Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 502
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 16 2003 Volume 01 : Number 502
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
[netz] Trying to define infrastructure and privatization
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:27:32 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>> [LDQ] ...I think the road ahead
>> is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of
>> the
>> infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct
>> terminology. It may
>> very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
>
>
> Let me rephrase -- I think it's less that privatization isn't
> unavoidable -- it already has taken place. Broadcast TV and radio are
> special cases.
It seems to me that when we talk about privatization of the Internet,
there are at least three things I think we might be referring to, and
I'm never sure which one(s) we actually mean.
1. Private ownership of the hardware?
2. Private/corporate control of access to the Net, no commitment to
universal access?
3. Corporate-imposed restrictions on how the Net operates and how it is
used?
When Howard says that privatization has happened, he seems to mean
mostly 1. When others worry about privatization, it seems to me that
they mean mostly 2 and 3. There may be other nuances I'm missing
altogether. All very confusing.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> >> [LDQ] ...I think the road ahead
> >> is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of
> >> the
> >> infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct
> >> terminology. It may
> >> very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
> >
> >
> > Let me rephrase -- I think it's less that privatization isn't
> > unavoidable -- it already has taken place. Broadcast TV and radio are
> > special cases.
The Infrastructure HAS NOT been privatized.
The ICANN trouble is the problems that the US government is
having trying to privatize the infrastructure.
Ronda
P.S. It hasn't been privatized in other ways as well
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:44:39 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
>Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>>>[LDQ] ...I think the road ahead
>>>is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of the
>>>infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct
>>>terminology. It may
>>>very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
>>
>>
>>Let me rephrase -- I think it's less that privatization isn't
>>unavoidable -- it already has taken place. Broadcast TV and radio
>>are special cases.
>
>
>It seems to me that when we talk about privatization of the
>Internet, there are at least three things I think we might be
>referring to, and I'm never sure which one(s) we actually mean.
>
>1. Private ownership of the hardware?
>2. Private/corporate control of access to the Net, no commitment to
>universal access?
>3. Corporate-imposed restrictions on how the Net operates and how it is used?
>
>When Howard says that privatization has happened, he seems to mean
>mostly 1. When others worry about privatization, it seems to me
>that they mean mostly 2 and 3. There may be other nuances I'm
>missing altogether. All very confusing.
Good formulation. Yes, I'm speaking primarily of #1. Perhaps one
caveat to bear in mind, that I alluded to to Luis, is that some
information providers (i.e., TV broadcasters) have free use of public
frequency space. New services, such as wireless, tend to have
auctions for this space.
The thing that worries me most is an aspect of #3, where a corporate
information provider censors information for reasons not related to
slander/libel, intellectual property rights, agreed-to illicit
content such as kiddie porn, and information that interferes with the
actual operation of the net (mail bombing and spam, bogus internal
operational messages like routing updates), or distributing harmful
information such as viruses and worms.
#2 is a tough one, especially how one defines universal service.
There are at least two aspects of universal service: provider
business, and individual. Provider business universal access is the
"any willing provider" argument in which the basic technical monopoly
is the wires or equivalent, but the owner of the wires wants to limit
competition for Internet access, voice, or other profitable add-on
services.
The individual access issue gets involved, much like healthcare, is
whether there can be a tiered system with a guarantee of minimum
essential services, plus premium services that are paid for. Even in
a non-tiered system, we get back to the problem of what defines the
basic guaranteed service -- and what happens when individuals want
more resources than that service assumes?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:10:36 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Howard: Great analysis, as always. I am aware that privatization has already
taken place, I think its the infrastructure that remains non privatized? Cable TV
bills have spiraled, however you can't beat high definition TV. By adding DSL you
mean the Verizon issued box for your computer as an alternative to AOL, etc? I am
also looking for more economical deals.
So based on your expertise on this field do you think a viable solution can be
found to keep the internet free or low cost?
Take care,
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Howard: I see exactly what you mean and you are right in trying to find
> >solutions that are feasible and implementable. This means a lot of
> >research must be
> >done and perhaps good ideas and answers can be found in the works of others. I
> >noticed that you have written a few books about similar subjects.
