Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 401
Netizens-Digest Saturday, May 4 2002 Volume 01 : Number 401
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:01:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Fri May 3 13:48:30 2002
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 13:44:55 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
In-reply-to: <20020503025240.25782.qmail@gds.best.vwh.net>
X-Sender: hcb@mail.gettcomm.com
To: netizens@columbia.edu
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <20020503025240.25782.qmail@gds.best.vwh.net>
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>>> This is not meant as any kind of sarcasm, but as I see various
>>> proposals of the Internet as a right, what is the means of funding
>>> the capital-intensive physical infrastructure and the skilled people
>>> to run it?
>
>>An argument I've seen here is that the Internet should be run as a
>>public utility, much like the pre-breakup AT&T was.
>>
>>--gregbo
>>Are there any proposals floating about as to how this could be implemented?
>>Further confusing the situation is the convergence of telephony,
>>video, and business networks, which I don't assume are assumed to be
>>free.
There are models like Bell Labs and AT&T and the 1934 Communications
Act.
Also the convergency may be technically possible, but is it socially
desirable?
Don't these questions have to be asked.
I had a proposal instead of ICANN. It was a serious proposal and
should have been broadly discussed and even funded on a prototype
basis, and still should.
The proposal is still at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
>Right now, I'm working with some colleagues on some next-generation
>routing research specifically targeted at what to do when the
>Internet grows too large for the current routing paradigm. There's
>very little research funding around even for what is a known and
>coming problem.
That is a serious problem that needs to be taken up.
I'm looking at the 10 years it took of research support to develop
TCP/IP and that 10 year window is critical.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 19:15:47 +0000 (GMT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >> This is not meant as any kind of sarcasm, but as I see various
> >> proposals of the Internet as a right, what is the means of funding
> >> the capital-intensive physical infrastructure and the skilled people
> >> to run it?
> >
> >An argument I've seen here is that the Internet should be run as a
> >public utility, much like the pre-breakup AT&T was.
>
> Are there any proposals floating about as to how this could be implemented?
> Further confusing the situation is the convergence of telephony,
> video, and business networks, which I don't assume are assumed to be
> free.
>
> Right now, I'm working with some colleagues on some next-generation
> routing research specifically targeted at what to do when the
> Internet grows too large for the current routing paradigm. There's
> very little research funding around even for what is a known and
> coming problem.
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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 16:06:33 -0400
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
Hello Ronda:
I would also like to hear the arguments in favor of running the internet as
a public utility. However my experience with public utilities is that they
wind up acting pretty much like big corporations, with the public be damned
policies, raising rates, blaming everything and everybody and their uncle
for their financial setbacks except the bosses who run them and screwed up,
etc. and thus advocating the need of turning it over to a private
corporation "who can always run things better", etc. Wouldn't that lead to
"back door entry" privatization?
Luis de Quesada
>From: ronda@panix.com
>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:01:33 -0400 (EDT)
>
>From owner-netizens@columbia.edu Fri May 3 13:48:30 2002
>Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 13:44:55 -0400
>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
>Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>In-reply-to: <20020503025240.25782.qmail@gds.best.vwh.net>
>X-Sender: hcb@mail.gettcomm.com
>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>References: <20020503025240.25782.qmail@gds.best.vwh.net>
>Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>
> >Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >
> >>> This is not meant as any kind of sarcasm, but as I see various
> >>> proposals of the Internet as a right, what is the means of funding
> >>> the capital-intensive physical infrastructure and the skilled people
> >>> to run it?
> >
> >>An argument I've seen here is that the Internet should be run as a
> >>public utility, much like the pre-breakup AT&T was.
> >>
> >>--gregbo
>
> >>Are there any proposals floating about as to how this could be
>implemented?
> >>Further confusing the situation is the convergence of telephony,
> >>video, and business networks, which I don't assume are assumed to be
> >>free.
>
>There are models like Bell Labs and AT&T and the 1934 Communications
>Act.
>
>Also the convergency may be technically possible, but is it socially
>desirable?
>
>Don't these questions have to be asked.
>
>I had a proposal instead of ICANN. It was a serious proposal and
>should have been broadly discussed and even funded on a prototype
>basis, and still should.
>
>The proposal is still at
>http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
>
>
> >Right now, I'm working with some colleagues on some next-generation
> >routing research specifically targeted at what to do when the
> >Internet grows too large for the current routing paradigm. There's
> >very little research funding around even for what is a known and
> >coming problem.
