To Holly Benton, who pleaded that “free” Internet access be sustained for off-campus students, and to all other students who share her view, I address the following arguments.

Providing Internet access costs money. Anyone who refers to services afforded students at the expense of others as FREE, as opposed to SUBSIDIZED, is evading the truth.

And many people without a technical background fail to understand that the infrastructure of the Internet is not some inveterate, “ethereal” entity that was built by the government long ago. It is a large, tangible, and expensive work in progress that requires a LOT of maintenance.

The cost of providing access is NOT just the cost of adding a small student telephone support staff in Durham.

You asked us: “What is more important, the interests of private companies or students’ rights?”

I deny the presumptuous implication that private companies have an interest in violating student rights, but the answer is clear: individual rights. You then asked: “How many of us would still use the Internet as often as we do now, if we had to pay for the privilege?”

Which is it, Holly Benton, a RIGHT, or a PRIVILEGE? The answer is, of course, inviolable. Access to the Internet is a PRIVILEGE, as is “access” to your local movie theater, or “access” to a meal at Subway.

Nobody has the RIGHT to force others to pay for your PRIVILEGE. This is irrational selfishness, and the point that you, and others arguing for “free” services fail to address.

The inescapable conclusion of that view is that a privilege can be more important, can take precedence over, individual rights. This conclusion is asinine, however pervasive it may be in modern politics.

To those of you who disagree with this simple argument, be honest: Discredit yourself as a Marxist, and let those of us who believe in capitalism know where you REALLY stand.

Todd Lindsey

Senior

Computer Science