To: Jon Tara who wrote (12341 ) 6/3/1999 12:15:00 AM From: Sir Francis Drake Read Replies (2) | Respond to
<OT> Personally I see it differently. The fact that Pac Bell is being "ripped off" is irrelevant. What matters to me, is that I pay as little as possible. I believe that there are certain services which are so important, that access to them should be universal. That may involve requiring businesses that enter that industry to "subsidize" such access. There is precedent for that in the telecom industry. F.ex. universal access to phone service is so important, that a great deal of effort was made to insure it. Is it "fair" to require a business to subsidize? Here's the answer: you have free choice as to whether you will enter such a business - if you do *choose* to enter this business, be aware that it involves an obligation to subsidize. If you don't like it, don't enter this business. BTW, that is true of many things like postal and banking services etc, etc, etc. While I'm generally a libertarian in economic matters, I don't take a simplistic "all or nothing" view. There are good, sound economic reasons to do so - when you compute the *overall* economic impact of many of these subsidies (not all, as some are purely political pork type deals), the entire ecomomy is better off - a net gain. I put internet in the same category of the "necessary".