>
>That is a serious problem that needs to be taken up.
>
>I'm looking at the 10 years it took of research support to develop
>TCP/IP and that 10 year window is critical.
>
>Ronda
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:55:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
>I would also like to hear the arguments in favor of running the internet as
>a public utility. However my experience with public utilities is that they
>wind up acting pretty much like big corporations, with the public be damned
>policies, raising rates, blaming everything and everybody and their uncle
>for their financial setbacks except the bosses who run them and screwed up,
>etc. and thus advocating the need of turning it over to a private
>corporation "who can always run things better", etc. Wouldn't that lead to
>"back door entry" privatization?
Actually AT&T was a private corporation under regulation -- it made
it necessary that it have a research laboratory because it was required
to have the most advanced technology possible. Bell Labs did some very
forefronts research including inventing the transistor, Unix and
made possible the 5 ESS switch.
I don't have time now to discuss this further. But regulation is critical
- -- and good regulation.
And there is a public interest to be taken into account, and a corporation
with an obligation to its shareholders as its primary obligation cannot
take into account that public interest.
Also there is the model of how the ARPANET and the Internet were built
under government funding for researchers. These are important lessons
that we need to discuss and learn from.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 21:31:46 -0400
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
Hello Ronda: When Ma Bell was forced to split up, my brother in Boston then
a New England Telephone employee chose AT&T. It wasn't long after that,
maybe 3 years that he was out the door. They did gave him an exit package
thanks to his IBEW contract, but that was the end of it. To me AT&T is equal
to the big corporations, in fact it is run just like one,union busting
tactics and all, the sanctimonious little "public utility" title hides a lot
of sins that people don't even realize. Sooner or later under government,
any government and the corporations, public utilities, learning institutions
and the entire aparatus that opresses the workers, especially in this
society of ours, good regulations are turned into bad regulations by the
bosses, benefitting a just them as usual. I don't trust this public utility
concept, because no matter how much government forces them to "upgrade" and
provide the finest equipment etc. profit will always be in their mind, they
will raise their rates and sooner or later they will provide the privatizing
takeover of the internet as a financial bailout for their mismanagement and
blame us the people for the incompetence of the bosses, like we've seen it
happen at Lilco, Pacific Gas, etc. I'd much rather have a collective in the
hands of the people, if its not too late.
Lou D.
>From: ronda@panix.com
>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:55:20 -0400 (EDT)
>
>From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
>
> >I would also like to hear the arguments in favor of running the internet
>as
> >a public utility. However my experience with public utilities is that
>they
> >wind up acting pretty much like big corporations, with the public be
>damned
> >policies, raising rates, blaming everything and everybody and their uncle
> >for their financial setbacks except the bosses who run them and screwed
>up,
> >etc. and thus advocating the need of turning it over to a private
> >corporation "who can always run things better", etc. Wouldn't that lead
>to
> >"back door entry" privatization?
>
>Actually AT&T was a private corporation under regulation -- it made
>it necessary that it have a research laboratory because it was required
>to have the most advanced technology possible. Bell Labs did some very
>forefronts research including inventing the transistor, Unix and
>made possible the 5 ESS switch.
>
>I don't have time now to discuss this further. But regulation is critical
>-- and good regulation.
>
>And there is a public interest to be taken into account, and a corporation
>with an obligation to its shareholders as its primary obligation cannot
>take into account that public interest.
>
>Also there is the model of how the ARPANET and the Internet were built
>under government funding for researchers. These are important lessons
>that we need to discuss and learn from.
>
>Ronda
>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:05:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hello Ronda: When Ma Bell was forced to split up, my brother in Boston then
>a New England Telephone employee chose AT&T. It wasn't long after that,
>maybe 3 years that he was out the door. They did gave him an exit package
>thanks to his IBEW contract, but that was the end of it. To me AT&T is equal
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.
Even when it was under government regulation it fought its unions,
but there were unions for workers there unlike MCI and other unregulated
communications entities.
Communications is a critical area for a country and a society. It needs
government oversight and public interest obligations.
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.
Only after the regulation and the merging of the different telephone
companies was it possible to use one system to connect to all
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.
Only after the regulation and the merging of the different telephone
companies was it possible to use one system to connect to all.
