Fwd: Re: Another EFF response to policy questions

[David J Farber <farber () radiomail net>]

----- Forwarded Message


Date: Tue, 3 May 94 09:27:50 -0400
From: shap () viper cis upenn edu (Jonathan Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Another EFF response to policy questions
To: farber () central cis upenn edu
Cc: interesting-people () eff org


Daniel Weizner writes:


           The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believes that markets do a
   great job of generating technological innovations. However, sometimes
   markets fail to distribute goods equitably around the country.  Where the
   "good", in this case communication, is essential to democracy, we believe
   that government has a role to ensure that universal access to basic
   communication service is available.


   ...


           This kind of regulation is not a matter of charity to poor, but
   serves to ensure that we have a seamless national communications system.


I'm still thinking through the issues around universal digital
service, but there are some bear traps in the above statement.


   > ... sometimes markets fail to distribute goods equitably around
   > the country.


The key word here is "equitably."  The problem lies in a failure to
define what, exactly, the word "equitably" means.  In free market
terms, "equitable" means that the market will operate competatively to
determine who gets a good according to the value of the good and the
means of the individuals.  Daniel is using the term to mean something
else entirely.


Daniel's definition of equitable may in fact be a better one than that
used by a free market, but it's important to recognize some things
about it:


    1. It hasn't been carefully defined.  Daniel's definition of
       "equitable" has hidden costs, and we haven't been told where
        those costs appear or who will pay them.


    2. It is conflicting.  A market cannot simultaneously maximize
       profit and "Wiezner-Equitable" distribution.  Any market that
       attempts to optimize for both will fail at both to some degree.
       In my experience, the cost of failure is in practice higher
       than the cost of inequity. 


In short, be aware that Daniel is presenting a non-market argument
couched in pseudo-market terminology.  To know if the proposal is
sound requires further examination.


  > ... the "good", in this case communication, is essential to
  > democracy... 


I'll not debate that communication is indeed a good.  The question in
universal digital service is not about the availability of
communication.  It is about the cost and latency of communication.
Nothing will stop you from continuing to use the telephone and/or the
newspaper.


In fact, equal-latency communication is *impossible* in a democracy.
You can't force everyone to listen at the same time.  If bounded
latency is desired for those who wish to listen, then there are at
least two possible solutions to consider:


    1. Universal digital service (expensive)


    2. Require that all politically-related information be published
       via conventional media (e.g. newspaper) simultaneous with
       electronic publishing.  (cheap)


But bear in mind that communication is not universal in our democracy
today.  There are people who cannot afford to subscribe to newspapers
or television, and areas where neither is available.


In fact, however, Daniel is arguing that communication *of data* is
essential to democracy. This misconstrues the basis on which people
make decisions.  The idea of deciding issues on the basis of "facts"
is an intellectual elitism not supported by the data.  People
basically decide on the strength of hearsay and emotional reaction.
There have been good studies on this in mass communications that show
this, and the issue is known to every winning politician.


   > ... This kind of regulation is not a matter of charity to poor, but
   > serves to ensure that we have a seamless national communications system.


Perhaps so, but exactly *how* will this panacea ensure this?




Daniel may be altogether right, but he hasn't won the case yet.




Jonathan S. Shapiro