Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 402
Netizens-Digest Saturday, May 4 2002 Volume 01 : Number 402
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
[netz] The vision for the Internet
Re: [netz] Something to consider
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> wrote:
> I wasn't trying to imply that Internet access should be free. I was
>just commenting that some people on this list have suggested that a
>model for Internet regulation could be the same as was used for AT&T
>prior to its breakup. As I recall, the arguments were that as a
>regulated monopoly, AT&T was able to charge reasonable fees for phone
>services, which were available to the vast majority of Americans. It
>was also able to invest in research.
>--gregbo
Thanks Greg - the two aspects of the AT&T regulation that seem important
were that it was required to support a research arm and that access
had to be made available to all at an affordable price, which is critical
for a communications system.
But also on the comp.dcom.telecom mailing list and newsgroup, Pat,
who was the narrator, posted about the fact that even during a rebellion
in Chicago, he remembered that telephone repairs were considered critical
and telephone workers went out to do service calls.
So there was also a level of service that was required of AT&T and that
was part of their obligation.
And having unionized workers helped to make that service real as the
workers had a minimal protection to put their obligations above the
management pressures.
It is interesting that such an important model was not understood very
well by the public. For example I didn't know about Bell Labs and its
support for basic research until a few years ago.
But there were those who were eager to get the profitable aspects
of the AT&T business without the social obligations and that seemed
to be behind the lawsuit that led to the breakup.
I didn't even know about the law suit breaking up AT&T at the time
it was being decided.
The public didn't know, but the business interests that were out to
grab what aspects would be of benefit to them did know.
I always thought that the business world benefitted from having a
world class telephone system in the US and a phone system where
probably 90+ % of the population had telephones. But I guess there
were those that were only interested in lower business rates for certain
types of service rather than in a communications system that reached
everyone.
But somehow we did have such a communications system for many years
in the US so something was able to function in a good way. And the
challenge was to improve it and learn from it, not to abandon it
and throw it away.
But also the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) in ARPA
from 1962-1986 was an important model of the support for basic research
to make an Internet a reality. That also is something there is a need
to learn from and understand how to build on. That was the birthplace
for the Internet and for the Internet to continue to grow and thrive
it would seem that the kind of protection that IPTO worked so hard
to provide for the researchers, including funding, is very important.
And it was public funding. And a very good use of public funding.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 09:34:27 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>
>
>When AT&T was forced to split up, it was because the regulation that
>had been on it was ending and it was being turned into another
>unregulated corporation.
>
>So it is unfair to judge AT&T when it was split up in the same way
>as when it was under government regulation.
[snip comment about unions. There's a whole separate discussion about
identifying an area as critical to a society, and then making it
possible for a strike to shut it down. AT&T, and telcos and general,
traditionally had what seemed a bloated management structure so they
had enough non-union employees to run the network in the event of a
strike.]
>
>
>Communications is a critical area for a country and a society. It needs
>government oversight and public interest obligations.
The concept of "universal service" did come from Theodore Vail, the
chairman of AT&T in the early 20th century. His concept, however,
was much more that which is described in your second paragraph
below: that all telephone operating organizations be able to
interconnect.
I admire Vail, but he did not come up with the concept of universal
service as it would relate to individuals. As a widespread idea,
that's probably more a post-WWII concept.
>
>What is interesting is that AT&T as a regulated entity succeeded in
>some very important aspects of making possible a world class telephone
>system where it was considered important that universal access was
>made affordable to those who lived everywhere, including the places
>that would be hard to connect or unprofitable to connect.
>
>Also before AT&T became a government regulated entity, I have heard
>that people had to have two or three telephone systems to be able to
>connect to the people who used those different systems.
Very much so.
>
>That was the conclusion of a conference I went to in Berlin in October
>which was on the social impact of technology.
>
>A world class telephone system grew up under good government regulation.
>
>There was always an effort of the National Association of Manufacturers
>(NAM) and other big corporate entities to undermine the aspects of the
>regulation that were in favor of the long term public interest. But
>there were also opposing efforts.
