Regarding the article itself, the notion of universal access, a la universal
service, is right where I live. I think the paradigm is important, given the
political climate and mindset of the voting electorate. There is a lesson to be
learned from the success of universal service and the Bell system: the
government can create a set of rules for private industry to do the job that
results in achieving the goal of universal access while creating the most
successful company capitalism has ever seen, and in the end spawning the best
network infrastructure in the world, the leading technology, a spate of large
successful companies, and a growing technology sector with increasing
competition that is good for everyone. (Grammatically I do not beleive that is
a run on sentence, but I welcome criticism.) I am not suggesting the country go
back to a publicly mandated monopoly for e-mail (post office paradigm--UGH!),
but just that the concept of doing it without direct taxes and without
government involvement in implementation is a good one. The actual model and
regulations needs a national brainstorming session. Hmmm....
warren