roundtable: Re: FINS VOL. 2, ISSUE NO. 7

roundtable: Re: FINS VOL. 2, ISSUE NO. 7

Re: FINS VOL. 2, ISSUE NO. 7

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Mon, 28 Mar 1994 13:30:39 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 13:30:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: FINS VOL. 2, ISSUE NO. 7
To: roundtable@cni.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.85.9403271343.A6186-0100000@idi.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9403281336.A27783-0100000@access2.digex.net>

Sam Simon's suggestion that we look for appropriate models is great.  I
suggest that positive consideration should be given, first, to the model
that is right under his finger-tips, namely, the NREN, which has just been
strengthed and reconfirmed by the U.S. Senate (S.4, H.R.820).   This is, 
by universal acclaim, the most successful model in all of history!  vs

Vigdor Schreibman
<fins@access.digex.net>

On Sun, 27 Mar 1994, Samuel A. Simon wrote:
>
> I'm not commenting on the issue of "tenor", but I think there are some 
> important lessons from the past that we are not looking at as potential 
> models for what seems to be agreed upon common objectives:
> 
> 1.  Public policy can be used to direct private industry to meet 
> universal service obligations.  If we look at the history of telephony, 
> a number of policies were specifically aimed at deploying the network. 
> For example, telephone companies were allowed to "capitalize" the cost 
> of adding new users, showing those costs as investments rather than 
> charging the customer the cost to hook them up.  That was changed in the 
> 1980's as we went to more competitive model, but the idea of allowing 
> cheap hook into the network, driven through private industry, worked well 
> for the telehone company.  One could look for similar incentives going 
> forward.
> 
> 2.   Public access models have at best mixed results.   The best we 
> have, as far as I can see, are cable access channels in some cities, but 
> they are not my view of the need.  I think the biggest challenge is to 
> get real money to real nonprofits so they have the material to put on 
> the network that people will use and need. As we move to a digital 
> environment, capacity is not going to be the problem it has been in 
> cable or traditional television; what is necessary is good , high 
> production content and means of promoting the availabilitiy of that 
> materials.
> 
> 3.  I am totally confused by the argument of "net literacy"  To begin 
> with, we still have not defined what the "net" is going to be that is 
> the NII.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Samuel A. Simon
> IDI (Issue Dynamics Inc)	|   Internet:	ssimon@idi.net
> 901 15th St. NW Suite 230
> Washington, DC 20005
> (202)408-1400 (v/tdd)
> (202)408-1134 (fax)
> (202)408-1163 (BBS)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[CNI Home Page]