Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 287
Netizens-Digest Monday, March 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 287
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Windows 2000 Compulsory registration?
[netz] Re: Cable TV - Cash Cows & Killing Horses
[netz] Consumer Mailing Lists
[netz] Gore rewrites Net history
[netz] Congress Questions the Role of the FCC
[netz] The People versus ....
[netz] Another take on Open Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 19:17:10 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Windows 2000 Compulsory registration?
Brian wrote,
>
> From the AP as seen in my local paper:
>
> Intel's inclusion of a traceable number associated with each of it's new
> Pentium III processors, designed to aid in authenticating Internet users
> online but viewed by many as a privacy infringement flaw, has raised
> awareness of the issue of computer privacy.
> Certain to add wood to the fire is a report from Junkbusters corp
> president Jason Catlett that says Microsoft's upcoming Windows 2000 may
> require periodic payment for it's use, which would lead to inevitable
> identification of the user.
>
> Currently, virtually no software programs require mandatory
> registration with the developer. Once the product has been purchased,
> it is usually left to the user whether they want to register with the
> company or not.
> <snip>
> Evidently, news that the company was considering such a tactic came to
> light through documents released as a result of it's ongoing
> competitive practices trial.
One can fan the fires of paranoia, or one can try to comprehend
what Richmon is doing. Is the internet a hierarchical structure? No.
Is Microsoft a hierarchical structure? I don't think so. Why then
shouldn't we be able to see them both in the same light?
When you register a domain name, does the fact that you
'periodically' renew your rights to use that name cause a terrible
angst? No, because you might not want to be stuck with that name
forever, or hassle with trying to find a buyer for it. When you
licence software which has a life cycle of a half-dozen or more
upgrades (which are as likely as not installed by downloading), do
you really need to feel 'ownership' of the product before you'll use it?
Isnt it as reasonable that a supplier of such products might keep
track of who's using it as that the DNS would track domain names?
The Net is a 'network of networks,' designed to route information
hither and thither among all its 'hosts' (IP addresses). Nothing
whatsoever precludes you or me or anyone else setting up a
network and hooking it in, if it follows the addresses protocols.
Now as it happens, there are millions of machines that use MS/
Intel products, and they are pulling together a network on the
strength of that -- and furthermore are releasing linking software so
that several machines in a participating household can
interoperate; that is, 'your' machine can be a 'server' in the same
way as its a 'client' to your ISP. What's so insidious about that?
Do you think ICANN can serve you better?
And if it happens that your ability to tinker and tweak and Java-
program leads to applets and add-ons and plug-ins to the 'operating
system' that comes with your registration/ licence, then why fight
shy of an extensive network by which you can immediately share
that code with others? Is that different from how 'corporate'
programmers have been working all this while -- and what the 'open
source' software bazaar is all about? Furthermore, if one finds it
possible to recover ones periodic licensing costs by *contributing*
such enhancements and improvements to what might as well be
called e-society, why should one insist on the 'right' to be nothing
but an end-of-the-line drainbow (aka consumer)?
Sure, one can ignore the entire trend towards decentralization and
distributed services, and pay cold cash for the privilege of keeping
ones head in a bucket, but why knock the opportunity that
everybody's favourite door company (or is it some other foramen?)
is happy to provide -- unless of course you are actually setting up a
network with your own nearer and dearer. Hmmm, why ever not?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:59:08 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Re: Cable TV - Cash Cows & Killing Horses
FCC -- Killing Horses & Bells -- Buying Cash Cows
=================================================
1) FCC Gatekeeper says mailboxes full or are have the commissars' email
addresses changed?
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Warning: could not send message for past 4 hours
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:04:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov>
To: <pgantt@icx.net>
**********************************************
** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY **
** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE **
**********************************************
The original message was received at Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:00:38 -0500
(EST)
from uucp@localhost
----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal errors -----
<wkennard@fcc.gov>
<sness@fcc.gov>
<hfurchtg@fcc.gov>
<mpowell@fcc.gov>
<gtristan@fcc.gov>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
<wkennard@fcc.gov>,<sness@fcc.gov>,<hfurchtg@fcc.gov>,<mpowell@fcc.gov>,<gtristan@fcc.gov>...
Deferred: Connection refused by mail.fcc.gov.
Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
Will keep trying until message is 5 days old
Reporting-MTA: dns; gatekeeper2.fcc.gov
Arrival-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:00:38 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; wkennard@fcc.gov
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.fcc.gov
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:04:52 -0500 (EST)
Will-Retry-Until: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:00:38 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; sness@fcc.gov
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.fcc.gov
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:04:52 -0500 (EST)
Will-Retry-Until: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:00:38 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; hfurchtg@fcc.gov
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.fcc.gov
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:04:52 -0500 (EST)
Will-Retry-Until: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:00:38 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; mpowell@fcc.gov
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.fcc.gov
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:04:52 -0500 (EST)
Will-Retry-Until: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:00:38 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; gtristan@fcc.gov
Action: delayed
Status: 4.4.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.fcc.gov
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:04:52 -0500 (EST)
Will-Retry-Until: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:00:38 -0500 (EST)
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cableworld.com/Articles/News99/1999030813.htm
Source: Cable World
Media Central
Study Says Voice Service Cable's Cash Cow
By Joshua Cho
"...Voice services will be a major cash cow for cable operators over the
next five years. So says the findings of a recent report published by
market research firm Frost & Sullivan.
According to the report on the U.S. Cable Telecommunications Services
Market, in 1997 cable voice services brought in revenues of $32.6
million. Frost & Sullivan predicts that by 2004, revenues from these
services, which include retail local and long-distance services as well
as wholesale voice services, will reach $1.69 billion, representing a
compound annual growth rate of 75.8% from 1997 to 2004. Further, the
report states that 70.7% of the CAGR will be from retail services and
the remaining 39.3% will be from the wholesale market.
F&S's positive outlook stems from what they expect to occur as a result
of the AT&T Corp. and Tele-Communications, Inc. merger..."
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:06:32 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Consumer Mailing Lists
Please excuse the cross postings in advance.
============================================
http://www.cptech.org/lists.html
Source: The Consumer Project & Lists of Global Interest
"...The Consumer Project on Technologies manages several public and some
private mailing lists on a variety of topics. These are the public
lists, including a few that CPT manages for other groups:
[salient lists selected]
"...Info-policy-notes. This is the oldest CPT list. It used to be called
tap-info. Info-Policy-Notes is a newsletter, with occassional
information about CPT's main activities.
Random-Bits. A distribution list for miscellaneous items, many quirky or
off the radar screen. Check the
archives to see the content and volume.
Antitrust. A discussion list about antitrust policy and practice.
japan-us-foi. This is a not very active list that was created to an
exchange of information about US and Japan
Freedom of Information movements.
Lists managed for Union for the Public Domain
UPD-Discuss. Discussion of various IPR issues.
DB-Action. This is a discussion list for controversies over legislation
that would create new intellectual
right laws for databases..."
[Please see the above page for URLs.]
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:17:50 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Gore rewrites Net history
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/12/gore.internet.ap/
Source:
CNN Interactive
Lawmakers chortle over Gore's Internet comment
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Associated Press Writer
March 12, 1999
Web posted at: 10:19 a.m. EST (1519 GMT)
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:33:00 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Congress Questions the Role of the FCC
http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,3818,00.html?ext.IDG.net
Source: The Industry Standard, The News Magazine of the Internet Economy
Congress Questions the Role of the FCC
The agency wields great power over the Internet.
The government isn't sure it's up to the job.
By Elizabeth Wasserman
"...WASHINGTON Even in tradition-bound Washington,
few institutions have a more byzantine bureaucracy
than the Federal Communications Commission. Nor
can many other agencies match the FCC in sheer
power.
With regulatory responsibility for the nation's
telecommunications and broadcast infrastructure, the
FCC oversees companies that generate revenues of
hundreds of billions of dollars a year. But inside and
outside the Beltway there are growing doubts that the
commission is up to the job..."
Original reference found on CNN
http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:44:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] The People versus ....
Bob Allisat <bob@fcn.net> cc:ed this to the Netizens list:
Bob wrote:
Ronda Hauben writes:
+ The issue of ICANN is not only *timely* but crucial
+ to the existence and development of the Internet,
+ and thus also to the existence and continued development
+ of the IETF.
+
+ Those on the ICANN interim board have been chosen because
+ they have a conflict of interest with the matters that
+ ICANN is to be deciding (called in their gentrified language
+ "stakeholder" interest)
+
+ They are people appointed by some unknown process and
+ unknown people to fundamentally change the nature
+ and future of the Internet.
+
+ Thus this is an urgent, to say the least, issue for
+ *not* only those in the IETF but all those who are
+ part of the Internet or hope to ever be part of it.
+
+ Thus this is all a crucial question to be discussed
+ and all those trying to squelch the discussion (like
+ the Berkman Center folks) or anyone from IETF etc
+ are only showing that they have no concern for
+ the present and future of the Internet.
