fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") (11/18/88)
Why should the gov't *have* to get involved ? Such a super- network is virtually *guaranteed* to make money, so such a network *will* be built. Why should the gov't *want* to get involved (besides the usual reasons of institutional self-aggrandizement and empire-build- ing) ? Maybe because politicians drool at the mention of the word "competitiveness". But also .. perhaps (1) to speed up the inevitable, as private actors are intimidated by the high costs of failure to set the One Successful Standard, and/or (2) in the interest of universal (or nearly-so) service ? The Justice Dept dropped the anti-trust suit against IBM on the same day the Modified Final Judgment re. Ma Bell was released. In a speech soon afterward, reported by Electronic Engineering Times, a Justice Dept bigwig said that the connection was and is explicit, that the gov't was betting they'd keep each other on their toes. So, why has neither AT+T nor IBM begun a national super-network ? Well, how much does a truly spectacular failure in the market- place cost these days ? Especially in a market where investments are high, and standards are everything ? Minitel *was* a gov't job, just enough chips in a terminal to get the job done affordably, short-circuiting megacorporate shadow- boxing, and providing something like universal service. Everyone and his brother has some sort of information service going. (My barely-hidden agenda: the super-network as a "universal service", like telephones and clean water and learning the 3 R's. Does anyone doubt that those lacking access to the super- network would shortly feel like the average Russian schmoe, gazing in the window of the hard-currency stores ? Is your opinion that it will be of immense value to you and your technologically literate colleagues, but not to anyone that can't afford it ? Feel that way about telephones ?) Japan will have INS, Europe will have RACE, and we will have narrowband ISDN and OS/2. (Wowee!) #include <std_disclaimer.h>