Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 403
Netizens-Digest Sunday, May 5 2002 Volume 01 : Number 403
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Appropriate Internet Usage and Loss of Connectivity
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Fwd: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
Re: [netz] Something to consider
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 12:25:15 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Appropriate Internet Usage and Loss of Connectivity
Most of you have probably seen the accusations of cyberwarfare from
the Peoples' Republic of China. My sense is that these are more
government-tolerated than an actual government program, but obviously
I don't know. Some years ago, I thought long and hard before becoming
involved in the first effort to bring Internet connectivity to China
(this effort failed miserably, partially for reasons that are
laughable in retrospect). I decided to do so, because I felt that a
government would simply not be able to block all free communications.
My feelings remain mixed about that, but I see enough genuine
professional communications from the .cn domain to think it might be
worthwhile. Others may not.
What is a significant problem is abusive commercial mail -- spam --
that seems either to originate or use open relays especially in the
Republic of Korea and Taiwan. For those unfamiliar with open relays,
these were common in the early Internet, where an email host would
forward arbitrary mail as a courtesy. Of course, these early days
were a time of mutual trust.
Spammers often do not send their messages from their own hosts, in
part because they may lose their service. A very common practice is
for spammers to create a small number of messages with extremely
large address lists, and send them to open relays. This practice
both consumes resources of the relay owner, and makes it difficult to
track the source.
Some of the spam does seem to originate in Korea or Taiwan, because
the message text is in a Korean or Chinese character set. Much of
the mail that apparently originates there is pornographic. I have
nothing against the use of the Internet for the exchange of
pornography among consenting adults, but this gets just plain silly.
I just looked in my trash folder, which I empty several times a day,
and found about 12 pornographic ads in Korean---I only know they are
pornographic from the graphics. In other words, some of these
spammers are blasting their ads worldwide without any particular
concern if the recipient will even be able to read them. In
countries where Internet connectivity is charged by the minute, this
is a real cost to end users.
Other spams at least seem to be in the right language.
A number of North American internet service providers have started to
block, as the default, emails from the .kr and .tw domains. Some are
considering blocking .cn. They usually provide an opt-out address
where legitimate mailers can identify themselves and get excepted
from the filters.
This is less a censorship issue to me than an issue of resource theft
by the spammers. Yet entire countries are being blocked because of
the actions of a small number of thieves.
Who should regulate this? I've never assumed free speech meant that
anyone was free to use my resources.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 19:44:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> 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?
Given that many Internet engineers have been laid off or their
companies have gone out of business, do you think this is still true?
Or is it that there's just not a critical mass of such engineers (say,
because people who have the required skills are in other fields).
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 16:50:17 EDT
From: krose50@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
Hi-I'd like to take my email off the list-Thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 16:56:45 EDT
From: krose50@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: [netz] Something to consider
- --part1_193.68ef98b.2a05a50d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/4/02 4:52:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, krose50@aol.com
writes:
<< netizens@columbia.edu >>
- --part1_193.68ef98b.2a05a50d_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <owner-netizens@columbia.edu>
Received: from rly-xg01.mx.aol.com (rly-xg01.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.198]) by air-xg05.mail.aol.com (v84.16) with ESMTP id MAILINXG53-0504165241; Sat, 04 May 2002 16:52:41 -0400
Received: from maillist1.cc.columbia.edu (maillist1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.40.140]) by rly-xg01.mx.aol.com (v84.15) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXG110-0504165217; Sat, 04 May 2002 16:52:17 -0400
Received: by maillist1.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04894
for netizens-outgoing; Sat, 4 May 2002 16:50:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marionberry.cc.columbia.edu (marionberry.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.100])
by maillist1.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04889
for <majordom+netizens@maillist1.cc.columbia.edu>; Sat, 4 May 2002 16:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99])
by marionberry.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20641
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Sat, 4 May 2002 16:50:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: krose50@aol.com
Received: from krose50@aol.com
by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 3.187.7726679 (1321)
for <netizens@columbia.edu>; Sat, 4 May 2002 16:50:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <187.7726679.2a05a389@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 16:50:17 EDT
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
To: netizens@columbia.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 120
Sender: owner-netizens@columbia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
Hi-I'd like to take my email off the list-Thank you.
