Monster Media 1993 #1/MONSTER.ISO/text/teleread.txt

Text File | 1993-04-17 | 71.6 KB | 1,166 lines

*******************************************************************

                      TELEREAD: HOW ELECTRONIC BOOKS
                       COULD COST LESS AND BE EASIER
                          TO READ THAN PAPER ONES
    Vice President Gore has long championed electronic books--a fine
cause. But how much will books, educational software and other material
cost the average American family to dial up?
    And is there a way to build millions of inexpensive computers with
sharp, viewable screens that would be *easier* to read than books?
    Technology is destiny. What's our destiny, though, if video stores are
everywhere but half the school libraries in California have closed since
1982?
     Here is a proposal addressing those issues--an expanded version of my
article in the April 4 Washington Post Education Review.
     -- David H. Rothman
    April 5, 1993

*******************************************************************

                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
    --TeleRead: How Electronic Books Could Cost Less and Be Easier to Read
than Paper Ones.
    --Who Wins and Who Loses if Online Libraries Are Affordable? Students
and teachers could be winners. On the other hand, some Washington
think-tankers might not fare so well.
    --Stamping Out Curiosity: The Trouble with Pay-Per-Read and "Knowledge
Stamps."
    --Seven Myths--and Responses. TeleRead should appeal to many parents,
educators, researchers, librarians,  writers, editors, software developers
and, yes, enlightened publishers of books; but the pay-per-read gang will
hate it. Here are arguments and counter-arguments.
    --The Origins of TeleRead. TeleRead is not a group, just one writer's
idea. I do hope, of course, that others will join me in fighting for the
plan.
    --Acting on the Idea. Why you should *not* fax or e-mail the White
House or your local member of Congress.
    --How to Reach Me. Please reply directly to me rather than to the
network IDs of the people posting this file.
    --Copyright Information. Alas, TeleRead doesn't exist yet, and
cumbersome copyright laws do. So please read the notice at the end of this
file if you want to publish this proposal on paper--yes, the old-fashioned
way--or print long excerpts from it. You are free to distribute the
material online and pass out disks with the TeleRead file.
       --Addendum: Is Bridgeport the Future? Without TeleRead, what
happens when cities slash library funds?

******************************************************************

                      TELEREAD: HOW ELECTRONIC BOOKS
                       COULD COST LESS AND BE EASIER
                          TO READ THAN PAPER ONES
    The Kid Next Door helped confirm the big bang theory. He was no longer
T.K.N.D. of course--rather, a bearded professor of astronomy--but I could
still see him as a gangly child perusing his father's physics journals. Ned
was always a reader. Even before he could puzzle out words on paper, he was
begging his mother to read to him about internal combustion engines. Years
later he relied on public libraries, not just the local junkyard, when he
built his first telescope. Luckily for science, Dr. Edward L. Wright grew
up in affluent Fairfax County, Virginia--not in Harlem or Watts, where the
libraries were wanting and where he could never have found those arcane
journals.
    We just cannot say where potential Wrights will show up. Given current
demographics, more will have to come from ghettos, barrios and other
book-short areas. Suppose, however, that we live out an old dream of
hackers and librarians. What if computers can drive down the cost of
providing books to African Americans, Hispanics, Appalachians and, yes,
Fairfax Countians?
    Already politicians have proposed online libraries. In the Scientific
American of September 1991, for example, Al Gore wrote: "We have the
technical know-how to make networks that would enable a child to come home
from school and, instead of playing Nintendo, use something that looks like
a video games machine to plug into the Library of Congress." A technology
plan, unveiled February 22 in Silicon Valley, helped confirm the White
House's interest in computer networks for the masses. With Bill Clinton
looking on, Gore even summoned back his high-tech child.
    Questions, however, abound. How much will it cost average Americans to
dial up books, articles, government records, phone directories and other
material? And what about Al Gore's mythical child? Just how many books will
he or she be able to retrieve without impoverishing the whole family? Will
middlemen make killings at the expense of the rest of us? If commercial
databases are any clue, the news will be bad. Extensive online research on
just one topic can cost hundreds of dollars today, a real burden for
students or small business people.
    What's more, special databases for education would not be the final
answer, even if they were free. The Edward Wrights of this world need all
kinds of information, not just facts from designated journals. Except for
proprietary material, we should put almost everything online for Americans
to dial up for free or at little cost; and reading-computers should be
affordable to potential users of online libraries.
    Technology is destiny. What's our destiny, though, if video stores are
everywhere but half the school libraries in California have closed since
1982? Even the libraries in Fairfax County, the ones where young Wright
read about the galaxy, have cut back their hours.
    Pollyannas rejoice that private enterprise will take over from
underfinanced public institutions, and that business people will make
billions off an enlarged information industry. As a country, though, we can
never grow richer just by selling bits and bytes to each other. Real
wealth--for example, 100-miles-per-gallon automobiles, cures for cancer and
a well-informed electorate--will come from how we use information. The
fewer price tags on knowledge, the more wealth created.
    Let me, then, propose a three-part plan, TeleRead, which would help
students, other readers, writers and the American computer industry, too.

I. Impose a Five Percent Tax
on TV-related Sales
    Many foreign countries tax television in one way or another. Why
shouldn't the United States? And why can't we use the money to promote the
activity with which television so often competes: reading? Extrapolating
from Commerce Department and industry figures, we could collect more than
$3.5 billion a year for TeleRead if we imposed five-percent taxes on cable
revenue, advertising sales of TV stations, and retail sales of new
television sets and other video products such as blank and recorded tapes.
When TV-computer hybrids arrived, they would be taxed, too, unless the were
clearly suitable for reading books online.
    The television taxes would hardly bankrupt consumers. You would pay
the equivalent of just $3.50 annually if you kept a $350 set for five
years. That's less than half the amount you might spend on a large pizza to
eat on Super Bowl Sunday. If too many small merchants complained about new
paperwork, the government might instead collect at the wholesale level.
    Unlike many taxes, this one would directly benefit millions of
Americans. Go to typical suburban public libraries on weekends, and you
will see crowds of frugal citizens borrowing books to improve themselves
professionally. Some college texts can cost $75 or more. Reeling from local
property taxes, even some of the most rabid tax-haters might champion
TeleRead as a way to slash the cost of buying books for local libraries and
schools.

II. Make Powerful, Affordable Laptops Available to All
    The student-computer ratio in American public schools is about 16-1;
imagine a bureaucrat at Agriculture or Exxon sharing a PC with 15
colleagues. So let's use part of the $3.5 billion a year to help subsidize
a long-range program to buy laptops that schools and libraries can lend to
students and the public at large. Eventually the schools could even give
away "TeleReaders" to many students from low-income families. By
encouraging mass production, the TeleRead program would make laptops almost
as cheap as calculators, so that middle-class children could buy them
without any subsidies. The procurement program would award contracts in
stages, of course, to avoid locking into outdatable technology.
    Using TeleReaders or substitute machines, students would learn
word-processors, swap electronic mail, and work with personal databases,
spreadsheets and other applications, such as educational programs.
Especially, however, TeleReaders would encourage reading, the most vital
skill. They would be small and affordable and boast sharp, American-made
screens that you could read more easily than you could a paper book.
    The screens would be flickerless; and you could adjust the size and
style of the type, and perhaps the screen colors, too. If you wanted, you
might even detach a TeleReader keyboard and curl up in bed with just the
screen. You could instantly "flip" the "page" or move on to another chapter
by pressing a button or by touching the appropriate part of the screen with
a pen-like device. The same stylus could let you jot notes electronically,
or underline or highlight key paragraphs.
    Different TeleReaders might serve different needs. Some machines, for
example, might be able to read material aloud and highlight the spoken
words on screen--one way to help bring books to the very young, the
vision-impaired and the semi-literate. Voice recognition could pick up
commands from the handicapped. Sooner or later, some TeleReaders could take
dictation; users could write in corrections with the stylus.
    Since the screens on TeleReaders would be so good, you would not need
to print out books or magazines. Why clutter up your house? If need be,
however, TeleReaders could work with low-cost computer printers.
    TeleRead wouldn't just supply laptops or promote the production of
them. The program could also make certain that machines were used regularly
and well--it could help pay the salaries of computer instructors to bring
teachers and librarians up to speed. Let's not turn teachers into
programmers, however. Rather, instructors could show teachers how to apply
high-tech effectively to their respective disciplines. Teachers in the
future should be able to tell students how to write clear, well organized
prose with a word-processor, use spreadsheets, dissect electronic frogs,
retrieve facts on a proposed national budget, or send e-mail notes to local
members of Congress.
    While helping education most of all, the TeleRead program would be a
boon to Silicon Valley and other high-tech areas hit by defense cutbacks.
Flat screens, new kinds of memory chips, and other technologies would grow
more attractive to our oft-skittish venture capitalists. TeleRead would not
ban the use of foreign parts or ideas, but within reason would favor
laptops with a high American content. Simply put, TeleRead would be a sane
alternative to the mindless tariffs that the United States slapped on some
foreign-made screens for laptops.
    Moreover, since the government would buy finished equipment,
Washington wouldn't be setting up a massive research and development
bureaucracy. Rather, the taxpayers could benefit from competition for
TeleRead contracts.

III. Set Up a National Database
As Soon as Possible
    TRnet, part of the TeleRead program, would offer an electronic
cornucopia. Like most public libraries, it would avoid pay-per-read. TRnet
would be free or would charge reasonably for an annual subscription based
on family income, and perhaps included as an option on federal tax forms.
The poorest Americans, of course, should be able to dial up TRnet without
paying a penny. Think of the I word, consider TRnet an investment in our
economic and intellectual development, and use general revenue money to
make the network affordable to all.
    Reachable from anywhere in the U.S., TRnet would carry the full texts
of all new books and other publications. How? All material longer than
10,000 words, and intended for publication, would have to be in digital
form before the government would grant copyrights. The government could
phase in this change quickly with a voluntary program. As for undigitized
material shorter than 10,000 words, scanners could pick up the images,
either for conversion to computer text or as pictures to be dialed up on
TRnet.
    To transmit books and other material, TRnet could use old-fashioned
phone lines, fiber optic cables, radio or cable television
connections--whatever cost the least. The Great Gatsby could reach you in a
fraction of the time it took to watch a rerun of "I Love Lucy."
    Before you hooked into the network, you would answer a series of easy
questions to pinpoint exactly what you needed. you might punch in the name
of an author, dial up the network and instantly get a list of all of his or
her works, with quick descriptions. Then your TeleReader would disconnect
you from the network. At your leisure, without tying up the phone lines,
you would go on to choose which books you wanted sent into your computer
when you logged on a second time.
    You could select not only by author, but also by publisher, editor,
general category, subject, search words, geographical setting or other
criteria. If you keyed in "Washington" and "novels," you would see
everything from Democracy to Washington, D.C. Or suppose you added the word
"black literature"; then you could call up Afro-American fiction from the
local writers. Inner-city teachers could easily track down books that meant
thousands of times more to bright teenagers than anything on television. in
fact, they could tailor reading assignments to individual children.
    TRnet could transmit, too, a wealth of educational software; and
teachers could choose the best programs for their students. Math and
science students could especially benefit. And young immigrants could use
software rich in moving images and synthesized speech to help learn
English. Normally, however, TRnet would favor the written word, which is so
often the best way to pass on detailed instructions and convey abstract
ideas and feelings.
    Whatever the medium, TRnet would pay fairly. Software houses or
independent programmers would receive fees based on the number of times the
public dialed up their creations. And the same arrangement could apply to
individual articles from newspapers and other publications. When writers
kept rights to the articles, then payment would go to them.
    TRnet would allow publications a delay--maybe two weeks for daily
newspapers and eight weeks for monthly periodicals--before the network
posted issues online for all to see. So publishers could still make profits
off paper versions or their electronic editions. The latter editions could
be highly customized for individual subscribers, just as some experts now
foresee; they could even offer interactive ads through which subscribers
could order merchandise.
    Newspapers and magazines could rely directly on phone companies and
cable systems to speed these current editions to paid subscribers, but
often TRnet might make more sense. Understandably, many newspapers see
phone companies as rival publishers. Suppose, however, that
telecommunications firms signed long-term contracts with TRnet; then the
network could act as a buffer between them and the newspapers that
subleased the lines.
    What about TRnet's compensation for professional writers of books--and
their publishers?
    Authors could sell to TRnet directly, or, armed with this new
bargaining power, they could sign contracts with publishers. Without heavy
production and distribution costs, publishers could pay far better. Under
TeleRead, writers and publishers would earn fees based on how often people
retrieved books. And as a mass purchaser of material, TRnet could pay
de-escalating royalties on best-sellers to discourage publishers from
overhyping "big" books at the expense of midlist titles. Publishers could
set advances by the expected number of dial-ups. Outside business people
could pay authors and publishers for rights to anticipated TeleRead money;
let Wall Street invest in literary futures.
    Yes, if TRnet gouged readers, then the public would bootleg books
electronically and cheat authors, publisher, and literary investors; but if
network use were free or low cost, piracy just would not be worth the
trouble. TRnet would actually safeguard literary property better than any
copy protection scheme that publishers might happen to be contemplating.
Even CD-ROMs are not safe. You don't have to be Sony to be able to copy
them. And the more powerful computers grow, the easier it will be to defeat
copy-protection schemes. Hackers love a challenge.
    To answer an obvious question, no, people couldn't type their names
over and over again, go on for 60,000 words, call it a book, and have their
friends dial it up at public expense. Anyone could post virtually anything
on TRnet; but professional librarians, each working within his or her own
budget, would help decide which works merited royalties. The librarians
would be at national, state and local levels. After a certain number of
dial-ups, almost any book or program could earn dial-up fees regardless of
the wishes of the librarians.
    Writers and publishers could also bypass librarians by gambling a
certain amount of money up front to reduce the number of dial-ups required
for royalties. The TeleRead laws might require TRnet to reserve maybe a
fifth of its budget for "bypass books," as I'll call them. By raising or
lowering the fees charged authors or publishers, the network could help
control the total bypass expenditures. Sharply de-escalating royalties on
best-sellers would also keep a lid on costs.
    That still leaves open the question of TeleRead's total expenses. To
be hypothetical, suppose we could immediately put all paper books and some
other material on TRnet. My estimates add up to $30.05 billion:
    --$10 billion for online books, which would be more appropriate than
the less than $5 billion that publishers most likely spent on writers and
editorial workers today. The $5 billion is my estimate based on a book
industry study and on informal talks with publishing authorities.
    --$0 for fresh editions of newspapers and magazines--including
academic journals--since TRnet would be a mere conduit.
    --$5 billion for past editions and old articles. That's a fifth of the
approximately $25 billion that American readers pay each year for
newspapers and the magazines, according to Commerce Department figures.
    --$50 million for articles and papers that TRnet bought directly. As
any professional writer or academic can tell you, some of the most valuable
writing will never find readers because it is outside the commercial or
academic formats of existing publications. Granted, thousands of Americans
would upload material to TRnet without counting on financial rewards. But
TRnet could at least hold out a slim possibility of pay.
    --$3 billion for educational software, or about three times the amount
that schools and families now spend if you extrapolate from statistics of
the Software Publishers Association.
    --$2 billion for computers for libraries, schools and some low-income
people, and some computer training programs for librarians and teachers. A
billion dollars could buy a million TeleReaders at $1,000 each, or,
eventually, 10 million computers at $100 each. Again, the idea is not to
give every American a machine, but rather to spur production of good,
affordable portables for reading.
    --$10 billion for staffers, telecommunications and leasing of computer
facilities. Many would consider the $10 billion to be far high. I've tried
to err on the cautious side. Staff costs would be low since TRnet would
rely heavily on existing librarians, who are already accustomed to choosing
books for public use. Telecommunications might well be the biggest cost.
Rather than squandering tax money on rapidly outdatable technology, the
government could rely on private phone companies. As much as possible,
TeleRead could take advantage of the nooks and crannies of existing
networks. The system might even offer bargain subscriptions to user willing
to dial up their books after regular business hours. Also, TeleRead could
lease private computer facilities to avoid technolock (technolock: n. A
tendency of many large bureaucracies to keep using antique equipment to
justify past investment).
    The hypothetical $30.05 billion total is about two percent of the
federal government's 1993 budget, or around half a percent of the Gross
Domestic Product. What's more, the actual first-year expenses of TeleRead
would be in the hundreds of millions, and perhaps much less. Only a
minority of Americans would sign up in the beginning if we limited the
first users to specialized books and articles of a scientific, technical or
educational nature. TV taxes and modest subscriptions fees--maybe $50-$100
per year for an average family--would pay entirely for this scaled-down
program.
    TeleRead, then, needn't come to life full grown. At the start, it
could even send surplus TV tax revenue back to the U.S. Treasury. Let a
lean TeleRead sell itself; and then support will quickly grow for a
full-service system that can give the Wrights all the books they needed.
    Of course, TeleRead and its TRnet should be just one option for
readers. We should still be able to buy electronic or paper books from
publishers, stores and authors. That would be one way to cope with the risk
of censorship by officious politicians (another way would be to make
TeleRead an independent agency with long-range funding).
    Also, TRnet must not compromise privacy. If the program charged
nothing or just flat subscription fees, there would be no need to keep
permanent records on the reading choices of individuals. When you retrieved
a controversial political work--in fact, anything--your machine would tell
TRnet to pay the author or publisher. But the central computers would be
programmed to forget your personal selections in a week or two. TRnet would
keep the temporary records only as a way to guard against constant dial-ups
by those profiting off them.
    What's more, for the really worried, private companies such as Barnes
& Noble could set up vending machines that would accept old-fashioned,
untraceable paper money as well as credit cards. The machines would copy
books onto a tiny memory card that plugged into your computer and held many
volumes.
    Bearing bright logos, such machines could be a fixture at malls,
airports and other public areas. They could serve both the privacy-minded
and people who just did not want to become regular subscribers (revenue
would go both to TRnet and operators of the vending machines).
    As a rule, however, TRnet itself would be the best, most economical
way to spread the written word. Without it, students, teachers, and other
Americans may never be able to read so much and so cheaply by way of one
easy-to-use database.
    "This program would benefit average students as well as gifted ones,
and it would better prepare Americans for work in an information-dependent
society," says Dr. Vicki Hancock, an educational technology expert at the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development in Alexandria, Va.
    Skeptics might dismiss TeleRead and its TRnet as socialistic; but they
are not, any more than a public library. If Andrew Carnegie--the
19th-century capitalist extraordinaire--were alive today, he would be
probably be funding demonstration projects, just as he helped small-town
libraries across  the United States, hoping that ambitious Americans could
use the technology of the day to better themselves.

David H. Rothman is the author of  The Complete Laptop Computer Guide (St.
Martin's Press).

******************************************************************

                          WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES
                            IF ONLINE LIBRARIES
                              ARE AFFORDABLE?
    No, electronic books will not make all teachers and librarians go the
way of blacksmiths--quite the contrary. Even book chains might find new
roles. On the other hand, TeleRead could traumatic for some of the more
mediocre of Washington's think-tankers.
    Move ahead twenty years now; here's life in the TeleRead era.

Teachers and Students
    Humans in the classroom offer kindness and encouragement that silicon
chips can never replace. Teachers dial up TRnet to learn their subject
matters better. On paper and in classroom discussion, they demand more of
students--who can tap into the same databases.
    With so many books and educational programs to retrieve, teachers can
customize lessons for students with all learning styles. If high school
students show enough discipline, they can spend just several hours each day
in school.
    Students suffer less rote learning and fewer multi-choice exams.
TeleRead has revived the old-fashioned essay as a way to teach the research
skills and logical thinking that 21st-century workers need. Students modem
in their term papers. From elementary school on, they accustom themselves
to working off computer screens.
    At all levels, schools save billions on textbooks and have more to
spend on other resources and faculty salaries. And students at public
schools and state universities can retrieve the same books as those at prep
schools or Ivy League institutions.

Librarians
    Paper books remain on library shelves. But spending for new ones has
fallen off steeply. Librarians teach patrons to use TRnet, offer assistance
online and help the national program select book to post on the network for
royalties. The profession enjoys new power. Well-educated librarians play a
bigger role in determining the nation's reading tastes than do the
marketers at the large book chains.
    Compared to the past, today's librarians spend less on clerical duties
and more time judging the worth of potential acquisitions. Under pressure
from librarians with easy access to a wide variety of facts, book
publishers are diligently fact-checking their nonfiction.

Small Bookstores
    Book-loving proprietors still cater to traditionalists who favor
paper. But they also offer vending machines that can copy electronic books
onto memory cards owned by the customers. Even the bookstore owners will
not know the choices of customers who insert paper money into the machines.
    Some bookstore owners have become publishers or editors--sometimes
specializing in locally oriented books .
    Plenty of good clerks have remained behind to sell paper books, answer
customers' questions, and put out chatty newsletters online that draw
people into the stores to discuss books and meet local authors. Other
clerks have left the business and become literacy instructors, teachers or
editors.
    Bad clerks also are gone. They can make more money selling golf carts
or refrigerators.

