Last year, Student Life took some flak for failing to be proactive in our criticisms, especially of Student Union. Well, now that it’s spring, it’s time for a change. So Student Union’s proposed “unified technology fee?” Let’s just say that I’m not a big fan.

In the SU Senate minutes from Feb. 8, President/Saint David Ader introduced the idea of a unified technology fee (UTF). If implemented, the UTF would replace the separate fees for Internet, cableand room phone with one single – possibly mandatory – fee for all three services. This would require the cooperation of eight departments that are responsible for all technology on campus. According to Ader, some of the resulting benefits of the UTF and this cooperation could be VOIP phones and universal wireless, to name a few. In other words, the UTF would bring the future to Wash. U. Next up – hovering golf carts!

The UTF isn’t all good, however. As some senators pointed out, students who live off campus already pay for their own Internet and phone. Having just signed a lease for a Wash. U.-owned off-campus apartment, I can say that at least in my case, this is incorrect; I’ll be paying for my own cable, but Internet and phone will still run through Wash. U. Regardless, the nature of the question is still important. If the fee is mandatory, why should students who live off campus have to pay a fee for services that they would not even be able to take advantage of? If possible, the UTF would have to distinguish between on- and off-campus residents. And it would not be too hard to keep the current system in place and offer separate fees only to people like me who would need one or two, but not all of the services. It could be like meal plans – only students who live off campus would have the option to purchase such a plan.

But that leads to another problem. Many people move off campus because it is purportedly cheaper. Instituting a higher fee for students living on campus will just give them a greater incentive to move off campus. And unlike me, they might not go to Wash. U.-owned apartments. It seems like a goal of the UTF is to help ResTech recoup the costs it currently incurs in having to turn off the cable in old dorms to stop students from rampantly stealing it. Yet if more students are moving off campus because of these higher fees, wouldn’t that go against a point of the fee?

Another problem with the UTF is its inclusion of the room phone. When I got into my room this year, one of the first things I did was remove the phone from the room. Nearly every call we get on our room phone is a telemarketer. We didn’t pay for long distance. The only use our room phone has gotten has been when people lose their cell phones. If we had to pay a fee for using the phone, we would be getting ripped off, plain and simple. (Currently, the cost of the phones is included in tuition, and is thus covered by scholarships. But would scholarships cover the unified fee?)

And apart from that problem, the advent of nationwide plans on cell phones (which are quite necessary to have in a place where people are from all over the country) has made room phones archaic. I know more people who don’t pay for the “necessary” (according to the Senate minutes of Feb. 8) Internet in the dorms than who use the room phones. If a goal of the UTF is to make campus technology more current, room phones should be phased out, not highlighted in a unified fee.

My last problem with the UTF has to do with cable. Pretty much everybody in old dorms steals cable, and that probably won’t stop unless ResTech decides to turn off cable – which “[takes] a lot of time or money” (from the Feb. 8 minutes) – or if the old dorms are torn down. And if I’m not mistaken, the latter is exactly what is happening. I don’t support building new dorms in favor of renovating old dorms. But it is a hell of a lot harder to steal cable in new dorms. Most people who want cable in new dorms have to buy it anyway. If they don’t want cable, why should they be forced to pay for it in the UTF?

I like the future. But the UTF is a bad way to bring the future closer. Instead of having to pay for a mostly useless service like room phones, why not spend the money on something like universal wi-fi? Or hovering golf carts? Those would be pretty awesome.

Daniel is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.