>
>Its all a contest and to throw out the contest and say its impossible
>and propose something that doesn't work is not helpful.
>
>What I have learned from my study of the Internet's development, is
>that protection is needed for researchers and funding. And they
>need communications mechanisms so they can communicate and collaborate
>to identify and solve the problems that are intrinsic in the technology
>they are trying to develop. Also I found that it was helpful to be
>able to have discussions of the social purpose for the technology and
>the vision that would help inspire them to work toward a goal.
>
>This is perhaps what you are meaning by collective in its best sense.
And it may very well be worth looking at bodies such as the IETF and
seeing if, in fact, they meet this definition of collective.
>
>But I found this was able to exist and function under government at
>times. At other times there is a fierce attack on this collaborative
>process and long term view.
A very real problem in the current economy is that equipment vendors
recognize the need for research on technologies we KNOW will be
needed in about 5 years, if the Internet is to survive. But, as a
result of their declining profits (if any) and stockholder
responsibilities, they have decided research is a cost they cannot
afford. I used to work for the corporate research lab of Nortel,
which has been almost completely gutted. The survivors are primarily
supporting applied research for specific products, with expectation
of results in 6-18 months.
>
>Perhaps you would find it of interest to read a bit of the process
>by which the Internet was born and developed under government protection,
>and under scientific goals and collaboration.
>
>This process is hidden from the public in general and instead the
>private and proprietary processes are lauded as having been responsible
>for the achievements that came from the scientists.
Been there, done that, even have the T-shirts from the early
technical meetings. Yes, a tremendous amount of initiatives came from
scientists. Some were funded under government contract, others were
academic, and others were supported by private industry. AT&T was
much less involved in early Internet development than computer
companies, because the Internet technical model is antithetical to
the traditional telephone technical model. These models, however,
have converged.
The telephone industry did provide active support to development of
optical and other improved transmission systems, which are the
mechanism of providing the immense bandwidth needed by the current
Internet. The original ARPANET used 56 kilobit lines in its
backbones, where 10 gigabit links are quite common today, with faster
links (or parallel 10 gigabit) emerging from the labs. As an aside,
40 gigabits (possibly 80) seems to be the physical limit on
individual link transmission speeds based on known technology. The
trend is now to use parallel 10 Gbps links, multiplexed onto single
fibers.
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:57:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>>Communications is a critical area for a country and a society. It needs
>>government oversight and public interest obligations.
>The concept of "universal service" did come from Theodore Vail, the
>chairman of AT&T in the early 20th century. His concept, however,
>was much more that which is described in your second paragraph
>below: that all telephone operating organizations be able to
>interconnect.
>I admire Vail, but he did not come up with the concept of universal
>service as it would relate to individuals. As a widespread idea,
>that's probably more a post-WWII concept.
Yes I agree that it was more than all organizations being able to connect.
It was also that all had to be able to have access to the phone system.
Are there other pieces you feel I am leaving out?
>
>>What is interesting is that AT&T as a regulated entity succeeded in
>>some very important aspects of making possible a world class telephone
>>system where it was considered important that universal access was
>>made affordable to those who lived everywhere, including the places
>>that would be hard to connect or unprofitable to connect.
>
>>Also before AT&T became a government regulated entity, I have heard
>>that people had to have two or three telephone systems to be able to
>>connect to the people who used those different systems.
>Very much so.
And the implications toward the internet need to be drawn.
That the Internet is a communications system. Because of the way
it was developed it supported the cooperative process that meant
internationally it was possible to support interconnection among
different countries. Also the technology of tcp/ip makes it
possible for different kinds of networks under different forms
of political or administrative control to communicate.
(...)
>
>>What I have learned from my study of the Internet's development, is
>>that protection is needed for researchers and funding. And they
>>need communications mechanisms so they can communicate and collaborate
>>to identify and solve the problems that are intrinsic in the technology
>>they are trying to develop. Also I found that it was helpful to be
>>able to have discussions of the social purpose for the technology and
>>the vision that would help inspire them to work toward a goal.
