From: Danny Weitzner <djw@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ending subsidized services?
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 02:47:55 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:43:56 GMT

In article <C1E4n3.2E2@wolves.Durham.NC.US> Gregory G. Woodbury,
ggw@wolves.Durham.NC.US writes:

>Ok.  I'm sufficiently confuse by the arguments and counter-arguments as
>to have lost track of something.  I thought I understood the Open
>Platform initiative, but it seems that I can't quite get a handle on
>some of the points.
>
>Here is a "hypothetical" situation to deal with.
>
[to paraphrase: A hypothetical netnews devotee has a netnews feed to her
home from a friendly university, via an expensive telebit modem which she
is lucky and rich enough to have.  Then, for some unspecified reason, the
feed is cut off.]
>
>THE QUESTIONS:

Before delving into the specific questions, here is a quick reprise of
both the principles at the heart of the Open Platform proposal (see
ftp.eff for full proposal), and a bit about what's happening right now:

The goal of the Open Platform campaign is to encourage the development of
the nation's telecommunications infrastructure so that it is an Open
Platform which 

*	makes end-to-end digital service widely available at affordable rates;

*	promotes First Amendment free expression by reaffirming the principles
of common carriage; 

*	ensures competition in local exchange services;

*	fosters innovations that make networks and information services easy to
use; 

*	protects personal privacy; and

*	preserves and enhances equitable access to communications media for all
segments of society. 

At present, we are working to have Congress give ISDN deployment a
gentle, but firm nudge forward in order to achieve the first goal,
affordable, widespread digital access.  There's lots of interest in this
proposal at both the federal and state level.  In Congress it is being
championed by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), chair of the House
Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee.   Once he and his committee
have put legislation together, we plan a major online, grassroots
campaign in support of Markey's plan.  (Our most recent Congressional
testimony should be in the eff ftp site real soon.)  

>
>	How does the Open Platform initiative provide this person (and
>the sites dependent on that site) relief (i.e.  access)?

First, affordable digital access such as ISDN (if tariffed reasonably)
would make it a lot easier to distribute netnews around to those who want
it, and eliminate the need to buy a pricey telebit.  If ISDN takes off,
an ISDN adapter ought to cost the same as a cheap modem does today.  So,
this is not a direct guaranty of access to netnets, but it should create
an environment where the netnews adict would have other sources to turn
to.
>
>	Does this change significantly if the person makes the feed into
>a small information provider service business?  (Which will raise costs
>considerably - given the current phone regulatory environment.)
No.
>
>	Suppose the person can get NetNews via a sattelite downlink, and
>uses a lower cost option to get email and outbound news connectivity.
>Does the situation change in terms of the OPI?  Does it change in other
>ways?
Again, OP seeks to make all of these services more widely accessible and
cheaper by expanding the potential market and making access arrangments
more economical.
>
>Bonus Questions:
>
>	Should this sort of situation be encouraged?  subsidized?
>mandated?  regulated?

Making digital access available is a key to increasing the diversity of
information sources, both public and private, free and fee-based.  But
not everyones needs will be served by the market.  In some cases because
the users don't have the money to buy services that they need, and in
other cases because a whole community of users with a need do have the
income to make development of such a service attractive to market
participants.  So, subsidies will be needed.  We already subsidize voice
phone service for low-income people, and we direct public money to public
libraries.  All of these subsidies will have to be redirect to meet
people's electronic information needs. (The subsidy question also becomes
more complicated with competitive local telephone providers, but that's
another story.)
>
>	What if the site and its dependents are serving as connections
>to a growing, thriving community of non-technical BBS user folk who have
>become used to having the low-cost/no-cost connectivity to the world?

I sense a red herring in this question.  There is a lot of concern about
what will happen to free internet access as the National Science
Foundation withdraws it financial support for the NSFNET backbone.  Some
people interpret this move as a catastrophe for free net access.  It's
really important to realize here that the NSF money that goes into
supporting the NSFNET backbone is a MINISCULE share of the cost of
maintaining all of the local campus networks and regional networks.  No
matter what the NSF does, local and state institutions bear the vast
majority of the cost of connectivity.  Universities might, but hopefully
won't, start to cut back on net access in the wake of the NSF's funding
shifts.  But if they do, it won't be because any giant gap in funding has
appeared.  I hope I've hit on what you mean here.
>
I hope this is helpful.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
Daniel J. Weitzner								                   202-544-3077 (voice)
Senior Staff Counsel                               202-547-5481 (fax)
Electronic Frontier Foundation                djw@eff.org
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk