Sender: "Steve Eppley" <•••@••.•••> > U.S. Telecommunications Bill Fails to Serve the Public Interest > 25 October 1995 [snip] >Problem 4. The bill lets rates rise too fast and too much. [snip] I didn't see anything which explicitly refers to subsidizing access for the poor, nor to affordable flat rate pricing. I'd like to see these included. ---Steve (Steve Eppley •••@••.•••) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Steve's points are good ones, and I think this list should hear what my reasoning was when I wrote the document. Certainly subsidized access has been a strong theme in past CPSR statements, and will continue to be part of our plan. (Some members of this list might disagree--there are many who say, "Let the free market take care of access.") I think CPSR has also made a statement in support of flat rates. That's more controversial, though. (Perhaps we should have some discussion so people are aware of the problems behind both flat and metered rates.) But when you're conducting a political campaign--a very specific one, in the case of this telecom bill--the question is whether to promote your ideal position or what you think it's possible to get right now. This is an old, old political debate, but luckily we can have it both ways. We can still write statements promoting the broad goals of universal access. But this particular document has a short life expectancy: it's meant just to influence one bill. Since several CPSR leaders commented on the bill, I think they tacitly made the same choice I did: to talk about things Congress might do now rather than everything we want. There's even some disagreement about whether to call for changes or just to advocate a presidential veto. If we totally gave up on the bill, then we could attack it from the broader viewpoint. I should probably mention that it's too late to change this document anyway. I first showed it to this list a couple weeks ago, and I incorporated a lot of people's comments. But now the document is in the hands of the CPSR board, awaiting their approval. Andy ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages for non-commercial use, pursuant to any redistribution restrictions included in individual messages. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
