A  L     C  U  L  T  U  R  E
I   N   F  O :  M   E   M   B   E   R   S   H   I   P  @  E  F  F  .  O  R  G