>
>>This is perhaps what you are meaning by collective in its best sense.
>And it may very well be worth looking at bodies such as the IETF and
>seeing if, in fact, they meet this definition of collective.
Yes it would be a worthwhile.
However, the IETF has had different stages in its development,
stages where it was under government support and protection and
stages where it has lost that support to some degree.
I was disappointed in how the IETF leadership tried to suppress
the debate about the creation and development of ICANN
To suppress such discussion is contrary to the whole process of
open discussion about social aims and technical ways to achieve
such aims.
That was what I saw in the early mailing list discussions about
the Internet and Usenet. And that seems to get less support now
in the IETF or elsewhere.
>>But I found this was able to exist and function under government at
>>times. At other times there is a fierce attack on this collaborative
>>process and long term view.
>A very real problem in the current economy is that equipment vendors
>recognize the need for research on technologies we KNOW will be
>needed in about 5 years, if the Internet is to survive. But, as a
>result of their declining profits (if any) and stockholder
>responsibilities, they have decided research is a cost they cannot
>afford. I used to work for the corporate research lab of Nortel,
>which has been almost completely gutted. The survivors are primarily
>supporting applied research for specific products, with expectation
>of results in 6-18 months.
That is the problem of having to rely on private industry for research.
I realize that there are periods when there were important research
labs in certain large corporations. But also at the time there was
support in government for research as well.
It seems that the government support is critical to making other
support happen as well.
This is support for basic forms of research that looks ahead 10 and
20 years and provides the means to work toward developments that
will take that longer period of time. Also it means supporting the
ways of looking at the problems in a new way and trying to develop
something new.
Internet technology proved to make it cost less to make interactive
resource sharing communication possible than ever before. Somehow
this seems to be lost in the urge to get tv online.
The Internet is a resource sharing metasystem. And one that makes possible
interactive communication. This is critical to keep in mind when
making decisions of what technology will further this basic nature
and what technical developments might stifle it (such as getting
the tv industry onto the Internet and their control onto the Internet)
>
>>Perhaps you would find it of interest to read a bit of the process
>>by which the Internet was born and developed under government protection,
>>and under scientific goals and collaboration.
>
>>This process is hidden from the public in general and instead the
>>private and proprietary processes are lauded as having been responsible
>>for the achievements that came from the scientists.
>Been there, done that, even have the T-shirts from the early
>technical meetings. Yes, a tremendous amount of initiatives came from
>scientists. Some were funded under government contract, others were
>academic, and others were supported by private industry. AT&T was
>much less involved in early Internet development than computer
>companies, because the Internet technical model is antithetical to
>the traditional telephone technical model. These models, however,
>have converged.
Yes I realize you were there. I was suggesting that those who don't have
this background would do well to learn about it. It is helpful your
sharing these experiences with us.
And I know that AT&T was not interested in the Internet model early
on but the Bell labs people made their profound contribution by
creating and developing and spreading Unix.
Unix is also critical to the development of the Internet.
>The telephone industry did provide active support to development of
>optical and other improved transmission systems, which are the
>mechanism of providing the immense bandwidth needed by the current
>Internet. The original ARPANET used 56 kilobit lines in its
>backbones, where 10 gigabit links are quite common today, with faster
>links (or parallel 10 gigabit) emerging from the labs. As an aside,
>40 gigabits (possibly 80) seems to be the physical limit on
>individual link transmission speeds based on known technology. The
>trend is now to use parallel 10 Gbps links, multiplexed onto single
>fibers.
I am now looking at the early satellite link to Norway. Norway
was the first international link to the Arpanet in June 1973.
Research collaboration between researchers in the US, Norway and
Great Britain was the research that set the foundation for the Internet
and for an international nature for the Internet.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 10:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] The vision for the Internet
In a post I did on May 1 I promised to send a statement I
found in the 1974 ARPANET News about the nature of the vision
for the ARPANET which subsequently helped to inspire the Internet
and make it a reality:
"(...)Inherent in the concept of a resource sharing computer
network is the idea of cooperative, collaborative working mode.