- --part1_193.68ef98b.2a05a50d_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 01:14:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
ronda@panix.com wrote:
> 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 remember hearing and reading a lot about the AT&T breakup. A lot of
the talk revolved around how consumers would benefit from competition
among long-distance carriers because they'd be able to select their
carrier. (Sort of like what you may have heard lately if you lived in
an area that was moving to a deregulated energy model.) Other
benefits were touted, such as having the option to own your own phone.
Whether or not regulated monopolies are better than deregulated
competitors is debatable. However, I think one thing that got the
long-distance carriers in trouble, even before the dotcom bust, is
their aggressive customer acquisition campaigns. I think they spent
far too much money trying to "buy" people not subscribed to their
service by offering them some free time on the new service. For one
thing, a lot of those fliers probably wound up in the trash. Another
thing I'd heard is that there were people who were cycling between a
series of providers without paying anything. The providers didn't
seem to have sufficient tracking to detect when they'd reacquired a
customer. So they spent all this money on advertising and promotion
that could have been spent improving their service, or at least
conserving their cash burn rate. IMHO, yet another reason why there
are now so many struggling telecoms ...
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 23:07:08 -0400
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
Hello Ronda: The "people" I'm referring to is people who believe AT&T is
good just because it is a so called public utility and or its scientific
accomplishments. When I lived in Boston I used to hear many complaints from
its workers about their bosses. In fact I think they became the pioneers of
downsizing in this country. About their scientific accomplishments I'm sure
they've had many, but just because someone is a good scientist that doesn't
necessarily make him good for the people. Hitler surrounded himself with
many scientists and those scientists weren't necessarily good as we very
well know. "Ma Bell" was forced to split up because of its monopoly
practices something that many are doing nowadays and they don't even get
challenged for. Can AT&T and NYNEX be blamed for the breakup? Yes they can
be. For years their executives went beyond the established laws regarding
monopoly. Out of greed they acted irresponsibly therefore bringing the
government mandated breakup on themselves and then blaming their workers and
others except themselves. The last thing a bad boss will do is blame himself
for his own incompetence, he will always try to find a "scapegoat", very
similar to government officials.
I am not for government regulations either. It is the people who support
government and that same government turns against the people who make it
possible to exist and become contemptous of the people they are suppossed to
serve. I don't trust government any government.Its an oligarchy, the ruling
of a privileged self serving few over many.
I don't want the internet run by government either. I want things run by the
people themselves.
Take care,
Lou D.
>From: ronda@panix.com
>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:05:08 -0400 (EDT)
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 00:17:15 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider
>Hello Ronda: The "people" I'm referring to is people who believe
>AT&T is good just because it is a so called public utility and or
>its scientific accomplishments.
So-called is an interesting term. It has no semantic content. Just
what do you mean? Frankly, I hear you not being in favor of anything
except the ill-defined people in ill-defined collectives. Is the
system anarchy, marxism, or something else?
>When I lived in Boston I used to hear many complaints from its
>workers about their bosses. In fact I think they became the pioneers
>of downsizing in this country.
Historically, the telecommunication industry lacked people. If, for
example, it had continued manual switchboard operation, there would
not have been enough workers in the US to run the switchboards.
Automation was necessary, but there was quite a commitment both on
the part of the company and the union to retrain workers. Even
though a specific job might have been obsoleted, the workers had
institutional knowledge that was an asset and was consciously
preserved.
If you want to look at downsizing throughout the 20th century,
examine heavy manufacturing, mining, etc. Find telecommunications
repression equivalent to the violent union-busting at Ford, in the
coal mines, etc.