> >You recently made
> >a very good analysis for me about cable tv, it covered some of the basics in
> >maintenance costs of cable and other interesting data. To be honest
> >with you I don't
> >think we're going to find fast solutions to these problems. I think
> >the road ahead
> >is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of the
> >infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct
> >terminology. It may
> >very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
>
> Let me rephrase -- I think it's less that privatization isn't
> unavoidable -- it already has taken place. Broadcast TV and radio are
> special cases.
>
> >But I have to confess that everytime I see my cable tv bill I can't help but
> >remember the times when TV was almost free, you still had to pay for the
> >electricity, though.
>
> Oh, believe me, I know what you are saying when I see my cable bill.
> The reality is, however, that the original radio and TV broadcasters
> didn't have to pay for what we now consider an immense subsidy, use
> of the radio frequency spectrum.
>
> Now, I have the flexibility to do so, but I have telephone, cable,
> and cellular service now, and may again be adding DSL. I will shift
> services for the best deal.
>
> I hesitate to call most broadcasters noncommercial, because the
> majors are all advertising-supported.
>
> I'd suggest that when we look at infrastructure, we move wireless TV
> and radio off to the side as very special cases, which do not
> necessarily make good use of a public resource. Cable does offer
> more options that wireless broadcast could never implement. When I
> last looked, we had four local-access "community" channels on our
> cable system, plus county government information/education, plus some
> channels used by the schools. Broadcast doesn't support enough
> channels to make that remotely economically attractive to the
> broadcaster.
>
> With the push toward high-definition TV, not necessarily a push that
> I consider more than a solution in search of a problem, traditional
> cable TV networks become obsolete. The copper coaxial cable they use
> simply can't carry the bandwidth of HDTV, and must eventually be
> replaced by optical fiber. The bandwidth available on fiber is such
> that telephone and computer data services essentially can ride free.
>
> But having the opportunity to have cross-subsidization by cable
> carriers obviously doesn't apply to less-developed countries. It's
> still fair to say, however, that it actually can be cheaper to put in
> broadband infrastructure when you are dealing with new installations
> or completely ripping out the old. Practical example: traditional
> telephone systems need to have some kind of signal boosting or
> conditioning equipment every 4000 to 6000 feet. This equipment needs
> electrical power, a manhole and workspace if it's underground, etc.
>
> In contrast, fiber can easily run tens or even hundreds of kilometers
> with no intermediate equipment. This makes it much cheaper. Other
> forms of fiber, incidentally, can run 4000 kilometers or more without
> intermediate equipment. We are at a stage that only the longer
> transoceanic cables need to have expensive and hard-to-maintain
> underwater electronics.
>
> >Through research and discussion we maybe be able to find viable
> >solutions for these
> >problems.I think the struggle is well worth it so we can save
> >ourselves and our
> >fellow man from paying one yet another bill, for something that was
> >virtually free
> >or low cost?
> >Take care,
> >Luis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:16:10 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Mark: I know what you mean its all very confusing to me also but I
think we will all gain very good knowledge from this. I think its all
crucial and very important that's why I wish others would join us and
contribute their ideas. Solutions are out there, people have them and I wish
they would bring them forward, it can't all be Jay, Ronda, Howard,Mark,
Larry, Dan and Lou. We can surely use some help from our fellow netizens
throughout the world.
Take care,
Lou D.
Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> >> [LDQ] ...I think the road ahead
> >> is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of
> >> the
> >> infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct
> >> terminology. It may
> >> very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
> >
> >
> > Let me rephrase -- I think it's less that privatization isn't
> > unavoidable -- it already has taken place. Broadcast TV and radio are
> > special cases.
>
> It seems to me that when we talk about privatization of the Internet,
> there are at least three things I think we might be referring to, and
> I'm never sure which one(s) we actually mean.
>
> 1. Private ownership of the hardware?
> 2. Private/corporate control of access to the Net, no commitment to
> universal access?
> 3. Corporate-imposed restrictions on how the Net operates and how it is
> used?