Bookstore Chains
    Inferior chains have shut down. The better ones sell not only paper
books, but also TeleReaders with capabilities far beyond those of basic
models.
    Also chains have installed thousands of book-vending machines in their
stores and in public places.
    They offer electronic networks, too, for people who would rather not
deal directly with the TeleRead program. The program lets the chains enjoy
enough of a markup to make such efforts worthwhile.
    In addition, the smarter chains encourage their local stores to
imitate independent stores and publish online newsletters--and otherwise
serve the people of Albuquerque, Chicago or San Jose.

Book Publishers
    Editors have risen in importance in the book industry; sales reps and
marketers have declined. Perhaps 90-95 percent of professionally edited
titles qualify for royalties on TRnet; if they do not, the publisher can
pay to get them on the network as bypass books. All publishers enjoy
coast-to-coast distribution.
    Midlist works thrive. Publishers of all kinds have grown more
adventurous in their selections since they do not need to gamble fortunes
on paper, printers and warehouse space. They no longer worry about local or
federal governments taxing their back lists to the detriment of
non-best-sellers.
    Nor must publishers bow so often in the direction of the large book
chains.

Newspapers and Magazines
    Like paper books, traditional newspapers and magazines have not
vanished immediately, but sooner or later, most subscribers switch to
TRnet.
    Good reporters and editors thrive. Publishers must offer enticing news
and prose, or see startups take business away.
    Many old publications, however, are earning bigger profits these
days--since they spend less on paper, printing and distribution, and since
Americans are more word-oriented.

Writers of Books
And Articles
    Few have become millionaires; but thanks to TeleRead's de-escalating
royalty rates, the average writer stands a little more of a chance of
enjoying a middle-class income.
    Technical, scientific, and medical writers fare much better than
before. Instant publication allows books and articles to appear with fresh,
easily updated facts, spurring innovation in the fields about which the
authors have written.
    The big losers are best-selling authors who are better marketers than
writers.

Software Developers
    Small software houses can distribute their wares more easily than
ever--either for free or for very reasonable charges.
    Back in the 1990s, many Americans programmers were not that different
from writers. They came up with original ideas, but often had to pay too
much to middlemen.
    Now a programmer on a West Virginia hilltop can reach big urban
markets even if he (or she) lacks contacts with national software stores.
He needn't rely on the uncertainties of "shareware" distribution.
    TeleRead has been especially helpful to publishers of educational
software. No longer is bootlegging so major a threat. The Elderly
    TeleReaders have sparked a boom in reading among older Americans. The
machines can vary the size and style of type to make reading as enjoyable
as possible for people with poor vision. Pleasant, synthesized voices can
read out anything.

The Disabled
    The bedridden can enjoy whole libraries. Affordable machines respond
to spoken commands and can take dictation. They make telecommuting--working
from home--far easier for the disabled.

Politicians and Bureaucrats
    Sleazes lose more elections; honest politicians do better. Average
Americans can easily use TRnet to scour government records, and also to
retrieve the precise wording of politicians' past promises. Voters can see
the words that the candidates themselves posted online. This is the norm.
It isn't just limited to the high-tech elite.
    What's more, via TRnet, people can write back to politicians and
bureaucrats at all levels of government, while knowing exactly which ones
to complain to. Do you want a traffic light near your intersection on the
George Washington Memorial Parkway? TRnet will bring you up to date on the
relevant laws and regulations, the accident rates, and whom you should
contact at National Park Service.
    TeleRead makes government more attentive than can push-button TV
plebiscites. If an obtuse GS-15 tells you to get lost, then you can whiz
copies of your correspondence to the newspapers and broadcasters, and if
journalists ignore you, then you might post your grievance on an electronic
bulletin board and organize other voters to pressure the bureaucracy.
Literary Agents and Lawyers
    Writers can publish directly on TRnet, but most pros continue to rely
on editing and promotion from publishers. Literary agents and lawyers are
still around to help authors negotiate with publishers and Hollywood.
    Also, TRnet is a good research tool for lawyers of all kinds, whom
private information services can no longer gouge. Lawyers and nonlawyers
alike can look up official explanations--in clear English--of local, state
and national laws. International Markets
    The United States helps other nations start their on TeleRead
programs, and negotiates agreements with countries where similar programs
exist.
    Via TeleRead, we create new markets for American books and can share
technical expertise with the Third World. At the same time, foreign
countries can develop their own electronic library systems--well-stocked
with indigenous literature. The TeleRead approach encourages cultural
diversity. Perhaps someday one TeleRead system will serve entire planet,
but not until more countries grant freedom of the press.
    Of course, even now, people in most countries can dial directly into
the American TeleRead system and thwart many a censor. Corporations
    Years ago, when TeleRead was proposed, some corporations saw the plan
as a budget-buster from Satan. Instead, however, it consumes just a tiny
fraction of our Gross Domestic Product and has added vastly to our national
wealth. The smarter CEOs realized that the best way to protect capitalism
was to be more flexible than the dogmatists of Eastern Europe were.     Now
employers of all sizes can benefit from computer-savvy workers who need not
be supervised constantly. This skilled workforce makes us a more
competitive nation.
    Other countries can tap into databases, ours or their own, but in no
other land is high-tech so integral a part of the educational system. Even
the poorest American children can grow up with TeleReaders. We were among
the few countries that could make a computer available to each child, one
way or another; and we took advantage of this.
    (For an example of what a well-educated workforce can accomplish with
high tech, read The Virtual Corporation: Structuring and Revitalizing the
Corporation for the 21st Century, written by William H. Davidow and Michael
S. Malone and published last year by HarperCollins.)
    What's more, TeleRead is a boon to many corporate marketers. With so
much information online for free, they can more easily anticipate national
and international consumer trends--by searching databases for patterns.
Good companies enjoy more business since consumers can dial up detailed
reviews of specific cars, woks, or washing machines. Badly run corporations
are failing faster as word spreads of inferior products or financial or
environmental scandals. Stockholders can dial into TRnet for past articles
on companies, large and small; markets are more efficient at rewarding
winners and punishing losers.

Religion
    TRnet is a dream come true for the Gideon Society and equivalents. The
Old and New Testaments, the Talmud, the Koran, and other major religious
works are online. Christian fundamentalists once worried about dial-up
pornography, but now rejoice that the new generation of young people is
more contemplative, less hedonistic, as books regain much of the influence
they lost to television.
    With so many books and educational software on TRnet, it is easier for
conservatives of all faiths to home-school their children or start private
schools without draining resources from the public education.

Volunteers
    Retired managers and executives use TRnet to tutor students and
consult with small business people from afar. An Electronic Peace Corps
lets Americans share technical and medical expertise with people abroad
(see my proposal in the Washington Post of Feb. 5, 1984, Page D5). Thanks
to the EPC, we can now learn of any AIDSlike epidemic long before it
threatens the United States (see International Health News, November 1987,
Page 4).

