12 Sep
2016
12 Sep
'16
10:36 p.m.
El 2016-09-12 16:14, dc3(a)bob.ma escribió:
I'm not sure what this is exactly in reference to
but there is a fine
point
in the need to be careful to say "free to use" rather than gratis. We
need
to acknowledge that the facilities have to be paid for. We're just
looking
for a way to pay for them which doesn't compromise the larger societal
needs
be they social (access) or technical (supported connectivity). And a
way to
implement connectivity which doesn't put a gatekeeper in the path
(social --
deciding who can speak, technical - frustrating transparent
edge-to-edge
connectivity).
Why do you think that charging for something means it is financed or
that when it is financed means it is being charged for. Many things do
one and not the other, either way. The main way to make
telecomunications not need to be charged is to act by the premise: "I
let you through my link if you let me through yours". Then, everyone
pays for their part of the network and it is financed. Possibly the
thought of commons telecommunications is such an utopia in certain
cultures because even the the air[way] is being privitized.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/against-air-traffic-control-privati…