>
> When Howard says that privatization has happened, he seems to mean
> mostly 1. When others worry about privatization, it seems to me that
> they mean mostly 2 and 3. There may be other nuances I'm missing
> altogether. All very confusing.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:01:21 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
>On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Mark Lindeman wrote:
>
>> Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>> >> [LDQ] ...I think the road ahead
>> >> is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of
>> >> the
>> >> infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct
>> >> terminology. It may
>> >> very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
>> >
>> >
>> > Let me rephrase -- I think it's less that privatization isn't
>> > unavoidable -- it already has taken place. Broadcast TV and radio are
>> > special cases.
>
>
>The Infrastructure HAS NOT been privatized.
How do you define the infrastructure? Admistratively only, such as
DNS and IP assignment? Routing peering arrangements?
How do you refer to the physical plant of routers, fiber cables,
dialups, etc., if not infrastructure?
>
>The ICANN trouble is the problems that the US government is
>having trying to privatize the infrastructure.
The US government isn't operating the Internet. If ICANN isn't doing
it, what am I communicating over?
>
>Ronda
>
>P.S. It hasn't been privatized in other ways as well
Specific examples, please?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:19:27 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
>Hello Howard: Great analysis, as always. I am aware that
>privatization has already
>taken place, I think its the infrastructure that remains non
>privatized? Cable TV
>bills have spiraled, however you can't beat high definition TV.
Great example, Luis, of the problems in defining basic/universal
access. I watch very little TV. My biggest complaint is that the
Animal Channel comes in fuzzily, and my cats like to watch it. But I
personally wouldn't mind if I never had personal access to HDTV.
Now, under my professional hat in providing medical services, HDTV
could be extremely important.
But we have the issue is that the government mandate for HDTV (in the
US) is forcing cable systems to upgrade to support HDTV. That
involves cost, with the obvious issue of how the cable providers are
going to recover their costs. Raising rates is an obvious
possibilility, but branching out into new services, such as providing
telephony, is another opportunity for revenue.
As far as I'm concerned, requiring HDTV is making the digital divide
worse, not better, unless the facilities upgrade to support HDTV can
subsidize voice and computer data.
>By adding DSL you
>mean the Verizon issued box for your computer as an alternative to AOL, etc?
Well, AOL doesn't operate local wires. So I'd normally reach AOL
through dialup. But you bring up a good example of "any willing
provider". In such an environment, Verizon DSL would have to let
customers have AOL as their primary ISP, rather than pressuring them
to use verizon.net. Actually, verizon isn't as bad as say, Time
Warner.
Verizon really gets upset, however, if you tried to use a different
local phone company running over your DSL (or other broadband
connection). In another county than mine in the local Verizon area, a
cable carrier called Starpower offers cable, voice, and Internet
access, at a pretty low total price. If they were in my area, I'd
certainly consider them.
>I am
>also looking for more economical deals.
>So based on your expertise on this field do you think a viable solution can be
>found to keep the internet free or low cost?
>Take care,
>Luis
I think there are answers, but they are going to depend, in part, of
avoiding duplicate wiring and such by going to a single connection
for the Internet, voice, VPNs, and video.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:02:04 -0400
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Ronda: Thank you for clarifying that. So I was correct, the
infrastructure has not been privatized. I'm glad it has been established and
that we can now move our discussion based on that information and that this
information is correct.
Lou D.
>From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
>Reply-To: netizens@columbia.edu
>To: netizens@columbia.edu
>CC: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
>Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>
>On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Mark Lindeman wrote:
>
> > Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >
> > >> [LDQ] ...I think the road ahead
> > >> is longer than expected to make the case against the privatization of
> > >> the
> > >> infrastructure of the internet? I hope I'm using the correct
> > >> terminology. It may
> > >> very well be that total privatization is unavoidable?
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me rephrase -- I think it's less that privatization isn't
> > > unavoidable -- it already has taken place. Broadcast TV and radio are
> > > special cases.
>
>
>The Infrastructure HAS NOT been privatized.
>
>The ICANN trouble is the problems that the US government is
>having trying to privatize the infrastructure.
>
>Ronda
>
>P.S. It hasn't been privatized in other ways as well
>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:27:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
> >[RH] The Infrastructure HAS NOT been privatized.
