IP: Another opinion re : Overcoming Barriers to Rural Access:

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 18:47:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <cp () panix com>
To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
cc: Charles Platt <cp () panix com>
Subject: Re: IP: Overcoming Barriers to Rural Access: Policy Recommendations
Errors-To: cp () panix com




I recently began the process of purchasing a house in Jerome, Arizona, a
town of 400 people. (Yes, four hundred.) I discovered there are THREE
Internet Service Providers in the immediate local-calling area. They all
offered the usual deal: $20 a month for unlimited time (actually, one of
the providers imposes a cap of 150 hours per month, but this is almost the
same as unlimited for most users). 


I am sure there are some areas of the country where we could find "holes" 
in Internet coverage, but the Boardwatch survey of ISPs lists THOUSANDS of
local providers, and of course there are at least a dozen services that
are nationwide. It's really hard to find "deprived communities" in this
picture. Wherever there are people wanting to get online, you are going to
find service providers willing to help them. Demand creates supply in this
market. 


Bearing in mind that this level of coverage has materialized within a few
short years, without any government assistance or subsidies; and bearing
in mind also that the number of local ISPs is still growing (again,
according to the Boardwatch survey, which I believe is reliable since it
ACTUALLY LISTS THE NAMES of the service providers); how can anyone
possibly make a case fo government involvement in this field? 


At the very worst, a school could share one account among a class of, say,
20 kids. This would enable demonstrations to the group, plus individual
email, and some short amounts of time for each kid to browse. I find it
impossible to believe that any school in America is unable to afford $20 a
month plus the $500 cost of a net-suitable computer (yes, $500 for a new
486 system with modem and color monitor--just look in Computer Shopper). 


There is no need for subsidized connectivity. Other needs (new text 
books, for instance) are far greater.


I agree that there is some need for teacher education. But where this is
concerned, I find it hard to believe that government programs are going to
be of much help, since government officials themselves are so woefully
uneducated on this topic (with a few exceptions). 


"Internet for Kids!" is a great rallying cry for federal legislators 
looking for buttons to press in the minds of electors.


I believe, however, that this program is unnecessary and unwise; and if
it's going to happen, it's going to be just another absurd waste of money
unless the funding is spread among a group of competing private
enterprises who will be left to do the job in any way they choose. 


--CP