Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 388
Netizens-Digest Sunday, April 29 2001 Volume 01 : Number 388
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action
Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action - part 3
Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action (part 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:05:07 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> wrote:
>
>>In much of this discussion, I feel that Ronda and I may be talking at
>>different levels. I split the Internet into layers, with the lower
>>layers (my area of specialization) dealing with the internal movement
>>of packets, not the user visible applications where directory
>>services come into play.
>
>>At the lower layers, I simply don't see the corporate demons that she
>>seems to suggest. I definitely do worry at the more user-visible
>>parts.
>
>Well you may find it of interest to take a look at the May 2001 issue
>of Wired. I don't often read it but this had an article by Larry Roberts
>(one of the ARPANET pioneers) and he explains how he is creating
>a new kind of intelligent router significantly change the routing done
>on the Net so that there will be priority service for those who pay
>more and lower class service for those who can't afford the higher
>prices.
Unfortunately, you are dealing with popularizations of concepts that
have been discussed extensively, for years, in quite public
engineering forums. See, for example, the IETF Differentiated
Services Working Group at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/diffserv-charter.html
What's wrong with having economically differentiated premium service,
as long as the lower class services are affordable? The "tragedy of
the commons" is a classical economic paradigm -- unless there are
consequences to using shared or premium resources, some people will
take more than their unfair share.
For health and productivity reasons, I fly business/first class on
long flights. The availability of this premium service doesn't seem
to empty out the economy class cabin.
>
>The changes that are being proposed would seem to affect the lower levels
>as well as the upper levels of the Internet.
>
>And what is interesting is that these changes are not being discussed
>and debated publicly. Instead there is an effort to install them by
>fiat on the folks in the US and around the world.
But these are widely discussed in public engineering forums such as
the IETF and operational forums such as IEPG, NANOG, RIPE, etc.
Where do you think they should be discussed?
Incidentally, the economic impact of differentiated services also
have been discussed for years. Geoff Huston is one of the leading
experts there; see many of his papers at http://www.isc.org/iepg/ as
well as his book, ISP Survival Guide.
>
>
>
>Well depending on who does the funding, that will help set the priorities
>of what the research is that gets done.
>
>For example I have been looking at some of the technical articles written
>during the early development of the Internet when the research was
>funded by government. Then the aims of the research were to create
>a "resources sharing network" and "fairness" of treatment of all packets
>was an objective.
Totally equal treatment for all packets has, with experience, turned
out to be a very bad engineering idea. The most basic concern is
that if all packets are equal, the control and management packets
that actually run the routers and other infrastructure components may
be blocked by user traffic. If the control traffic is blocked, the
Internet as a whole cannot respond to changing conditions, and can
and has suffer massive failures.
There are reasonable differentiations among basic kinds of
application traffic. Is it reasonable to treat an interactive
session (e.g., web browsing, interactive games) with the same service
quality of "freight" such as an overnight file backup?
Internet voice simply will not work if it encounters significant
delay. It is incidentally, surprisingly tolerant to loss and errors,
but not delay. Prioritizing voice traffic, which actually doesn't
take much bandwidth, is a reasonable engineering compromise.
Military networks always have prioritized. While it is more folklore
than reality that the ARPANET was designed for nuclear survivability,
there are basic features built into IP to meet military priorities.
It's also interesting to notice that while there is a very high
priority level for Emergency Command Precedence traffic (i.e., the
level of nuclear weapon launch orders), network control and
internetwork control have even higher precedence.
>
>Now the article in Wired reports that the investment community funding
>the research on charging more for service is eager to fund research that
>will raise the cost for all to send packets.
I haven't read the article, but I would disagree with the premise.
Historically, the costs of mass electronic communications, as a
function of personal income, have dropped dramatically. That doesn't
preclude the existence of premium services.
>
>Its interesting also that Wired hypes what Roberts is doing, rather
>than offering any critical or social perspective of it.
Wired is a profit-making magazine. Are they required to give
perspective? Who determines how much perspective is sufficient?