Anyone Displaced by TeleRead and TRnet
    No worker got a pink slip without plenty of warning; everyone knew
TeleRead was coming. With so many educational resources online,
career-switching is much easier. Although employers have eliminated useless
mid-management jobs, many ex-managers have re-established themselves as
consultants or master technicians. Washington Think-Tanks
    A few hacks at Washington think-tanks--not the true stars, but rather
the plodders who turned corporate propaganda into academic research--are
among the displaced. TRnet for them is a nightmare come true. Grubby high
school students and Idaho professors can now dial up the same arcane
information as our national elite can.
    Fresh Insights are more of a commodity. The outsiders can't go to
Washington cocktail parties and hear the latest gossip. But the more
diligent among them can dial up a number of databases in search of trends
invisible to the duller of the D.C. think-tankers.
                            *   *   *
    We now return you to 1993 and a more immediate prediction. Somewhere a
dutiful tanker will boot up his word-processor and write, "Fascinating
idea; but of course it will take decades to resolve the copyright issues,
and we'll all go broke and end up slaves of the Japanese if we even dream
of spending half percent of our Gross Domestic Product on TeleRead."

******************************************************************

                          STAMPING OUT CURIOSITY:
                      THE TROUBLE WITH "PAY-PER-READ
                          AND "KNOWLEDGE STAMPS"
    Via computer, you've just dialed up Shakespeare, a biology text or
maybe a manual telling you how to fix a diesel engine. You log on the
network for the next series of books. And then a rude message flashes
across your screen: "User hereby agrees to transfer $20 for the designated
material. Type Y or N."
    Get used to such hassles if we go in the direction of pay-per-read.
One of the worst proposals comes from a Washington consultant who has
suggested that Americans receive "Micro-vouchers" to pay for courses and
instructional material and tools. Couldn't these knowledge stamps help
replace "government-run and -controlled institutions" with "free
enterprise"?
    Excuse me. What about the Stalinist institutions known as public
libraries? When thousands of books go online and many are not even
available on paper, a national public library should store copies of
everything for ordinary Americans to dial up. Otherwise, we may have to
dart back and forth between, say, a Time Warner computer network and a
McGraw-Hill equivalent to retrieve all books on topic X.
    Even more important, our government should not limit our free reading
to stamp-style allotments (why have stamps if allotments or pay-per-read
schemes won't exist?). A traditional public library encourages curiosity
and browsing. We must not let the pay-per-read gang discourage them.     If
pay-per-read wins out instead, future Michael Dirdas will suffer. Dirda, a
Washington Post editor from the Ohio steel town of Lorain, has written how
his clever working-class father used reverse psychology to cultivate a love
of books. Now, what if pay-per-read prevails in the 21st century? Then,
knowledge stamps or not, a future version of Dirda's father might truly
mean it when he discouraged reading:
    Mr. Dirda (looking at a record of young Michael's account): "Why are
you wasting your stamps? If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand
times. no more novels this month."
    Michael: "Not even Tolstoy? Not even Faulkner?"
    Mr. Dirda: "I thought you were practical."
    Michael: "Tom Mikus reads all the novels he wants. Bellow, Mailer, you
name it."
    Mr. Dirda: "Look, Mike, you've got only so many stamps. If we could
afford all those books on our own--believe me, we'd get 'em."
    Michael: "Just because his old man's a lawyer--"
    Mr. Dirda: "You've still got $300 in credit this year. Why not take
accounting?"
    Michael: "But I want to go to Oberlin. I want to save my stamps for
the classy stuff."
    Mr. Dirda: "Forget it, Mike. That's for people like Tom."
    I'm assuming, of course, that the future Michael could befriend the
future Tom in a public school attended by children of diverse backgrounds.
By draining away resources, knowledge stamps might kill off many public
schools where social classes mixed.