Or... perhaps these persons are also in
direct conflict of interest. Their extensive
stock holdings, ownership or partnerships
in the very companies behind ICANN combine
with a closed, tightly knit group of mutually
benificial business connections. The result
is we are facing a compromised group of once
upon a time grassroots activists who, in their
late middle and approaching old age hold fat
executive jobs, deluxe company expense accounts,
huge fortunes and, to say the least, highly
compromised positions.
These phonies are in the process of selling
out the last vestages of the very GNU Internet
they once attempted to create. Follow the money
and pursue the power and we will understand.
These are not poor, idealistic techies working
in garages or basements anymore. They are rich,
conservative and rather unimaginative fellows
who do not take lightly any challenges to
their comforts or presumed **AUTHORITY**.
Which apparently scales amazingly well right
alongside "hierarchy", eh?!
Ronda Hauben continued:
+ Recently, on the IETF discussion list, someone asked
+ about scaling the Internet. He received one or two
+ serious replies and other jokes in response.
+
+ Yet the scaling the Internet is the burning question
+ on the table, and it is exactly the issue that ICANN
+ is being created to prevent from being publicly
+ considered and determined.
+
+ Will the global people-to-people computer mediated
+ communication that the Internet makes possible be
+ available to all as a right or only to a few
+ as a privilege?
+
+ This was an issue that J.C.R. Licklider, among others,
+ recognized had to be determined to be able to determine
+ what would happen in the development of computer networking.
+ He noted that if the to-be-developed network would be
+ available to all as a "right", then it would be a great benefit
+ to society, while if it were to only be available to those
+ selected via a "privilege", its development would be harmful.
+
+ To make the Internet available to all as a right requires
+ a public process and public participation in the control
+ of the essential functions of the Internet like the
+ names and protocols and ip numbers and root server
+ system. These have been under public and cooperative
+ ownership and control. ICANN is the effort to change that.
+
+ There are those who are respresentatives of companies
+ and other entities that want to grab the Internet
+ for their own self interested purposes.
And, as we have seen, those self-interested
purposes, so contrary to the open and equal
*public* participation, also coincide with
the power, economic well-being and direct
sense of identity the IETF/ISOC/ICANN/ETC
"Internauts" subsist upon and gain great
benifits from. Any/all leadership is drawn
from the same limited pool of people. Open
that up to any real diversity and one threatens
all those massive profits, discriminatory US-
centric policies, elitist protocols and so on.
All of which prevent grassroots, no or low
budget involvement.
It is in all of these person's interests to
ensure the standards are forever kept so high,
the requirements for entry are so difficult,
that only they - Cerf, Baker, Shaw, Heath,
Zittrain, etc - or their well trained mind
pets - Dyson, Roberts, Van Howerling, Metzger,
Ignorentovich and his band of merry Vienna
ISOC puppets, etc. - gain admission, hold
power, vote, make polibies and so on.
Ronda continues:
+ They need to be stopped from their grab and only the
+ free and open discussion of the issues will help to
+ clarify what is at stake and why there are those
+ trying to act in ways that are contrary to making
+ the Internet available to all for interactive
+ and participatory global communication.
+
+ I have wondered why there are many in the technical community
+ who are not participating in figuring out what ICANN
+ is all about and what to do about it.
+
+ Now it becomes clear that the leadership of the IETF isn't
+ encouraging folks to get into the fray and figure out what
+ it is all about but instead is encouraging an attack on
+ those who recognize that the abuse by ICANN of the
+ Internet community has to be understood and responded to.
+ And there are others like folks from ISOC including Vint
+ Cerf who have taken on to try to deflect the discussion to
+ putting IP on Mars as a way to draw attention away from
+ the privatization of Internet public policy here on earth.
You have struck upon not only the reason Cerf
let his Roddenberryesque ravings into the public
forum but also the reason this discussion has
occupied so much space. Cerf and his insider
collegues are under such enormous pressure and
under so direct fire they are desparately trying
to draw it away. Into the galaxy, out as far from
their current, do-nothing sloth. As remote from
the debacle that is ICANN and all of the compromises
and double dealing that involves. All of which
they condone, encourage and directly benifit
from. Cerf and his collegues are scared shitless.
