Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 214
Netizens-Digest Sunday, November 22 1998 Volume 01 : Number 214
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] The Nation: Antitrust and American Democracy
[netz] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
[netz] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
[netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
[netz] Re: Net Access (was Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?)
[netz] Re: Net Access and Who Drafted the Green Paper?
[netz] NSI as Pioneer
[netz] Re: Net Access and Who Drafted the Green Paper?
[netz] LINux at COMDEX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:46:24 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] The Nation: Antitrust and American Democracy
http://www.thenation.com/issue/981130/1130MOGL.HTM
Antitrust and American Democracy
by Eben Moglen <emoglen@columbia.edu>
...Legislators knew that a detailed balancing of the positive effects of
consolidation against the harms of diminished competition was beyond their
grasp. The general terms in which the Sherman Act expressed their will,
making use of traditional phraseology expressing artfully indistinct common
law rules, gave all the room possible for judicial development. The Supreme
Court, accepting the Congressional invitation, took almost twenty years to
work out the approach epitomized in the "rule of reason": the conclusion that
Congress meant to prohibit not all restraints of trade but only "unreasonable"
attempts to create or maintain monopoly power.
What defined the line separating "unreasonable" from "reasonable" uses of
massive economic power? For all the creative ambiguity and artful dodging,
politicians knew that voters were clear about the political as opposed to the
economic aims of antitrust. Uncertain they may have been about how to
balance the benefits of size against the harms of unfair competition, but
voters clearly wanted, as one distinguished historian has written, "to keep
concentrated private power from destroying democratic government."
However ambivalent Theodore Roosevelt was about the Sherman Act, he
showed that he understood its central political value when he said of the
famous Northern Securities case brought by his administration that "the
most powerful men in this country were held to accountability before the
law."
Today we have the best of reasons for interesting ourselves in the political
antitrust movement of the Progressive Era. Rapid transformation of
technology and social practice is again having profound economic effects at
the end of the twentieth century. Information technology and the
accompanying social institutions have again expanded the reach of
economic organizations, leading to the phenomena we collectively call
"globalization." Consolidation is occurring on an unprecedented scale;
recently Barnes & Noble, the largest US book retailer, agreed to acquire
Ingram Book Group, the largest wholesaler.
Private power is again seeking its inevitable political concomitants.
Increasingly disgusted, citizens of this democracy find themselves
confronting a political system less responsive to voters and more responsive
to those euphemistically described as "campaign contributors." It is no
surprise to hear a presidential candidate declare that "the government of the
United States at present is a foster-child of the special interests." It is only
slightly surprising that the speaker was Woodrow Wilson...
What antitrust does for us cannot be discussed intelligently if the economy
is perceived as a domain separate from politics. The American Century has
been about explosive technological innovation transforming human life. It has
also been about maintaining a balance between economic liberty and
democratic control over our destiny as a society. The underlying message of
the antitrust philosophy is that democratic government defends itself by
encouraging economic competition and limiting private power before it grows
too large for the electorate to control....
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 13:07:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
"John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.nu> wrote:
>Let me see if I understand you correctly: You contend that business
>interests are trying to restrict connectivity to the Internet in
>order to increase its utility as a commerce medium. Wouldn't they be
>cutting off their own customers? This would detract from e-commerce,
>not enhance it.
I don't mean to speak for Ronda, but I think that she is expressing
the concern that the influence of e-commerce on the Internet might
cause certain services to be discontinued because they are no longer
profitable. Some of those services might be things that people who
are poor or disenfranchised might rely on, such as low-speed ISP
access.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:02:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
peterd@Bunyip.Com (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
>FWIW, the cost of access in terms of bits/sec has plummented during
>the period of interest. The most likely scenario, by far is that this
>will continue and thus the discontinuing of slow speed links would
>come about because you can get a far faster link for the same money,
>not because ISPs don't want to sell the maximum number of contracts.
>Bottom line is that a good computer has cost O($2,000) for
>a while, and an Internet link O($30-40) because that's
>what the market bears for these products. What's changed
>has been what you get for your money, and the technology
>race has given us all more bang for our buck.
This is certainly true in places where computers are easily obtained.
That's not necessarily the case in some areas, where there is much
less market demand for computer products. I recall reading somewhere
in the Haubens' works that one of the liberties that the Internet
offered was that one could have Internet access with a 386 computer
running Linux. The type of access you'd have would be most likely
limited to text-based stuff (particularly with a low-speed modem), but
for some people, that's all that's wanted or needed.
><insert obligatory reference to Moore's law here>
In general I agree with you, but I don't know that people who are poor
or disenfranchised would see it that way.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:34:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [ifwp] Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
: FYI:
: EZ-C Internet-ready PC
: AMD K6-2 333Mhz
: 32MB SDRAM
: 4.3GB UDMA/EIDE
: AGP Video
: 56K Fax/Modem
: >>>>$649US, as advertised in San Jose Mercury News last Wednesday.