******************************************************************

                                SEVEN MYTHS
    Say "TeleRead" to a certain species of "information management" guru,
and it will be like touting Fords to a buggywhip maker.
    After Computerworld printed an early version of my TeleRead proposal
in July 1992, it received an angry letter from a Chicago consultant who was
"appalled." He hated the idea of the *government* spending money on
"universal access to on-line information." Presumably we should sit back
and let Fortune 500 companies and the information priesthood decide what's
best for the average American.
    I won't blame some elite consultants for loathing the idea. While many
would adapt to TeleRead--and actually come out ahead--others would find
that it took away their raison d'etre. Many prospective clients could
dial-up information for themselves.
    With people like the Chicago consultant in mind, I'll list seven myths
and rebuttals:
    --Myth #1: Apple started in a garage, so why do we need a new
government program like TeleRead? What a waste.
    Reply: By the time Apple came along, the government had poured
billions into military and space technology. Would integrated chips and
other key components have been invented without years of investment in more
primitive forms of electronics? Consider, too, the shot in the arm that the
laptop industry received when the Internal Revenue Service and other
federal agencies started buying portable computers.
    Such benefits, however, are small compared to those that TeleRead
could bring over time. Without being too xenophobic--not the smartest
mindset in an industry as international as high-tech--TeleRead would try to
favor vendors with American-made screens and other key components.
    The biggest need for TeleRead, of course, has nothing to do with the
immediate welfare of regions such as Silicon Valley and the Route 128
corridor in Massachusetts. It has to do with the decline of reading in the
United States. Millions of students are growing up in bookless homes and
going to schools that lack money for books or squander the funds.
    Some of the worst outrages have occurred in Washington, D.C. Schools
there spend more than half a billion a year, of which a mere $2 million
goes for books. Teachers are tired of using their own money to buy extra
books and other supplies for students.
    Courtland Milloy, a Washington Post columnist, recently wrote: "In the
absence of up-to-date textbooks, many teachers say they must rely heavily
on current publications, routinely spending more than $100 a year just on
duplicating news articles."
    Anyone still question the need for TeleRead?
    --Myth #2: Wouldn't TeleRead stifle competition among publishers and
writers. What's this about DE-escalating royalties?
    Reply: But what's so competitive about our present system? Go to the
computer-book stands at your local chain stores, for example, and you'll
very likely see the same colophons again and again. That's a hint of what
the rest of the book world may face.
    At least one famous publisher tells agents that it no longer wants
midlist books, only potential best-sellers or specialized professional
books.
    Marketers at some big publishing houses don't exactly dream of
publishing Nobel Prize winners and printing scores of good first novels.
Their secret fantasy is a little more MBAish. They would like to print just
one book a year--anything, good or bad--and sell 20 million copies.
    Forget about the explosion in the number of small publishers. Desktop
publishing technology makes it easier to set type and lay out books, but
what's the use if you normally can't get the big chains to display your
wares as well as those from major houses? Most small publishers survive by
sticking to niches and paying meager royalties to writers, who, with less
at stake, often turn out sloppy, badly researched work.
    Nor does the present system truly promote competition among writers.
In a country of a quarter of a billion people, fewer than 10,000-20,000
freelancers are writing books full time and giving the trade their best
efforts. Going full time is normally out of the question unless you're
rich, hyperfrugal or have a working spouse. Write a $20 paperback, and you
may receive all of $1.20 for every copy sold.
    Sociologist Paul Kingston once calculated that writers could earn more
per hour by flipping hamburgers at Wendy's than they could make at the
typewriter. He co-authored a book with a rather apropos title: The Wages of
Writing: Per Word, Per Piece, or Perhaps (Columbia University Press, 1986).
No meaningful government figures exist on the average incomes of
professional book and magazine writers who freelance full-time; but you can
bet that you wouldn't want your daughter to marry one.
    Meanwhile, publishers keep bidding up the prices of a lucky few
writers without truly encouraging them to write better or even in a more
popular style. Judith Krantz will never turn out Pride and Prejudice--or
even a more popular Hollywood saga--just because the industry pays her $2
million rather than $1 million. The industry would be far more competitive
without all those blockbuster advances and without a tendency to promote
just a few writers at the expense of many.
    And that's where the concept of de-escalating royalties would come in.
It could revive the midlist book in America.
    Right now, printers give discounts for large printings--favoring
best-sellers, in effect, and harming many technical and educational books,
along with literary novels. And even with computerized inventory systems,
big chains would rather play up certified best-sellers than midlist books.
Most chain stores are in malls. Booksellers must pay the same rent on the
space a book takes up, whether it sells one or 1,000 copies a month.
    TRnet, however, would be different. It wouldn't cost that much more
per dial-up to distribute a first novel rather than a Krantz book.
Moreover, as suggested in the main TeleRead proposal, TRnet should be
entitled to a steep discount as a mass buyer.
    In the end, then, through de-escalating royalties, the new
book-distribution system would be skewed in favor of competition and
diversity.
    --Myth #3: The government has no business funding writers and
publishers. What about the risk of censorship? Do we really want the feds
telling us how to spend money on books?
    Reply: Marketers already are censoring new ideas more relentlessly
than any government bureaucrats could.
    Write a book about a social or political problem, and watch the
typical publisher run in the other direction if you aren't good talk-show
fodder. Ideally, of course, you'll have your own show and a large audience
that shares your prejudices. Rush Limbaugh is the publishing world's gift
to itself.
    Pesky new idea lose out under this system. The wonderful witticism
from the late A.J. Liebling, the media critic, has held up well; freedom of
the press is for those who own one.
    TeleRead, on the other hand, would be a boon to new publications and
to small publishers of books, newsletters and magazines with original
ideas. I think of people like Roldo Bartimole, a former Wall Street Journal
reporter. For decades he has been taking on the Cleveland establishment.
Read his Point of View newsletter and you will understand why new
skyscrapers arose in Cleveland while neighborhoods crumbled.
    PoV is a delight for citizen activists, journalists, librarians,
academics and others. In fact, some of its most constant readers are its
targets. They keep up with Bartimole's little sheet for the same reason
many financiers read the front page of The Wall Street Journal; his exposes
enrage them at times, but uncover fresh facts that they could never find
elsewhere.
    The problem is, many big law firms and others are not buying PoV so
much as they are *photocopying* it.
    Under TeleRead, Bartimole-style mavericks could reach larger audiences
without worrying about the costs of postage and printing. Yes, some copying
would take place. But he would still benefit from the wider exposure. At
the same time, big dailies would come out ahead, too, since they could
distribute electronic editions without relying on the goodwill of the local
telephone and cable monopolies.
    But what about the risk of politicians censoring material? That is
exactly why TeleRead would be an independent agency; receive long-range
funding; have many librarians involved in the selection of books and other
material; rely heavily on input from state and local levels rather than
being a top-down organization; offer explicit procedures for writers and
publishers to bypass the librarians; and allow private publishers to run
their own networks and sell books and magazines independently through
subscription programs of their own.
    TeleRead would not even have to be in Washington near the normal
policymakers and lobbyists. Spread out the functions. Let a Silicon Valley
office do much of the laptop-procurement. Have Boston help handle contracts
for the memory-bank facilities, in many different areas of the country. Let
the librarians--most of whom would work for local, state and university
libraries rather than for TeleRead--live anywhere.
    Keep the Library of Congress open as a servant of the Congress and as
a preserver of paper manuscripts, but don't let it run TeleRead, not when
it is within a short walk of the Capitol Building. In short, make TeleRead
a decentralized, virtual organization without a Washington headquarters
around which the usual lobbyists could hang out. Astute politicians should
welcome this approach. It would provide less opportunity for book-burning
group to hassle them over TeleRead.
    A decentralized TeleRead might lease TRnet computer facilities in
several regions and cut down on communications costs. Granted, each
facility would store the same books (so that comprehensive searches for
information would be easy). But many librarians, in different locations,
would be able to certify titles for dial-up fees.
    These TeleLibrarians would be working within their own budgets, just
like doctors at HMO's. Consider a librarian in Bismarck, North Dakota,
working for the local library system there; he or she would use the central
database to monitor all new books submitted for possible certification--no
matter where the authors or publishers were located. Thanks to the powerful
search capabilities of computers, our North Dakotan could flag the system
to look regularly for books of interest to her.
    No book on the Great Plains or on the Dakota history would escape her
notice--nor would any biography of her favorite composer or artist.
    The central database would tell her which books already received
enjoyed certification. Armed with all these facts, she could intelligently
approve a certain number of books each week or two--whatever her budget
allowed. The money would come from the federal government, but this local
TeleLibrarian would be watching out for the interest of her fellow
Dakotans.
    Statisticians would help TRnet monitor the dialup patterns and
constantly adjust the allowances for purchases of certain kinds of books
and other material. The book world already has a classification method,
none other than the Dewey Decimal system. Clearly, then, ways would exist
for TRnet to avoid cost overruns, especially if royalties on best-sellers
were de-escalating.
    With clear selection and budgeting procedures in place, TRnet in some
respects would be like the Internet, the giant network of networks that is
available to thousand of researchers, academics, business people and others
in the United States and throughout the rest of the world. The U.S.
government made the Internet possible, but the network has taken on a life
of its own. It now carries hundreds of message areas on topics ranging from
ozone to "Practical Christianity."
    In fact, the Internet offers much more freedom that people find on
some private networks. Some months ago, while researching a computer book,
my wife and I asked Prodigy members what they thought of this service. Our
neutrally worded notice vanished within hours. The book was many months
from publication and we did not even mention a title, yet Prodigy claimed
we were using the network for commercial purposes.  Prodigy has added some
wonderful new wrinkles, such as 9,600-b.p.s. services, and I very much hope
that this innovative network will survive and thrive--but with more freedom
of expression. Carly and I were hardly the first victims of the Prodigy
censors. A New York Times gardening columnist had a brush with them several
years ago and wrote about it in his paper.
    Should you still see TeleRead as more Big Brotherish than "Free
Enterprise" is, then you might consider the following scenario:
     Let's say the government gave your local newspaper what some have
called "a license to print money." As a believer in separation of state and
press, would you approve of this practice? Would you consider it to be
unfair federal intervention? Then you are a little too late. Television
licenses already exist--for newspaper companies and other businesses--and
the Federal Communications Communication can take them away if the FCC
believes that TV stations are not acting in the public interest.
    What's more, even opinion magazines must plead their case with the
Postal Service if they want to enjoy special mailing rates. And
publications of all kinds of all kinds must satisfy the Internal Revenue.
    So true separation between government and the media is a dream. If it
were reality, copyrights would not be with us. Jesse Helms notwithstanding,
federal copyright law makes it possible for Hustler to turn a profit--by
assuring Larry Flynt that if someone pirates his girlie photos, then Flynt
can sue. Copyrights do not exist like the Rockies and the Atlantic Ocean.
Bureaucrats must grant them.
    The real way to promote freedom of speech, then, is not to deny the
inevitable governmental role in what we read, watch and hear. Rather it's
to come up with a system of checks and balances to guard against censorship
by bureaucrats--or marketers.
    --Myth #4: A good $50 or $100 laptop? You've got to be kidding.
    Reply: What sells for $1,000 today is likely to sell for a tenth of
the price within the next two decades. Consider how much the early
televisions and calculators cost. Even without a government program, you
can pay $100 for a used PC that would have sold in the mid-80s for several
thousand dollars.
    Engineers are squeezing more power into less space, and driving down
costs in the bargain. Twenty years ago, it's been noted, we could not cram
more than 5,000 transistors into an integrated circuit. Now the upper limit
has been said to be five million, and even that estimate may be dated.
Meanwhile, computer memories are growing. An entire chip someday might
house the entire contents of the Library of Congress.
    What's more, portable computer screens are sharper than ever. Already
the Knight-Ridder chain has been studying the use of tablet-style portables
for reading newspapers. The technology may be ready in the next two years
or so.
    Today the screen of the typical portable is still not good enough for
many people to read whole books with. But we are not that far off from the
time when flat screens could actually be *easier* to read from paper. The
screens could be sharp and flickerless, and you would be able to vary the
color, type size and type style.
    So in the end, the issue isn't technology. It's money. Get publishers
to digitize books, create enough of a market for TeleReaders, and Silicon
Valley will oblige. No, a powerful $100 laptop won't be here immediately.
But it will appear in the future--if Silicon Valley works on driving the
costs down, not just on pushing the limits of technology.
    Myth #5: Wouldn't the kids steal or destroy the equipment?
    Reply: But who says every child must get a TeleReader immediately?
    Schools could loan the first machines to the children with the best
prospects--the bright and the hardworking; reward them. Drug-peddlers
flaunt beepers. Now let's get some high-tech into the hands of honest,
well-motivated students who otherwise could never afford powerful laptops.
    Also, etch serial numbers into the cases. Compile a registery of
legitimate users of government-supplied machines, and make it illegal to
sell unregistered TeleReaders. Impose stiff penalties on offenders.
    Reduce damage to equipment by starting the program in the high schools
and working down. Also, insist that durabilty be one of the criteria for
awarding TeleReader contracts. Sooner or later we'd reach the point where
first-graders could blithely play catch with their TeleReaders or drop them
on the sidewalk.
    Yet another way to fight theft and breakage would be to involve
parents in the TeleRead program from the start. The machines could improve
their own literacy skills and make them more employable. Special video
games--with audio and flashy, Sesame Street-style graphics--might even be
designed to help parents and children work together to build up their
skills.
    --Myth #6: It's un-American to tax TV-watchers to support readers.
    Reply: But don't we tax single people and childless couples to support
the public schools?
    Even putting best-sellers online--everything from mystery novels to
Judith Krantz's work--would contribute to general enlightenment. People do
not maintain and sharpen their reading skills by just reading what they
must. They also do this by reading what they want. That's especially true
of children; literacy specialists are among the biggest boosters of comic
books.
    --Myth #7: But why pick on the TV?
    Reply: By giving away billions of dollars spectrum space, the
government helped launch the industry. Now the industry and its offshoots
should repay the taxpayers.
    TV could survive TeleRead. The question is, Will books survive
television?
    Outside the elite--especially in inner cities--many more children grow
up in TV-centered homes than in book-centered ones. Here's a chance to
right the balance for the good of society. Americans will never cure heart
disease, fend off international economic competitors, end poverty, or wipe
out the deficit by watching more television. But we might do all of the
aforementioned if we read more.
    Shouldn't our government, then, favor TeleRead over the refinement of
High-Definition Television? Powerful commercial motives exist for refining
HDTV, and surely, within two decades, a 40- or 60-inch television will hang
from the wall of the typical American home. But smarter television sets by
themselves will never mean Einsteinian children.
    Of course, TeleReaders should offer sounds and moving images where
appropriate; and eventually the units might come with goggles and
datagloves that children could don to enter the world of virtual reality.
However, let's not mix up our priorities here; reading is the most crucial
skill. Although Sesame Street and instructional videos are valuable, they
are no substitutes. Television often reduces our children's attention
spans. Books help lengthen them. Would a long or short span be better for
future doctors, engineers, scientists, lawyers, teachers--and, yes, voters?
    Do we really want push-button plebiscites where citizens obediently
agree with their leaders after seeing a few images flash before them? Or do
we want sophisticated voters who can tap into massive databases and send
persuasive e-mail to the government officials?