>
>The social goals mean extending the resource sharing capability
>of the Internet and making very low cost access available to all.
I have to disagree. Not all users of all resources can or should be
equal. One of the major social goods possible with IP networking is
improved delivery of healthcare, including such things as
telepresence surgery. Are you saying that the surgical blade can be
delayed by the traffic of some kids playing Doom? Or are you saying
that there must be so much network capacity that no matter what
traffic is put onto the network, it will never be delayed?
>
>The aim being promoted by Wired is end the Internet, create a new
>network that will cost everyone more and will provide those who
>can pay access to the best service, and everyone else will be second
>or third class netizens.
So? As long as there are seats in coach, does that mean it's evil for
me to fly in first? Is it wrong for me to send one package by
Federal Express for 8:30 next day delivery, and send a routine bill
by postal mail?
>
>
>
>>Ronda, I consider myself a legitimate researcher in the scaling of
>>the Internet. I still have to make sure my feline research associate,
>>Clifford, gets cat food.
>
>Are you saying that you can't get a job where the funding is public
>and so researchers like you have a problem?
The reality is I can't get a job with public funding which is
remotely comparable to my private sector compensation. Years ago, I
worked in government. The salaries weren't close even twenty years
ago.
>
>
>>>Without the scientific process to try to determine what is needed
>>>for the scaling, it doesn't matter how much money is poured in.
>>>
>>>It will be wasted.
>>
>>>One the scientific research is done, then there should be a similar
>>>scientific approach to determining what form the infrastructure's
>>>development should take.
>
>>We may have some different definitions here of scientific versus
>>engineering paradigms. Oh -- and there is definitely such a thing as
>>engineering research.
>
>There is engineering research that is what I am referring to as
>scientific research. I was just reading such a paper yesterday.
>
>The paper is what I am referring to as a scientific paper and what
>you are probably referring to as an engineering paper. It is part
>of a wonderful volume about Internet research "Proceedings of the IEEE,
>vol 66, No. 11, November 1978) The paper is "Modeling and Measurement
>Techniques in Packet Communication Networks"
>
>It describes the process of designing networks and designing ways
>to test the protocols.
>
>This is what I am referring to as science :-)
Then you'd probably be much happier calling the IETF the Internet
Science Task Force. True, it does have a small research arm, and
there are more theoretical forums such as SIGCOMM. But the same
people typically participate in both.
>
>>>The paradigm of the Internet was to have a way to interconnect
>>>dissimilar networks. It seems that that has gotten changed to
> >>having a backbone that some company(s) create.
Again, I'm confused. There are lots of competing backbones. When I
design a large network, I have a choice of backbones. That's good
both for price and for avoiding a single point of failure.
>
>>Unless it is a government funded utility, what is the alternative?
>>And how are international backbones funded?
>
>This is a problem to be explored. I think in Austria the backbone
>was built by the government to connect the universities and then
>the public schools, and the private networks were connected to
>it and offered service to the private sector. So there was a mixed
>infrastructure.
>
>In the Netherlands there was a debate whether funding should go
>into extending the train system so it crossed the whole country
>or building a backbone for the Internet. Eventually I thought they
>did something like build the national train system and use system somehow
>to build the backbone for the Internet infrastructure on or connected
>to it rather than as something separate.
The two are more related than you might think. It's very convenient
to run optical fiber over the sorts of rights of way that trains,
electrical power, etc., utilities need. SPRINT historically is an
acronym for, as I remember, Southern Pacific Railroad Internal
Network Telecommunications, and was spun off from the railroad.
>
>By having a public discussion of the issues and the different points
>of view new alternatives become possible, and ones that will be
>more in providing for the needed public purpose.\
Again: in what forum?
>
>
>>>The original Internet architecture was designed so that it could
>>>interconnect dissimilar networks under dissimilar forms of administrative
>>>or political control.
>
>>I'm puzzled why you don't seem to think this remains the case.
>
>There didn't seem to be any effort with the creation of ICANN
>to recognize the need to continue to support the diverse
>administrative and political units and networks.