Since we're talking about data points and the remote past, this is $1
less than I paid for my first dumb terminal. Remember Heathkit
terminals? I bought a used H19 for $650 in 1983. I think the guy I
bought it from may have thrown in the modem as well (one of those 300
baud acoustic couplers).
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:19:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Net Access (was Re: NEWS RELEASE: AN ACCOUNTABLE ICANN?)
I actually have found some quotes of the price of net access in the online
version of the Netizen book.
See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x10.
Oddly, they seem to bear out Peter's and several others' claims that net
access is much cheaper now. Most respondents also indicated the need to
justify net access (particularly usenet access) to their superiors.
Moving on ...
At the heart of Ronda's thesis, it seems, is the notion that the USG
(and other governments) are somehow acting irresponsibly, if not
unconstitutionally, in privatizing the Internet.
What are the USG (and other governments) supposed to do,
realistically? I don't think the USG is really in a position to
support an operational Internet (even if the OIG says so) unless it
taxes its use. I also don't think there is much popular sentiment for
Internet taxation on an international level. So in the absence of any
sort of government funding for continued Internet operations, the only
recourse is to turn to the private sector. There also seems to be
little support for Internet regulation, so the free market will decide
what products and services will be on the Internet. But what tends to
happen in loosely-regulated mass media is that the only products and
services that survive are the ones that bring in the most revenue.
Is this something we should be concerned about? Feel free to respond
privately if you like.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 13:10:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Net Access and Who Drafted the Green Paper?
This have been busy for me since yesterday morning, so I haven't had the
time to answer the responses to my last posts, but will try to do
so sometime tomorrow.
However, just quickly, I thought it important to respond to this one.
peterd@Bunyip.Com (Peter Deutsch) wrote:
[ Greg Skinner wrote: ]
>> . . . But what tends to
>> happen in loosely-regulated mass media is that the only products and
>> services that survive are the ones that bring in the most revenue.
>> Is this something we should be concerned about? Feel free to respond
>> privately if you like.
>A couple of points spring to mind:
>The net is not just a broadcast medium, it's also
>functions as a point-to-point or one-to-few medium, as
>well. I see no reason to presume that the arrival of
>Disney to duke it out with AOL will affect your community
>arts billboard, since it's not competiting in the same
>ring for the same dollars. I don't fear for my ability to
But it does interfere. The public giveaway of the essential functions
of the Internet to only corporate interests shows that no public
interests are to be allowed on the Internet.
That is the change they are charged with creating as they don't understand
nor care to understand the public functions and interests, and have
no basis to do so even if they wanted to.
The public and users have been totally excluded from any participation
or existence in the process.
Thus Disney and AOL will have their interests represented and will
be able to demand what they want from ICANN but those who want
the Internet to continue as a communications medium won't have
their interests heard and these ideas can never enter into the
comprehension of those who were chosen for the ICANN board,
and into the comprehension of whoever behind the scenes decided
who should be chosen.
The Internet makes it possible for those who are *not in the ring*
for dollars to be involved and participating, but just as
the Youngstown freenet has now died, so this new entity controlling
the key functions of the Internet will drive out the ways that
people can participate.
It is just as Cantor and Siegel got 10's of thousands of dollardes
to write thier book about how to destroy Usenet. And they targeted
a list of newsgroups in the back of their book and I noticed that
at least the newsgroups I was on that they mentioned have been
systemmatically destroyed by spam.
You can't give away the central functions of the Internet to
hidden corporate interests and still have a communciations
Internet. If that were the case this hidden process would have
been public and as part of an open public discussion.
Who drafted the Green Paper plan anyway?
It clearly isn't Magaziner as he doesn't know anything about the
Net and has made that clear. He is letting his name be used
to cover who really did draft the plan and whose interests it
represents.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 23:38:11 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] NSI as Pioneer
http://www.netsol.com/news/
Yankee Group Cites Network Solutions as Pioneer Provider of
Small Business Internet Services
Small businesses spend $445 billion per year on technology; Have just
begun to tap the full potential of the Internet
Herndon, Va., November 19, 1998 - Small and medium businesses (SMBs)
spend more than $445 billion on technology, and the market potential is
great for those Internet solution providers who reach out to SMBs with
Internet strategies for communications and commerce, according to a new
report by The Yankee Group. The new report names Network Solutions
(NASDAQ: NSOL) as one of only 10 leading providers of such services.
"So significant is SMB information technology spending that most major
technology providers aggressively pursue this market with SMB-specific
products and services," according to The Yankee Group's publication, "Small
and Medium Businesses: The Big Internet Service Opportunity"
[...]
- -------
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/washtech/longterm/techinvest/battistaqa.htm
[...]
Given that the Clinton administration recently revised the future plan for
administering domain names, by creating a nonprofit corporation to oversee
the system but letting the private sector worldwide decide who should run the
new entity . . . How do you think this will affect the growth of the Internet,
and who do you believe should head this new entity?