******************************************************************

                          THE ORIGINS OF TELEREAD
    Several years ago, William F. Buckley, Jr., complained that many
students were using computers rather than card catalogues at the library.
He had a point. Library skills were declining. Skimming a few facts off
databases wasn't like reading *whole* books. I thought, "Why couldn't the
complete texts be online?"
    The idea of dial-up books was already many years old. But to my
knowledge, no one had truly resolved the big issue: Just how could we make
online books affordable--yet also provide for fair compensation for writers
and publishers? Without such a plan, we might well reach the point someday
where most public libraries folded. Suppose only the rich could afford to
be well read. I wondered if our library system would start failing the
average American as badly as our health care system had. Middle-class
people were reading books, but some of the fastest-growing demographical
groups were not. What's more, I feared that future technology might
increase the gap between the middle-class and the rich.
    My concerns have been all too justified. Within the past year, my
local libraries have cut back hours; this happened to me in Fairfax County,
Va., not Harlan County, Kentucky. Even the Library of Congress has scaled
back the schedule of its reading room. On top of that, more and more
students are shunning careers with public libraries, preferring to collect
lawyerish money working for data-hungry corporations.
    Something else is happening, too: Publishers and stores are even more
cavalier toward non-best-sellers than in past years. My books keep coming
out late for business reasons. Typically my publishers are too busy
promoting books by celebrities or hawking the 10 zillionth WordPerfect
guide. Readers never have a chance to discover many midlist books of the
kind that I write. When a writer for major computer magazines wanted to
review The Complete Laptop Computer Guide, he could not find a copy on sale
in all of Salt Lake City.
    Another outrage is the high price of books. Why is it that
schoolchildren must pay $8 for little paperback editions of classics? Or
that more and more of college textbooks cost $50 or $75? Or that many
students must resort to used, outdated textbooks because the new ones are
so expensive? Or that some novels list for $30? Just how can publishers
lobby for more aid to libraries when the prices of books keeps zooming? And
yet we cannot blame publishers alone, not when production costs have risen.
    I conceived TeleRead, then, as a good solution for readers, writers,
and publishers alike--and even for bookstores, too, if they were willing to
adapt to the new technology.
    Refining this proposal, I found that the Association of American
Publishers was helpful with facts on the economics of the trade. AAP has
not endorsed or even seen this detailed version of the plan; it has just
supplied data. However, an AAP staffer seems open-minded. Perhaps readers,
writers and publishers can put aside their differences and work together to
hasten the coming of TeleRead.