I'm the last person to argue that ICANN was a good solution.
Nevertheless, there were political and time pressures to do SOMETHING
at the time.
ICANN does have significant influence on the DNS, but its influence
on addressing and routing is more theoretical than real.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:10:55 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action - part 3
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There is a need to learn from this development and build on it,
>>>as the experience from IPTO shows that such a institutional form
>>>is needed to support the Internet's continued development and scaling.
>
>>I think you need to quantify this. The rate of growth of the Internet
>>has been increasing in a non-linear way since the demise of IPTO.
>>Admittedly, certain mechanisms, never designed for this load, are
>>faltering.
>
>But the seeds were nourished by IPTO.
>
>Now that one doesn't have IPTO it is much harder to have the long
>term research that is needed for scaling the Internet in a way
>that is in the public interest.
How do you see creating such a guiding research function?
Historically, the Congress hasn't been very interested, and dissolved
its own technology office.
There certainly have been focused technical organizations in the
executive branch, both open (e.g., the Apollo program) and
classified. But these did not have huge amounts of public input.
>
>
>>>To me, netizens have to operate in such a politicized environment.
>>
>>>Yes that is true. The politics of science has to be taken on.
>>
>>>But that means recognizing that there are "vested interests" and in
>>>the past there have been ways of inhibiting the damage they can do :-)
>
>>But there's also the issue of not demonizing them, and understanding
>>what is and is not broken. I freely admit that the directory and DNS
>>situation is in terrible shape.
>
>I agree it isn't to demonize them.
>
>And I agree that we want to understand what is and isn't broken.
>
>But after studying the incredible capability and achievements
>of the researchers who created IPTO and the IPT community and
>the important computer science and networking developments of our
>time under its protection and leadership, it is hard to see the
>kind of pressure that companies like MCI/Worldcom and others
>exert on folks in the US Congress and other government officials.
>
>I went to a congressional hearing and saw that the congressman
>from Mississippi was there to take care of MCI/Worldcom not
>the public.
I can believe that.
>
>And a staffer said that the Congress folk only hear from industry
>and in such technical matters he claimed they had no ability to
>evaluate what they were being told to do by the industry folks
>pressuring them.
There are ways to lobby. But I don't see many "netizens" organizing
to do so. In general, by the time it gets to the hearing level, the
positions have already been communicated, especially to staff.
>
>Also I went to a town meeting at Columbia about the Internet and
>its future. The people holding it, it turned out, were CEO's of
>companies. They claimed they were there to hear what people had
>to say so they could tell the new President.
Personally, I regard town meetings as purely public relations
activitites. Just as an individual, I have gotten things I wanted
from corporations and government organizations, but I did it through
reasoned correspondence and focused meetings. By "reasoned", I
phrased my goals in a manner such they were net positives for both
sides.
>
>But mainly what people had to say was that they didn't like the
>commercial activity and taking over of the Internet. Clearly
>the CEO's at the meeting aren't going to tell the new President
>that.
I understand that "people" don't like commercialization.
"People" also are demanding cuts in government spending.
So where is the funding for new Internet capacity going to come from?
>
>So I agree that one doesn't want to demonize anyone.
>
>But the corporate folk that I have been around until recently
>didn't think that there was anything else in the world but the
>needs of their corporations.
While I don't necessarily like it, the legal climate is that activity
by companies that don't increase shareholder value leave corporate
management very open to shareholder (or, in far too many cases,
instigating class action attorneys) lawsuits. Corporations do have
fiduciary obligations.
Regulation is one way to divert corporate resources into things that
don't yield immediate shareholder value, and may very well contribute
to greater goods. But deregulation is Republican dogma.
>
>
>However, with IPTO there was a general purpose objective.
>
>With Microsoft, there is a narrow self serving objective.
>
>And it seems that the general plans for scaling the Internet are
>are being subjected to public discussion and consideration so
>that the research can be done in a general way, rather than
>to increase some sector's profits.
>
>That is why I feel we need a research institution like IPTO again.
