🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mbyrnes-2509951923550001@money.tpoint.net>, mbyrnes@tpoint.net
(Mike Byrnes) wrote:

>    2. I believe that there is no evidence that internet access to all the
> citizens (even those who need subsidized access) can best be provided by
> municipal government.  I recommend that we (Austin citizens) first seek
> private solutions before we pick the taxpayers' pockets to fund another
> government program.  I have always believed that the Internet can help
> build community through technology.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the City provide universal
service. As I said, the only subsidy the City has given Free-Net so far is
Sue Beckwith's salary. That doesn't buy universal service. I don't think
there are any plans for the City to support Free-Net beyond paying Sue's
salary -- Free-Net will have to be self-supporting. That's my
understanding.

In dealing with the issue of universal service, there is a complicated mix
between private and public sources of authority and funding. Universal
service is mandated by regulation and provided by so-called
"cross-industry subsidies." Right now, there is a $75 million universal
service fund available for subsidies, money provided by the telephone
companies that has been required by regulation. I don't think anyone is
quite sure how this money should be used most effectively -- this is
something we're exploring. But, the point is, with such a fund available
already, there's no need for the City of Austin or any other government
agency to think about subsidizing universal access with taxpayer funding.

A Policy Research Project (PRP) here at the LBJ School recently released a
comprehensive report on universal service in Texas. The text of the report
is available on-line at the URL:

     http://apt.org/apt/lbjbrief.html

We're following up this report with another PRP, now underway, extending
the investigation to the role of computers in low-income communities. 

Incidentally, the LBJ School report on universal service has been adopted
as the text of the submission of the Texas Public Utilities Commission to
the public commentary on universal service requested by the federal
Department of Commerce.

> Well, I belive that there is much to be gained from a collaboration
> between independent ISP's and a Free-Net.  I would not have  been the
> "host" for the MAIN server and volunteered phone lines and technical help
> if I did not believe that.  Why not just ask the ISP "community" what we
> think before jumping to conclusions?  You'd be surprised at the support
> you might find.

I didn't mean that there is a *necessary* friction between ISPs and
Free-Net -- I agree with Mike that there's lots of room for cooperation
and collaboration. Mike is to be applauded, loudly, for his contributions
to MAIN. I was identifying potential friction from a policy perspective,
something that other Free-Nets in other cities have encountered. Some have
worked it out quite well, others not so well. Austin doesn't have to
follow any predetermined path -- I think that with community-oriented
people like Mike working in both the private and the public sectors,
there's lots of reasons for optimism.

In any case, Sue Beckwith should be the one speaking for Austin Free-Net,
not me, and I'm sure Sue is quite capable of working effectively with the
ISP community in a mutually profitable and effective way. In fact, she
already does, because, as I understand it, at least one ISP is donating
services to Free-Net right now.

-- Gary

gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu