Message-ID: <01be21fd$0b7df840$3b9d4d0c@johnpozz> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:17:11 -0500 From: John Pozzi <mailto:jpozzi@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> Subject: Re: Tobin/net tax To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Dear Kerry and Bob,Knowing that the economic, social and environmental benefits of open communications are enormous, the beta Global Resource Bank pays for all telecommunications.
John www.grb.net
-----Original Message----- From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@NS.SYMPATICO.CA> To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU <DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 6:14 PM Subject: Re: Tobin/net tax
>Bob,
>> You're correct, the "game" is not getting something for nothing, and
never >> was. The "business" is fostering communications at the lowest cost for
>> all, period, nothing else.
>>
> I disagree, vigourously. The serious business is to make communications
>*count for something. The evidence on the Net (not just this list!) to date
is >pretty meagre, and it's not rocket economics to infer a connection between
>message content and the conceptual investment behind it.
>
>> > Specifically, that no one is exclusively a 'receiver' (aka consumer).
>>
>> The little man behind the screen is at it again. Notice how cleverly the
>> concept of message receiver is twisted into a general consumer concept.
>>
> Please enlighten me: how does being a message recipient differ from
being a message consumer? >
>> I contribute more than pennies. I do it indirectly by paying taxes that
>> go for lots projects I don't support and don't believe various levels of
>> government should be in. I do it by supporting charities who do mostly
>> projects I support. I do it directly by doing health, education and
>> renewable energy projects to meet the needs of various users overseas.
>>
> No one has suggested that you stop; I'm only extrapolating the
'devolutionist' tendency towards paying only for what you get. >Government -- that is, the collector and distributor of indirect tax -- in
this >view, is a dinosaur. The Net itself has been shelled out already; do you
>imagine that ideas of how to make e-mail *pay* are not circulating among
the >ICANN powers-that-be? A cent/K is not only possible, but, imo, highly
likely -- >but if we put uur collective minds to it, we might have at least a counter
>proposal as to where the money goes and what it does.
>
>> > If we can do that, we can pay for email:
>>
>> You're implying "we" approve of over charging.
>>
> Who said *over* charge, hmmm? (Now who's misdirecting?)
>...
>> From implying we all volunteer to over charing for telephone service, to
>> the same overcharge being OK for the internet, then changing to a minimum
>> use payment from a per unit charge, to admitting it's an overcharge by
>> implying "even I" don't use more than 80K/day, to counting only text so
>> rich folks with fast and fancy computers can have their graphics without
>> extra tax, even though they could afford it more easily.
>>
> Slow down a kilohertz or two: your straw men are getting too flimsy to
count. > a) In terms of outgoing mail, I guess very few individual subscribers send
>more than 80K/ day, graphics included. Webbed business is another matter.
> b) One of the first cracks in the old familiar definitional walls between
>phone/ data/ TV/ radio/ cable service was digital pix. (This came with the
>'opening up' of the Net to AOL and Compuserve, and their GUI interfaces, as
>well as, of course, the move from text-based gopher to image-intense WWW.)
>There is no way to distinguish *content*, and therefore the tax proposal
can >not possible be construed as letting 'rich folks have their graphics.'
>c) Rather than being tolerant of overcharging, consider that North
Americans >have come to accept that $25 is 'just about right' for local service and
thus >have ceased to be concerned. The idea of paying the same for LD or for net
>connection is still a novelty, so we're more aware of it, and have less
>precedent on which to base a value judgement. Therefore the 'Tobinette'
tax >has more chance of being accepted at this phase than later on.
>
>> Invest in a renewable energy system now. That will be a contribution to
>> the LDC's. Volume production will make costs go down for everyone. (I
>> got my plug in too, nana nana na na)
>>
>
> Take a deep breath, Bob, no one is arguing. (This aint Usenet!) RE is a
good >thing, and the economy of scale is entirely relevant. But I don't see how
it >moves you from being a 'receiver' to being a supplier.
>
>> If this post causes one person to take a critical, rather than emotional
>> look at one project proposal and rational, it will be worth all the nasty
>> grams (tax free so far) that I will get. Please send them directly to
me, >> not to the group, who are probably sick and tired of it all.
>>
> It's hard to believe, isn't it? Over a thousand people read this mail,
and we >are reduced to hoping that *one will give it some thought. (Btw, if you
could >extract the subject line from the Digest, it'd help those who read this
list >solely via the archives. If it comes to that, has anyone thanked WU for
their kind >service, recently?)
>
>kerry