>
>
>>>Well I didn't think that the regulated AT&T that developed the
>>>world class telephone infrastructure in the US was any
>>>"socialist system" though I am sure that MCI/worldcom might say
>>>it was as that was their effort to end the deregulation and the
>>>benefit that MCI got as a result.
>
>>To quote back, "regulated". Modified socialism. The 1913 Kingsbury
>>Compromise gave AT&T effective control of long-distance
>>communications, which provided the revenue stream for building their
>>backbone and funding Bell Labs.
>
>Somehow to equate good government regulation with "socialism"
>even "modified socialism" seems to be a lack of recognition of
>the importance that regulation plays to make science possible.
I'm not using "modified socialism" as a derogatory term. Once
government takes a role in private industry, controlling rates of
return, it's no longer a classic free market. Once arbitrageurs take
a role in manipulating short-term financial instruments without
reference to real value, it's also no longer a classic free market.
>
>The US has excelled in scientific activity when it has protected
>and supported scientific research. This took good regulations.
>
>Bill Gates fights regulation tooth and nail and thus the world is
>stuck with a windows operating system that perpetually crashes.
>
>Research is needed not only in the technology but also in the social
>forms and institutions needed to nourish and provide the soil for
>the technological development.
And again: what vehicle can implement this? Who needs to take the
initiative? Who pays? Who takes the legislative lead?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:11:58 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action (part 2)
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> wrote:
>
>>I agree there is a definite concern in open access to broadband
>>access networks (e.g., IP over cable, DSL) and third generation
>>wireless access. But access networks and backbone networks are
>>different things. They perhaps may need different models.
>
>One of the people I spoke with at the National Academy last week
>told me that they are doing a broadband study there and
>they have decided that it will cost $1000 to connect each household
>in the US.
>
>The study is being done by a small committee in closed sessions
>and with no public input.
>
>Yet it is a public question.
>
>In the article on this in Wired this month it seems there is basically
>a plan to end the Internet and substitute this all purpose network
>that will be to put tv, telephone and radio and computer data into
>the same network.
Again, Ronda, you seem to be using "Internet" as a model of nonprofit
collaboration. It's also stretching things a bit to call everything
"the same network." There are important distinctions between local
access providers, IP service providers to end users, backbone
providers, and many sorts of content providers.
Right now, most telephone and a large part of data go through copper
pairs run by the local telephone company (ILEC). Once the copper
pairs enter the ILEC local office, they very well may split data to
one provider and voice to another provider (I'm avoiding the term
"network").
Copper pairs have physical limitations for many new technologies.
Conventional cable TV systems have limitations as well, especially if
high definition television comes into widespread use. In general,
the technological imperative is to run optical fiber to subscribers,
or at least to "curb" locations near them. Multiple services can
coexist on these fibers.
Admittedly, there is a great deal of controversy over "open access"
to fiber and cable systems, and even to rooftops for wireless
antennas.
But there is a practical aspect to local access -- how many times do
you want to dig up the same street to run fiber? Distruption of
streets by uncoordinated excavations of competitors is a major
problem in downtown Washington DC. Some cities are running "dark
fiber" when they put in infrastructure such as sewers, and leasing
the fiber, but that depends on there being new construction. I
certainly agree that property developers need to put in cable duct
and possibly dark fiber, right along with water, sewer, and roads.
>
>But radio and tv in the US and telephone are different kinds of entities
>under different forms of public oversight.
Radio and TV use a free resource -- the frequency spectrum.
>
>To put them all into one, and to subordinate the online data activity
>fo computer folk to the princes of owning content is introducting
>a serious problem and basically seriously jeopardizing the continued
>existence of what has been the goal and dream for the Internet
>since Licklider's early writings.
>
>
>>>To the contrary it seemed that WWII demonstrated the need for
>>>governments to support scientific research. And so after the war
>>>there was the recognition that this was now an important
>>>need. For example Vannevar Bush and the important report he
>>>and others at the National Academy of Science did "Science: the
>>>Endless Frontier"
>
>>WWII rather than Cold War--you are right. I would point out, however,
>>that massive investment in basic research was more post World War II.