The chapter I have in Netizens (chapter 9) is about the importance
of Bell Labs in creating Unix and in spreading it. Once the regulations
on AT&T were lifted it was interested in charging for unix.
>to the big corporations, in fact it is run just like one,union busting
>tactics and all, the sanctimonious little "public utility" title hides a lot
>of sins that people don't even realize. Sooner or later under government,
>any government and the corporations, public utilities, learning institutions
>and the entire aparatus that opresses the workers, especially in this
>society of ours, good regulations are turned into bad regulations by the
>bosses, benefitting a just them as usual. I don't trust this public utility
>concept, because no matter how much government forces them to "upgrade" and
>provide the finest equipment etc. profit will always be in their mind, they
>will raise their rates and sooner or later they will provide the privatizing
>takeover of the internet as a financial bailout for their mismanagement and
>blame us the people for the incompetence of the bosses, like we've seen it
>happen at Lilco, Pacific Gas, etc. I'd much rather have a collective in the
>hands of the people, if its not too late.
What people Lou? I agree that bad government regulations are not what
I m referring too.
But the whole concept of government regulation isn't the problem, its
that we need to understand what are good government regulations and how
to get them written and enforced.
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.
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.
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.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 09:10:29 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>Hello Ronda: When Ma Bell was forced to split up, my brother in
>Boston then a New England Telephone employee chose AT&T. It wasn't
>long after that, maybe 3 years that he was out the door. They did
>gave him an exit package thanks to his IBEW contract, but that was
>the end of it. To me AT&T is equal to the big corporations, in fact
>it is run just like one,union busting tactics and all, the
>sanctimonious little "public utility" title hides a lot of sins that
>people don't even realize. Sooner or later under government, any
>government and the corporations, public utilities, learning
>institutions and the entire aparatus that opresses the workers,
>especially in this society of ours, good regulations are turned into
>bad regulations by the bosses, benefitting a just them as usual. I
>don't trust this public utility concept, because no matter how much
>government forces them to "upgrade" and provide the finest equipment
>etc. profit will always be in their mind, they will raise their
>rates and sooner or later they will provide the privatizing takeover
>of the internet as a financial bailout for their mismanagement and
>blame us the people for the incompetence of the bosses, like we've
>seen it happen at Lilco, Pacific Gas, etc. I'd much rather have a
>collective in the hands of the people, if its not too late.
>Lou D.
And I'll repeat the question to you: how do collectives run
worldwide networks that need coordination, and for which decisions
sometimes need to be made RIGHT NOW? I'm not even getting into the
capital requirements for building and maintaining the networks.
I'm talking about things where part of the network could legitimately
be designed one way or another, but one MUST be chosen in a timely
manner. I'm talking about when to make the decision, figuratively,
to cut off a limb to save the patient, because malicious hacking,
equipment problems, or human error is jeopardizing the operation of
the entire Internet.
Policy, operational and economic models are separable.
There's also the issue that the number of qualified Internet
engineers worldwide (by that, I mean someone qualified to build and
operate large public networks) is probably in the low thousands. Are
you assuming that these people will join collectives and be
compensated according to need?
>
>
>>From: ronda@panix.com
>>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>>Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>>Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:55:20 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
>>
>>>I would also like to hear the arguments in favor of running the internet as
>>>a public utility. However my experience with public utilities is that they
>>>wind up acting pretty much like big corporations, with the public be damned
>>>policies, raising rates, blaming everything and everybody and their uncle
>>>for their financial setbacks except the bosses who run them and screwed up,
>>>etc. and thus advocating the need of turning it over to a private
>>>corporation "who can always run things better", etc. Wouldn't that lead to
>>>"back door entry" privatization?
>>
>>Actually AT&T was a private corporation under regulation -- it made
>>it necessary that it have a research laboratory because it was required
>>to have the most advanced technology possible. Bell Labs did some very
>>forefronts research including inventing the transistor, Unix and
>>made possible the 5 ESS switch.
>>
>>I don't have time now to discuss this further. But regulation is critical
>>-- and good regulation.
>>
>>And there is a public interest to be taken into account, and a corporation
>>with an obligation to its shareholders as its primary obligation cannot
>>take into account that public interest.
>>
>>Also there is the model of how the ARPANET and the Internet were built
>>under government funding for researchers. These are important lessons
>>that we need to discuss and learn from.
>>
>>Ronda
>>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #401
******************************
