Re: Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 1:27 AM GMT 5/15/96, Jim McCoy wrote:

>BTW, while there may have been a decent argument against the electrification
>act, I think that you are paddling upstream when it comes to net connections.
>The value of your net connection (or any connection to the net) _increases_
>according to the number of people who are connected to the network.  Unlike

Au contraire! Speaking for myself, the value of _my_ net connection has
been going _down_ these past few years as more yahoos (TM of The Yahoo
Corporation) got connected and as congestion clogged the networks. So, on
this basis alone I am opposed to the "Rural Datafication" public works
project!

But seriously, Internet connections are already quite cheap. We've had this
debate a couple of times before here on Cypherpunks, and each time many of
us remain unconvinced that something like Net connections, which are so
well-handled by private enterprise and which depend so heavily on
technological innovation, are best handled by a socialized effort. There
are deep reasons why such government-led programs tend to freeze
progress...this is a longstanding debate topic in many forums, so I won't
argue this point right now.

...
>Oh yeah, and you are already subsidizing their phone bill (at least the
>increased cost of running a line out to them and maintaining that line), and
>their electricity bill, and satellite TV took care of any need to run cable
>TV lines out there or else you would also be subsidizing their cable TV by
>now.  So what was your point?

In point of fact, whether or not these things (electricity, phones) *are*
in fact being subsidized by urban dwellers (and there is some doubt that
this is the case, as it's frequently _much_ cheaper to string electrical
and phone lines in rural areas than in congested urban areas), this is no
reason to socialize Internet connections.

(And my local ISP is certainly not being taxed to pay for lines in Mendota
and East Gittyup, and I won't vote for any scheme which taxes _me_ to
subsidize those locales.)

Socializing Net connections would likely have various bad side effects,
such as freezing the state of development of certain services. (And
socializing access also plays into the hands of those who seek "democratic
control" of content, always a bad thing.)

By not socializing the deployment of Net connections, the eventual (and
ever-evolving) solutions can be cleaner and better than if the deployment
is done by government action, or with government complicity. Look at cable
t.v. for an example of how local community government sought "universal
access" by granting franchises for universal connections and forcing cable
companies to provide service to uneconomical areas. The result is that most
community cable systems are very limited, with a decaying infrastructure
and heavy price regulation. (I should remind readers that a "Datification"
program also implies rate regulation, endless hearings before rate
increases are granted, and so forth. Before deregulation of several
industries, this was how things happened. In cable t.v., it still happens
this way.)

A consequence is that many customers leapfrog right over local cable and go
directly for satellite dishes. While the local community cable systems and
their government partners could (and did) keep out other cable competitors,
this became less and less possible with satellite dishes. Zoning laws were
used to limit BUDs (Big Ugly Dishes, the big 8-foot and larger C-band
dishes). But as the Ku-band dishes (mentioned favorably in my 1988 Crypto
Anarchist Manifesto, interestingly enough) became available, even the most
restrictive zoning ordinances became unenforceable....dishes could be in
attics, on balconies, even covered with fake boulders!

The cable companies and "community access" adovcates are having conniption fits.

(This is having yet another interesting side effect: the wealthy who can
afford digital DSS dishes are suddenly very uninterested in local cable
problems, and the impetus for improvement is lost. Obviously the "poor" are
then left with a decaying, outmoded infrastructure. Even as a Darwinian, I
have to feel for them. They got sold a bill of goods, about how awarding
"the franchise" to TCI or Sonic or Galactronic Cable would result in
"universal access," and now they're stuck.)

In my own case, I skipped cable and installed a DSS dish...150 or more
channels, at least 20 movies on at any given time (not even counting the
Pay Per View movies, of which there are at least 30-40), financial news,
CNN, etc. Plus, a digital output connector for (Real Soon Now, they claim)
a PageSat-type Usenet and Web page feed, using phone links for the back
link. I submit this as an example of where the free market is providing a
better solution than "community access cable" did. In fact, the
socialization of cable held cable back.

I don't want "Rural Datification" when there is no compelling need, and a
lot of free market alternatives emerging. I doubt many farmers or Montana
cabin dwellers want it either.

--Tim

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."