>>There's no accident, for example, that the discipline of operations
>>research is named what it is -- it's the use of quantitative methods
>>to improve military operations. Many of the early OR problems dealt
>>with antisubmarine warfare. Norbert Weiner's cybernetic research was
>>given a push because it was useful in antiaircraft fire control. The
>>first primitive computers generated artillery ballistic tables
>>(Harvard Mark I), broke enemy cryptosystems (bombe/Colussus), or did
>>hydrodynamic calculations for atomic bomb design (IBM).
>
>But Licklider's background was in brain research, in how complex
>systems, both natural and artifical function.
And your point is? Norbert Weiner is generally considered the
founding father of modern control theory. For that matter, he did
also work in neuroscience.
>
>In studying servo mechanisms whether in the human brain or in the
>technology that was being developed.
>
>
>
>I was referring to the Soviet people and their desire not to have
>another devastating war and their pressure on the government to support
>science in hopes of preventing such another war.
What Soviet people's pressure on their government, before Gorbachev
and perestroika? People who were not in the Party, or at least
apparatchniks in the nomenklatura, who pressured the government would
get personal government attention. From the Second Chief Directorate
of the KGB. Indeed, they might get up close and personal with Soviet
psychiatric science--in which dissent was considered an illness.
>
>>>So it is not only the cold war, but the effort to prevent another
>>>world war that has motivated the events that have led to the
>>>public support for science that helped to make possible ARPA (1957?)and
>>>the Information Processing Techniques Office that Licklider started
>>>at ARPA in 1962.
>
>>ARPA. Later DARPA. Always in the Department of Defense. To say that
>>this agency's motivation was public support of science, and not the
>>recognition that advanced research supports military development, is
>>ridiculous.
>
>After WWII there was the realization among a lot of people that the US
>had won the war because of science.
>
>You should perhaps look at my papers on this starting with
>http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/arpa_ipto.txt
>
>Licklider was brought to ARPA in 1962 to start an office of information
>processing techniques. His goal was to catalyze the development of
>an information processing science.
>
>Look at what happened when Licklider was brought back to IPTO in 1974.
>
>Then the pressure from industry on the US Congress had had its affect
>and Licklider could not go on and develop the scientific work he
>wanted to develop.
>
>Putting scientific research under the pressure of applications
>meant that the research was harmed. This happened in the Air Force
>Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) in the Office of Naval Research
>(ONR) and at ARPA when it was changed to DARPA.
Every one of the organizations you cite routinely supported basic
scientific research. Obviously, when there was an applied benefit,
they exploited it. Back in the late 60s, I assisted in a study for
ONR, tracing the applications of basic research.
It's been a long time ago, but one thing that comes to mind is that
ONR sponsored basic research in chemistry, including the feasibility
of nitropolymers. Pure physical chemistry. Subsequently, however,
some of the new compounds discovered became the basis for rocket
fuels that made submarine-launched ballistic missiles practical.
There was lots of support for pure mathematics, which turned out to
have all sorts of applications unforeseen at the time. Somewhere on
my shelves, I have a symposium from the early sixties called
"Computer Augmentation of Human Reasoning," which was very very early
blue-sky work.
It was sometimes hard to tell what was basic and what was applied.
One very controversial study was called "Witchcraft, Sorcery, Magic
and Other Psychological Phenomena in the Republic of the Congo."
Done at the Army Special Operations Research Office at American
University, and roundly criticized in Congress as silly science.
Turned out that it was for a very specific military purpose, and done
on a crash basis. US forces were going to intervene in the Congo
rebellion -- the ground troops involved were Belgian paratroopers,
but flown in on US aircraft. There was a very real chance US ground
troops might become involved, and the Simba rebels were operating
under a quasi-religious belief that their leaders made them immune to
bullets. The psychological study was intended to find a nonlethal
way to convince the Simbas they had no such immunity.
>
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #388
******************************
