Mills@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (08/05/86)
From: Jim Aspnes <asp@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
The US Post Office exists, and (used to) lose money, because they
will deliver a first-class letter anywhere in the United States
for a nominal fee. No private mail company has ever claimed that
it could provide the same universality of service at the same
price as USPS.
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I think someone choosing to live outside the city should
suffer (and enjoy) all the consequences of doing so. I
don't see any reason why some customers should subsidize
others. Or why taxpayers should subsidize either group.
I think free enterprise methods should be used whenever
possible in our country. When the government wants ANYTHING,
goods or services, it should be put out for bid. If cost
leveling to different users is a desired part of the
service, then that should be part of the specification
companies bid on. REAL open competition does tend to
produce efficient solutions to specific problems. Only when
free-enterprise fails to provide the desired result at an
acceptable cost should the government go into the business.
I think the U. S. Postal System is a good example of this. I
believe that we have a consensus that having a simple communication
system that is of similar ease of use and cost to most people is of a
high value to the country. What if the level of service, start-up and
maintenance costs and revenue are such that no business or corporation
is interested? Is it valid for the government to require people to
bear the costs of such a project? If the government has to take on
the project, is it reasonable to restrict the actions of others that
will make the result more expensive? An example of of this is
restricting private mail companies that skim off the more profitable
mail business near the cites letting the post office do the expensive
part in rural areas.
The question of requiring people to bear the costs is easy. If there
is a real consensus that the project is a good thing, there will be
little objection to forking over the money for it. You get into
problems when people perceive they are paying more than their fair
share or they don't agree with the project in the first place. By
being citizens of a particular country/government, we have agreed to a
particular method of figuring how much an individual should have to
pay and how that money is distributed. If you don't like it you can
have protests, try to elect candidates who agree with you...
The question of restricting competition is harder. One hybrid
solution might be to open the profitable parts to free-enterprise,
with the government taking a cut of the the profits. I feel this
would be fair to the companies, as they are not providing the full
range of services, but are increasing the cost of those services. If
the company would provide the full range of services, then they should
be allowed to compete without special charges.
John Mills
-------