This calls for a very special "place for people's heads" -- a special
ability to be cognizant of and concerned for the welfare of the whole.
This long-term objective and viewpoint requires a personal feeling
of responsibility for the welfare of the network instead of the
short-sightedness of acquisitive self-interest.... With the
backing of ARPA-IPT in this endeavor... the ARPANET shows every
promise of becoming the global tool for enhanced communication
and understanding between nations and their scientists and people
that was envisioned for it in its beginning." (February 1974,
Editorial, 2-3)
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 11:00:30 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>
>>>Communications is a critical area for a country and a society. It needs
>>>government oversight and public interest obligations.
>
>>The concept of "universal service" did come from Theodore Vail, the
>>chairman of AT&T in the early 20th century. His concept, however,
>>was much more that which is described in your second paragraph
>>below: that all telephone operating organizations be able to
>>interconnect.
>
>>I admire Vail, but he did not come up with the concept of universal
>>service as it would relate to individuals. As a widespread idea,
>>that's probably more a post-WWII concept.
>
>Yes I agree that it was more than all organizations being able to connect.
>
>It was also that all had to be able to have access to the phone system.
>
>Are there other pieces you feel I am leaving out?
>
>>
>>>What is interesting is that AT&T as a regulated entity succeeded in
>>>some very important aspects of making possible a world class telephone
>>>system where it was considered important that universal access was
>>>made affordable to those who lived everywhere, including the places
>>>that would be hard to connect or unprofitable to connect.
>>
>>>Also before AT&T became a government regulated entity, I have heard
>>>that people had to have two or three telephone systems to be able to
>>>connect to the people who used those different systems.
>
>>Very much so.
>
>And the implications toward the internet need to be drawn.
>
>That the Internet is a communications system. Because of the way
>it was developed it supported the cooperative process that meant
>internationally it was possible to support interconnection among
>different countries. Also the technology of tcp/ip makes it
>possible for different kinds of networks under different forms
>of political or administrative control to communicate.
>
>(...)
>>
>>>What I have learned from my study of the Internet's development, is
>>>that protection is needed for researchers and funding. And they
>>>need communications mechanisms so they can communicate and collaborate
>>>to identify and solve the problems that are intrinsic in the technology
>>>they are trying to develop. Also I found that it was helpful to be
>>>able to have discussions of the social purpose for the technology and
>>>the vision that would help inspire them to work toward a goal.
>>
>>>This is perhaps what you are meaning by collective in its best sense.
>
>>And it may very well be worth looking at bodies such as the IETF and
>>seeing if, in fact, they meet this definition of collective.
>
>
>Yes it would be a worthwhile.
>
>However, the IETF has had different stages in its development,
>stages where it was under government support and protection and
>stages where it has lost that support to some degree.
>
>I was disappointed in how the IETF leadership tried to suppress
>the debate about the creation and development of ICANN
My sense, at the time, was less of suppression than of picking one's
fights. It was fairly clear ICANN was going to happen, given the US
Government interest.
IETF has a productive history of simply ignoring things that are
outside its main scope and concentrating on what it does well. I
cite, among other things, OSI protocols vs. TCP/IP, ATM proper as
opposed to the interface between IP and ATM, etc.
>
>To suppress such discussion is contrary to the whole process of
>open discussion about social aims and technical ways to achieve
>such aims.
Not disagreeing, but the IETF may not be the right forum. The
Internet Society might be closer.
Incidentally, Ronda, I know you've tried and failed to do things at
the international ISOC level. There are local chapters of ISOC, at
least in DC, and I'd suspect New York. You may get a better response
by offering to present at the local level and start getting
grassroots support for moving up the food chain.
>
>That was what I saw in the early mailing list discussions about
>the Internet and Usenet. And that seems to get less support now
>in the IETF or elsewhere.
On the lists, probably so. I think that's a matter of bandwidth.