Incidentally, you cited IBEW as protecting workers in the industry.
The vast majority of unionized telecommunications employees belonged
to the CWA. IBEW members have become more important in
telecommunications as they have become involved in office building
cabling.
>About their scientific accomplishments I'm sure they've had many,
>but just because someone is a good scientist that doesn't
>necessarily make him good for the people. Hitler surrounded himself
>with many scientists and those scientists weren't necessarily good
>as we very well know.
What DOES make a scientist good for "the people?" Political
correctness du jour? Is Lysenko a good example?
>"Ma Bell" was forced to split up because of its monopoly practices
>something that many are doing nowadays and they don't even get
>challenged for. Can AT&T and NYNEX be blamed for the breakup?
Be accurate. NYNEX didn't even exist until after the AT&T breakup.
New York Telephone and other regional firms were part of AT&T. How
can you possibly blame an organization that didn't exist before the
breakup for causing the breakup?
>Yes they can be. For years their executives went beyond the
>established laws regarding monopoly. Out of greed they acted
>irresponsibly therefore bringing the government mandated breakup on
>themselves and then blaming their workers and others except
>themselves.
The major motivation for the breakup was intense pressure by
potential competitors seeking profit in a deregulated market (not
that this is necessarily wrong). MCI, for example, had greater
revenue from its suits against AT&T than actual earnings for the
first several years of its existence.
It's interesting that you speak of a class of executives separate
from the people. Until the Modified Final Judgement breaking up AT&T
in 1975, many senior executives, including then-chairman Charles
Brown, had worked their way up the ranks. Brown's first job was
climbing telephone poles and splicing wires.
Since the breakup, senior executives have come primarily from the
financial sector. The opportunities for workers decreased, not
increased.
If you are so intent on proving value for "the people," could you
explain how the removal of cross-subsidization for low-profit markets
is a general social good? The AT&T competitors aimed primarily for
profitable business accounts, then for residential business in
high-density areas where economies of scale were significant.
Cross-subsidization also paid for a great deal of the research.
The economic model for regulated utilities was guaranteed return on
investment, which indeed does not encourage economies. Nevertheless,
it was the operating condition.
Another factor in AT&T's cost structure has to reflect network
construction during the Cold War. Many of its facilities were
hardened against nuclear strikes, a requirement for continuity of
government communications but hardly a driver of market economies.
To evaluate the breakup, one must consider the general trend in
financial markets of the time, including a push towards deregulation
and privatization in the Nixon administration, leveraged buyouts and
arbitrage, etc.
>The last thing a bad boss will do is blame himself for his own
>incompetence, he will always try to find a "scapegoat", very similar
>to government officials.
>I am not for government regulations either. It is the people who
>support government and that same government turns against the people
>who make it possible to exist and become contemptous of the people
>they are suppossed to serve. I don't trust government any
>government.Its an oligarchy, the ruling of a privileged self serving
>few over many.
>I don't want the internet run by government either. I want things
>run by the people themselves.
As I have asked several times: how? Specifically. How do the
facilities get built, the networks designed, etc.?
Western Africa is underserved with communications. Do you use
undersea optical cable to connect it to the world? If so, are you
aware how few purpose-built cable-laying ships exist? How do you
install the local loops? Do you go with fixed wireless? The more
capital-intensive, but higher-capacity fiber loops? Are you more
environmentally and esthetically friendly by more expensive buried
cable, or do you go with telephone poles?
Until local personnel can be trained, which will take years, who will
engineer and operate the networks? In the more primitive areas, where
is the electric power coming from?
Do you minimize the capital costs of installation by putting in
minimal facilities with the expectation of having to rebuild them as
demand grows, or do you install more facilities -- even dark fiber --
at the onset?
How do the "people" do anything that requires years of study and practice?
And when did the phenomenon of the tragedy of the commons get repealed?
Sir, without coming across with any specific proposals other than
what seems far-left rhetoric, your credibility does not seem high.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #403
******************************