However, the public may well be close to breaking
in on these discussions with their powerful and
election deciding might. If that ever happened all
hell will truely break loose. We are on the edge
of very dangerous developments for some group of
interests. Cerf, Baker et al are struggling to
ensure it is *us* not them who end up in that big
flame broiler of public opinion, anger and
resentment. Like the Olympic movement and the
corrupt IOC before them, let us hope the rot of
IETF/ISOC/ICANN/ETC is the thing to fall to the
ground of history *not* the "General Good".
Towards this end we struggle.
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net
http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat
http://robin.fcn.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:31:36 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Another take on Open Source
Phil Agre wrote**,
> [The market] undermines confidence in and funding for
> peer-reviewed open source software....
> The peer-review institutions of open source
> software, long stereotyped as the territory of lonely geeks,
> should be seen in their proper historical light as another chapter
> in the march of human knowledge. And they should be supported
> publicly, just as we support the production of other kinds of
> public goods. Of course, public support might lead us to another
> big government boondoggle such as the Internet, but if the
> alternative is Windows 3000, perhaps it's a chance we can take.
Boondoggle is an odd word to use! What passes for 'government'
nowadays is crippled by its own 'closed-source' style which
bureaucratized its 'operators' and alienated its 'consumers' when
the public should have been colleagues in the design and
implementation. Symptoms of this mercantile perspective include
the concern with 'invasion of privacy' when 95% of what anybody
does or thinks is identical to what hyr neighbors do or think, and
the demonization of the whole concept of governance as a way of
*coordinating what you and your neighbors are doing (yes, and
thinkin -- and of course, the killing NSI has made from its for-profit
contract with the Dept of Commerce and NSF. (Its hard to call it
'government when -- as far as what has been happening with the
Net --the civil service has apparently paid no attention to it in any
terms that Jefferson, or any other *social thinker since, would
recognize.)
I agree 'public support' of OSS is absolutely the right idea, but it
will go absolutely nowhere unless OS adherents recognize the
challenge/ opportunity to define an opensource social structure (but
lets not call it the OSSS; how about General Ops for Virtual
Times?). With a core library ('vocabulary') of GOVT routines, it wont
matter whether one is working/ communicating through Winge3000
or *x --or LETS.
(Another of Phil's pages outlines how to network (i.e. peer) for
graduate students -- and noting how closely they correspond with
what's called 'netiquette':
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/network.html
A (long) interview with Bernard Lietaer by Sarah van Gelder on the
future of monetary services (which if not the core of govt, is a
pervasive lubricant of it) is also worthwhile:
http://www.transaction.net/index.html )
kerry
________________________________________________________
**Agre on the the Open Source phenomenon (doubtless a RRE
post, tho I havent got the URL):
"Like most people, I've been pleased to see Linux at least
appearing to catch fire over the last few weeks. Everyone is
impressed with the amazing new Linux model of software
development, and everyone seems puzzled by it. The press often
compares it to the counterculture of the sixties. But perhaps I can
offer a different perspective. What the Linux people have done,
much to their credit, is to reinvent the peer-review mechanisms of
the scientific community.
"Why do the open-source enthusiasts produce more software at a
higher quality faster than the market does? Software is
information, and information has properties that frustrate the
operation of markets. Market participants need to evaluate the
quality of goods, but it's hard to evaluate the quality of software
without looking at the source code, and it's hard to have a market
in software if the source code is open to inspection. It thus makes
more sense to look at software as a public good. A public good is
a good that is nonrivalrous (anyone can use it without interfering
with anyone else's ability to use it) and nonexcludable (it's hard to
prevent anyone from using it). And the scientific community's
institutions of peer reviewed publication are precisely a machine
that very efficiently produces public goods. (See Martyne M.
Hallgren and Alan K. McAdams, The economic efficiency of
Internet public goods, in Lee W. McKnight and Joseph P. Bailey,
eds, Internet Economics, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997. See also
Peter Kollock's chapter in "Communities in Cyberspace", the book
that he edited with Marc Smith.)
"From this perspective, software is so often bad because of the
irrational prejudice in favor of markets, which undermines
confidence in and funding for peer-reviewed open source software
long enough to permit low-quality market-driven closed source
software to establish network effects. Markets work when they
work, but it is wrong to claim, as so many people do, that markets
are the only effective means of coordinating human activity. The
peer-review institutions of open source software, long stereotyped
as the territory of lonely geeks, should be seen in their proper
historical light as another chapter in the march of human
knowledge. And they should be supported publicly, just as we
support the production of other kinds of public goods. Of course,
public support might lead us to another big government boondoggle
such as the Internet, but if the alternative is Windows 3000,
perhaps it's a chance we can take."
- ------------------
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #287
******************************
