IP: First of two replies to an original note They don't need broadband -- let them eat ----

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Please read fromm end forward (by message) djf


------ Forwarded Message
From: Jock Gill <jock () jockgill com>
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:30:36 -0500
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: comments

Dave,

The historical case was the delivery mechanism of "The Intelligence".
Before Franklin became post master general of these United States it had
been the practise to allow local postmasters to control access to the mail
system.  This way they could lock a publisher out of the system.   Many
postmasters also published papers and used their power over the distribution
system to bankrupt competitors.  Franklin had experience with this while in
Philadelphia, as you may know.  We could all serve our country better if we
knew its history better.  My grasp of US history is pretty weak.

The KEY issue is access to the distribution system and equitable access at
that.

We want a vigorous market place of ideas -- all competing for attention and
validity.   We want to maximize our idea space.  And we want a level playing
field of ACCESS to that idea space.  If, for example,  we take a class trip
to the swamps to study swamp water, we want all students to have at least
access to the same quality microscopes.  Not some limited to  broken coke
bottles and others to simple magnifying glasses and still others to the
finest microscopes.

We also want to get rid of the model of spectrum as property to be owned and
replace it with an ocean metaphor -- all are free to use as much as they
like as long as they follow a few rules of the sea.  See Ultra Wide Band
Wireless and Software Defined Radios -- ie Dewayne Hendricks and his merry
band of buccaneers.

Should government OWN the spectrum, I think not. I think government should
enforce the rules of the sea.  I think the UWBW and SDR will take care of
the ancient encrusted problems at the Bells.  Their time & technology is
essentially past.  But like all incumbents, they are fighting to hold on to
an ever more untenable proposition.

It is, after all, in the best interests of the market place to maximize
transparency, based in part on communications, as transparency reduces risk
and thus the cost of capital upon which the market depends to grow and
flourish.

Regards,

Jock



At 01:50 PM 3/2/2002 -0500, you wrote:

> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com
> Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 17:49:04 +0000
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Subject: Re: IP: utterly misses the point  more onThey don't need broadband
> -- let them eat ----
>
> For IP
>
> In response to Gill's last paragraph re: Founding
> Fathers and newspapers.  Is he suggesting that the
> Founding Fathers required newspaper publishers to
> operate in every village in colonial America?  Did not
> newspaper publishers operate in a market economy, in
> which they sold their papers and advertising space?  Did
> the Founding Fathers require delivery of newspapers to
> all citizens, to ensure they were informed?
>
> Of course not; and our government shouldn't do so
> either, with broadband.  And if you think broadband is
> as important as newspapers or even TV as a means of
> informing the citizenry, try thinking a little harder
> and marshal some evidence for your argument.
>
> Gerald Faulhaber
> > > ------ Forwarded Message
> > > From: Jock Gill <jock () jockgill com>
> > > Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:52:57 -0500
> > > To: farber () cis upenn edu
> > > Subject: Re: IP: They don't need broadband -- let them eat ----
> > > Lastly, or Founding Fathers understood that democracy requires the
> > > "Intelligence" [newspapers in the late 18th cnetury] to be deliver with out
> > > market place or political distortions to even the most remote locations in
> > > these United States.
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
Jock Gill < jock () jockgill com >
<www.jockgill.com <http://www.jockgill.com/> >
Interactive Digital Studies

------ End of Forwarded Message