Less formal mechanisms do exist and are used -- I've had lots of such
discussions in the hallways and bars of IETF meetings, and things do
come up at the IAB plenary. Again, I don't think IETF sees itself as
the proper forum for such things -- possibly in the IAB, definitely
in ISOC.
>
>
>>>But I found this was able to exist and function under government at
>>>times. At other times there is a fierce attack on this collaborative
>>>process and long term view.
>
>>A very real problem in the current economy is that equipment vendors
>>recognize the need for research on technologies we KNOW will be
>>needed in about 5 years, if the Internet is to survive. But, as a
>>result of their declining profits (if any) and stockholder
>>responsibilities, they have decided research is a cost they cannot
>>afford. I used to work for the corporate research lab of Nortel,
>>which has been almost completely gutted. The survivors are primarily
>>supporting applied research for specific products, with expectation
>>of results in 6-18 months.
>
>That is the problem of having to rely on private industry for research.
>
>I realize that there are periods when there were important research
>labs in certain large corporations. But also at the time there was
>support in government for research as well.
>
>It seems that the government support is critical to making other
>support happen as well.
>
>This is support for basic forms of research that looks ahead 10 and
>20 years and provides the means to work toward developments that
>will take that longer period of time. Also it means supporting the
>ways of looking at the problems in a new way and trying to develop
>something new.
>
>Internet technology proved to make it cost less to make interactive
>resource sharing communication possible than ever before. Somehow
>this seems to be lost in the urge to get tv online.
Actually, the basic technical problems of putting TV online are not
all that obscure. The operational coordination, security, and
economics of interdomain multicast are probably the biggest remaining
area. The challenges are in billing and regulation, in the local
physical plant for broadband, etc.
>
>The Internet is a resource sharing metasystem. And one that makes possible
>interactive communication. This is critical to keep in mind when
>making decisions of what technology will further this basic nature
>and what technical developments might stifle it (such as getting
>the tv industry onto the Internet and their control onto the Internet)
Part of the problem is that the TV industry, telcos, etc., are
providing the capital-intensive physical transmission facilities,
especially for broadband applications. Historically, the Internet is
architected to be agnostic to the underlying physical medium.
>
>
>>Been there, done that, even have the T-shirts from the early
>>technical meetings. Yes, a tremendous amount of initiatives came from
>>scientists. Some were funded under government contract, others were
>>academic, and others were supported by private industry. AT&T was
>>much less involved in early Internet development than computer
>>companies, because the Internet technical model is antithetical to
>>the traditional telephone technical model. These models, however,
>>have converged.
>
>Yes I realize you were there. I was suggesting that those who don't have
>this background would do well to learn about it. It is helpful your
>sharing these experiences with us.
>
>And I know that AT&T was not interested in the Internet model early
>on but the Bell labs people made their profound contribution by
>creating and developing and spreading Unix.
>
>Unix is also critical to the development of the Internet.
mmmm...widely used? Yes. Happening to provide the first TCP/IP
reference implementation in BSD 4.2? Yes. Providing a development
environment? A qualified yes; there are alternatives.
Most real-time products such as routers do not use UNIX, but
purpose-built real-time operating systems. Admittedly, the line
blurs. Juniper routers use a locally written kernel, but a modified
UNIX above it. Cisco's IOS was written from scratch and is not
UNIX-like. There are an assortment of operating systems in Nortel
products, VMworks probably being the most common. You can develop for
VMworks using simulators either under UNIX or Windows.
>
>
>I am now looking at the early satellite link to Norway. Norway
>was the first international link to the Arpanet in June 1973.
There just MIGHT be some Canadians that disagree...Waterloo and
McGill Universities and the University of British Columbia were on
quite early. Intercontinental, yes. Incidentally, most of the cost of
the link from Norway was covered by existing military/intelligence
connectivity to sensors there. The first open participant was a
seismic research institute in Norway which was involved with seismic
detection of nuclear tests.
>
>
>Research collaboration between researchers in the US, Norway and
>Great Britain was the research that set the foundation for the Internet
>and for an international nature for the Internet.
>
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #402
******************************