******************************************************************

                            ACTING ON THE IDEA
    If you like the TeleRead idea, spread this file around and write the
White House or the appropriate people on the Hill. Many officials in
Washington would rather not have their fax or e-mail boxes tied up. So
please use paper mail. Feel free to reproduce this file on paper to
accompany letters.
    I'm a writer, struggling with the usual deadlines, and I have just so
much time to lobby for this idea. I hope that others can follow up. Below
are possible people to contact. This list isn't all-inclusive; some of the
best prospects may not be mentioned here. Do not worry about writing to all
the names below, just to whomever you feel would be responsive.

Executive Branch
(In Alphabetical Order)
    --Pam Barnett, Executive Assistant for Domestic Policy, Office of the
First Lady, White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,  Washington, D.C.
20500. We all know of Hillary Clinton's interest in educational matters.
    --President Bill Clinton, White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C 20500. Contacting President Clinton and Vice President
Gore, I'll be making the point at a national data highway is just a start.
What really counts is what will be online, and whether the average
household will be able to afford it.
        --Jeff Eller, Media Affairs, White House, 1600 Pennsylvania, Ave.,
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500.
    --Dr. John H. Gibbons, White House Director of Science and Technology,
Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20500.
    --Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., White House, 1600 Pennsylvania
Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20500.
    --Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor for Policy Development, Domestic
Policy Council, 1600 Pennsylania Ave., N.W., Washington D.C. 20500.
    --Roy Neel, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Old Executive Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
    --Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210. Reich, of course, has long pointed out the
connection between educational opportunities and national prosperity.
    --Richard Riley, Secretary of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20202-0100.
    --George Simon, Assistant to the Vice President for Domestic Policy,
Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
    --George Stephanopoulos, Director of Communications, White House, 1600
Pennsylvania, Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20500.
    --Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Council of Economic Advisers, Old Executive
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
    --Margaret Williams, Chief of Staff to the First Lady, White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20500.

The Senate
(Alphabetically)
    --The Honorable Max Baucus, U.S. Senate, 706 Hart Senate Building,
Washington, D.C. 20510-2602. Sen. Baucus has shown an interest high-tech.
His state, Montana, could benefit dramatically from a national electronic
library and improved telecommunications.
    --The Honorable Robert Byrd, 311 Hart Senate Building, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510-4801. Sen. Byrd chairs the Appropriations Committee,
and, like Sen. Baucus, comes from a rural state where most citizens lack
easy access to large libraries. West Virginians might appreciate TeleRead's
de-centralized nature. In this era of computer networks and faxes, why
should the Washington area drown in federal offices while people in other
states are begging for good white-collar jobs?
    --The Honorable Byron Dorgan, 825 Hart Senate Building, U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-3405. A North Dakotan, he sits on the Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee. And like Senators Byrd and Baucus,
Sen. Dorgan is interested in ways to use high-tech to increase educational
opportunities for rural people.
    --The Honorable Edward Kennedy, 315 Russell Senate Building, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-2101. Chairman of Labor and Human Resources,
the Senator has been interested for many years in long-distance learning.
    --The Honorable J. Bob Kerrey, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510.
Last October he gave a speech to the Software Publishers Association
calling for online networks for education. Sen. Kerrey is from Nebraska,
one of the many rural state that could benefit from affordable online
libraries.
     --The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senate, 464 Russell
Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-3201. Himself an author
(well known for sociology), he represents New York state--which of
course is to books what Florida is to oranges.

The House
(Alphabetically)
    --The Honorable Edward J. Markey, U.S. House of Representatives, 2133
Rayburn, Washington, D.C. 20515-2107. Rep. Markey sits on the Energy and
Commerce Committee and the Telecommunications and Finance subcommittee. As
befits anyone from Massachusetts, he is intensely interested in high-tech
issues such as national data highways.
    --The Honorable Major Owens, U.S. House of Representatives, 2305
Rayburn, Washington, D.C. 20515-3211. Rep. Owens, the only professonal
librarian in Congress, is on the Education and Labor Committe and is from
Brooklyn.
    --The Honorable Charlie Rose, U.S. House of Representatives, 2230
Rayburn, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515-3307.  The
chairman of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Rose jokes that he is
the "techno-nut" of the Hill. His state, North Carolina, has a number of
high-tech firms in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area.

REACHING ME
    You may contact me through the following networks:
    --America Online (DavidHR).
    --CompuServe (73577,3271).
    --GEnie (D.Rothman1).
    --Internet ([e-mail], [e-mail] or
[e-mail]). Please check with your technical contact to see if
you should preface the addresse with a prefix such as INET:.
    --MCI Mail (David H Rothman at the "To:" command)
    --Prodigy (TNFN63A). E-mail on this network can be cumbersome to
answer, so please use alternatives if possible.

******************************************************************

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
    A shorter version of the TeleRead proposal appeared in The Washington
Post Education Review of April 4, 1993. Opinions expressed here are my own,
not necessarily the Review's. You may make as many electronic copies of
this expanded version as you want without permission--as long as you do not
alter the text. Please do not reprint the present version on paper before
April 25, 1993.
    Use common sense. Neither the Post nor I will mind, for example, if
you print out a copy to send to your local member of Congress.

*************************************************************************

                    ADDENDUM: IS BRIDGEPORT THE FUTURE?
        Bridgeport (pop. 143,000) is turning even bright children into
future cooks and janitors. A story in the April 6 Washington Post tells of
the decline of literacy in Connecticut's biggest city: "The public school
system is so strapped for cash that it spends less than one-third of the
state average on new books for its libraries.
        "And the public library system, a beacon for literacy for 143 years, is
open only about one-third as many hours as in the late 1980s."
         You can blame Bridgeport for short-sightedness, and you would be
right; but another reason exists, too--the disparity between the library
budgets of rich and poor cities. That is exactly what TeleRead would help
address.
         Contrast Bridgeport with Westport and Fairfield, nearby towns that
boast thriving bookstores and libraries. The Post correctly notes that
middle-class Americans are buying and borrowing more books than in past
decades. That's good news in some respects (it suggests that a full-service
TeleRead program could enjoy a sizeable constituency). But white,
middle-class America is not the whole country.
         Some of the fastest-growing demographical groups are the least likely
to be readers; besides, women in all economic groups lag far behind men in
mastery of technical subjects. In an age when white male workers will soon
be a minority, we could all lose. The yuppies in Westport will not fare
well in their retirement if we lack enough skilled workers to support them.
        "With the growing inequities in schools and the cuts in libraries
across the country, literacy is becoming increasingly class-based," the
Post quotes Patricia Shulman, former president of the American Library
Association.
         Furthermore, as shown by the library cuts in Fairfax County, Va., even
the middle-class may not safe in the end. And this information gap will
only grow worse if electronic libraries are not affordable and
old-fashioned libraries go the way of the streetcar.

***************************************************************************