My goodness....what a discussion!!
Not all "right wingers" hate the internet.....its great for spreading the latest in building bombs, recruiting skinheads, spreading the white gospel, and so on. And the real right wingers are generally not rich either.
Regardless of what political content we each choose to associate with the "Internet", in order to have one it takes an infrastructure of capital resources (copper wire, poles, switches, etc. etc.) generally provided by the telephone utilities. This actually costs real money and the issue here is who shall bear this cost, applied through what mechanisms.
It is about money....and freedom only to the extent that each of us would like to define that as being free of the burden of parting with any of ours. We have a national disease clearly reflected by our national budget and debt. It is called "anyonebutmeitus".
I think $.10/minute is probably much higher than necessary or appropriate to the utility (which still effectively remains a monopoly)....but it should not be "free", simply because it isn't. Anymore that the highways are, or bridges, or parks, or schools.
As to content.....the Constitution protects our freedom of expression; but it does not provide subsidies for paper, ink, bullhorns, stamps, or networks.
In any case, I'm not so sure that Clinton and Gore would be the best hope for the "free flow of information" and leveling the playing field. Gore comes from big "rich" and Clinton certainly has some pretty rich buddies; and lets face it, we should all be proud to sport Hillary's commodities investment record. I don't suppose she would fall among the "select few", would she?
Tom |