Gabe Battista [NSI]: The Internet was developed and expanded under the
stewardship and investment of the U.S. government. The Internet today has
become a major global medium for communication and commerce. All
parties believe that ultimately government involvement should be eliminated,
and turned over to a self-governing industry group to set the standards for the
continual development and expansion of the Internet. The U.S. government,
through its recent White Paper, has asked the Industry to establish, from the
bottom up, a representative, private, nonprofit organization to provide self-
governance. Meetings occurred with all stakeholders in Reston in July, and
will occur in Geneva this month, and in Singapore next month in an attempt
to develop a charter for this self-governing body. This is the first time that I
believe all stakeholders have been truly represented. I am optimistic that
through these open, and representative discussions, convergence will occur
to put in motion this needed, self-governing industry body. Most importantly,
the security and safety of the Internet must be maintained. The U.S.
government, and I believe other governments, would like this process to
evolve. But, they have made it clear that if self-governing does not take place,
they will be forced to maintain their stewardship to insure the future stability
and security of the Internet.
- ---------------
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/tc/story.html?s=v/nm/19981120/tc/inter
net_1.html
[Dave Holtzman, NSI chief engineer] predicted there will be ``several large
Internet outages'' in 1999, and that the movement to connect all gadgets and
household appliances to the Internet will at some point ``stop dead,'' until the
current shortage of Internet addresses is resolved.
There will also need to be faster connections to the Internet, better wireless
connections, tighter security in online transactions and more back-office
integration of e-commerce sites.
As seamless as Internet commerce may appear to the buyer, most Internet
businesses still do not have all of their systems integrated and frequently
have to reenter data behind the scenes, which can significantly add to the
cost of doing business.
``I have a feeling that nobody knows how hard this (integration) is until they
try it,'' Holtzman said.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 23:38:11 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Net Access and Who Drafted the Green Paper?
Ronda wrote,
> But it does interfere. The public giveaway of the essential functions of
> the Internet to only corporate interests shows that no public interests
> are to be allowed on the Internet.
>
> That is the change they are charged with creating as they don't understand
> nor care to understand the public functions and interests, and have no
> basis to do so even if they wanted to.
Shall we expect to see the same conversion (perversion) as in the postal
system, with 'private' mail rates continually rising to subsidise 'private-sector'
commercial rates? And if not rates per se, then delivery 'priority' privileges?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 15:31:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] LINux at COMDEX
This is forwarded from the Universal Access -Canada mailing list
(UA-C@CCEN.UCCB.NS.CA)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:03:26 -0500
From: zimmerer <76300.3217@COMPUSERVE.COM>
To: TOES97@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Microsoft, COMDEX & LINUX
While lawyers play word games in the Microsoft Monopoly Trial, activity
in the Software Commons has produced a computer operating system called
LINUX, a public alternative to privately owned UNIX and Microsoft Windows
NT
in which the source code is freely available to everyone and its use
and development is ongoing and supported by programmers worldwide.
With a literally free computer operating system entrepreneurs are
encouraged to design and develop applications for existing markets and
to create new markets. While this new creative rush is taking place in
industrial applications, my visit to COMDEX 98 reassures me that
consumer applications will follow soon bringing fresh ideas to the PC
market.
COMDEX 98 report
On Monday 16 November I joined the 120,000 or so people swarming into
COMDEX, Las Vegas on opening day. My principle interest was LINUX, the
fast growing alternative industrial computer operating system to UNIX
and recently recognized by Microsoft as a possible threat to its
"unregulated" monopoly. Last year I found only one LINUX distributor,
this year COMDEX sported a LINUX "pavilion" (Mall) with five LINUX
distributors and several software vendors. A leaked memo from
Microsoft, the "Halloween Memo," and its rebuttal by MS was a topic of
humor. The distributors were quite busy demonstrating LINUX capability.
I talked at length with a German engineer demonstrating the S.u.S.E.
LINUX package, very popular in Germany. While management remains
skeptical of Open Source Software like LINUX because it can't sue a
vendor over problems, it is widely accepted by the computer engineers
who keep management's systems functioning.
The enthusiasm of these young engineers and software gurus for LINUX
and the informal support structure they have across the world is
wonderful to behold. It reminds me of the early days - before
Microsoft - when the microprocessor attracted talented people to pool
their creativity to invent word processors and spread sheets and modem
protocols, freely exchanging ideas and code as they explored this new
technology and founded companies.
I expect next year at COMDEX there will be consumer LINUX packages
available to put on PCs available from independent young programers.
Eric Raymond (The Cathedral and the Bazaar author) is surprised how
much LINUX acceptance has grown in just six months.
In other areas technology races onward with hardware getting faster,
smaller, and cheaper. Vance Packard (The Waste Makers author) would
smile at the sales pressure to buy the newest technology and discard
the perfectly useful and adequate last year's model. Our economic
system must be dysfunctional to require such unnecessary consumption of
resources.
Robert W. Zimmerer Sun City, AZ
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #214
******************************