>
> [HCB] How do you define the infrastructure? Admistratively only, such as
> DNS and IP assignment? Routing peering arrangements?
>
> How do you refer to the physical plant of routers, fiber cables,
> dialups, etc., if not infrastructure?
Ah hah! So not only is "privatization" a source of confusion,
but "infrastructure" is as well.
"Infrastructure" can, in ordinary English, equally well refer to basic services
and to physical plant (or some combination of the two). Is there some
controlling definition of "Internet infrastructure" that we can use as a
reference? or do we just have to work out terms that don't confuse us? (I
mean, y'all may not be confused, but I still am. But Luis, as a professor, I
am paid to be confused, so it doesn't bother me! as long as I keep that sense
of groping toward less confusion....)
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:57:21 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Trying to define infrastructure and privatization
> > >[RH] The Infrastructure HAS NOT been privatized.
>>
>> [HCB] How do you define the infrastructure? Admistratively only, such as
>> DNS and IP assignment? Routing peering arrangements?
>>
>> How do you refer to the physical plant of routers, fiber cables,
>> dialups, etc., if not infrastructure?
>
>Ah hah! So not only is "privatization" a source of confusion,
>but "infrastructure" is as well.
>
>"Infrastructure" can, in ordinary English, equally well refer to
>basic services
>and to physical plant (or some combination of the two). Is there some
>controlling definition of "Internet infrastructure" that we can use as a
>reference? or do we just have to work out terms that don't confuse us? (I
>mean, y'all may not be confused, but I still am. But Luis, as a professor, I
>am paid to be confused, so it doesn't bother me! as long as I keep that sense
>of groping toward less confusion....)
>
>Mark
This poor old engineer is being confused as well. For example, I
just sent a message to discover my path to Columbia University's web
server (a traceroute). I am a customer of comcast.net. Here's the
path it took, * being a for-profit organization and + being
not-for-profit but not "public" in the sense of government-controlled"
1 10.73.64.1 Comcast*
2 172.30.101.209 Comcast*
3 172.30.101.250 Comcast*
4 172.30.101.187 Comcast*
5 68.48.0.174 Comcast/AT&T Cable*
6 12.126.168.5 AT&T*
7 tbr1-p012201.wswdc.ip.att.net AT&T*
8 ggr1-p340.wswdc.ip.att.net AT&T*
9 216.140.8.153 AT&T* or transfer point*
10 p4-2.c0.wash.broadwing.net Broadwing*
11 p1-2-0.c1.nwyk.broadwing.net Broadwing*
12 p1-0-0.a1.nwyk.broadwing.net Broadwing*
13 67.99.58.194 AT&T (I think)*
14 tbr1-p012201.wswdc.ip.att.net AT&T*
15 cc-edge-3.net.columbia.edu Columbia University +
Nothing in that physical path is a government organization, which I
think of as a "not privatized" entity. To my simple mind, things are
either public or private, with perhaps an intermediate category of
private not-for-profit. The interconnection agreements to carry
traffic are bilateral contractual relationships between Comcast
(which is acquiring AT&T Cable) and AT&T, and between AT&T and
Broadwing. From the data, I would assume Columbia is a customer of
AT&T for Internet connectivity.
Administratively, the IP adddresses were allocated by ARIN, once a
government contractor but now a not-for-profit Virginia corporation.
The DNS names came, probably with some intermediaries, through ICANN,
a not-for-profit California corporation.
Ronda, how do you explain that if there is no privatization, my
communications are completely through nongovernmental organizations?
The operational rules about the path are based on contracts, and the
identifiers are controlled under a structure managed by
not-for-profit but government-independent corporations?
My only guess is that you have some definition of "infrastructure"
that has nothing to do with physical facilities, their operation, or
capitalization. That definition is, to put it mildly, not consistent
with the definition used in the industry or by industry regulators.
Now, if you are talking about some supranational organization, which
does not yet actually exist, that does things like guarantee
universal access, I could at least have an idea where you were going,
although I might well disagree there can and should be such an
organization.
But in the absence of further enlightenment, my communications with
you and other Netizens takes place only through privatized resources.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #502
******************************
