Re: First reactions

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Marty Tennant: "Re: Schools reselling????"
• Previous message: Marty Tennant: "Let's Define Universal Service"
• Maybe in reply to: Ken Hammer: "First reactions"

Tom Hibbs wrote,

in response to what:

Ken Hammer wrote:


> Thanks for the wake-up call.  We tax ourselves with direct taxes to fund
> education.  We should not ask our society to tax us with indirect taxes so
> we can "afford what we are not willing to pay for." 

Amen!!  


> We should keep the
> monoplies from charging us outrageous fees for services for the benefit of a
> few major stockholders in the name of the millions that have a few shares,
> but own nothing!

> That, however, is a social issue, but so is this entire legislation.
> 
> Tom Hibbs
> 1995 Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching of Mathematics, Colorado
> Cheraw High School Math Teacher

Tom,

I'm impressed with your award and your willingness to speak out.

BTW, we have a Cheraw here in SC too.

I, too, am in favor of keeping outrageous fees out of the scene.

My biggest fear is that we will be offered different technologies in
different areas, with no standardization of components.  Different 
technology from Telcos and Cable companies could frustrate, particularly
if we are kept or discouraged from buying, in favor of renting, common
equipment. The new 18" digital satellite dish electronics are an
example.  They are satellite and content provider specific.  Not 
consumer friendly, except for the purchase price and the fact they
do provide competition for cable and also rural solutions.

One reason the telephone was able to be universal in the US is because
it was a common technology.  Will advanced service offerings be the 
same?  Some network providers don't want to follow the Internet 
approach.  Will we need to interconnect these networks in order to make
the most of them, functionally and economincally?  How?

Regarding the social issue, I was struck by the differences between the 
House and Senate bill versions.  The House version, supposedly influenced by 
the young and newly elected pro-dereg Republicans, opened up the business to
carriers AND information service companies.  The Senate version kept it only 
for carriers, keeping Bill Gates from taking over the networking business.
The Senate prevailed.

I've heard other versions of why the carriers prevailed, but prevail they did,
keeping the software business out of their turf, for a while.

Marty Tennant
Low Tech Designs, Inc.

• Next message: Marty Tennant: "Re: Schools reselling????"
• Previous message: Marty Tennant: "Let's Define Universal Service"
• Maybe in reply to: Ken Hammer: "First reactions"