Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 505
Netizens-Digest Friday, April 18 2003 Volume 01 : Number 505
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"
[netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:10:55 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Howard: I understand what you are saying and I did not imply that the
Netizens book has "Papal infallibility", I think nothing in this world does and
even though I was baptized a catholic to me there's no such thing as Papal
infallibility, history is plagued with evil Popes, even there power corrupted. I
remained a catholic because, I saw no percentage in switching religions and that's
the way God send me to this earth, I have respect for all religions. But since I
haven't dug into the book and by talking to the Haubens I sense there are good
answers in that book, but I never intended to suggest absolute infallibility.
I saw that breakdown you did in your on line communication, AT&T etc. and I think
its a very good analysis. Then we will see what Ronda and Jay post in reply. For
me that's the way to learn and find out about a subject which I am not familiar
with. I respect and value your opinions and your publications, some of which I hope
to read.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Mark: Exactly my feelings. I think everyone's confused,
> >especially at things
> >which we're not familiar with. But I think we'll learn as we go
> >along and then I
> >think our postings will become more educated on the subject. Right now I think
> >we're on to something very important which is Ronda's clarification that the
> >"infrastructure of the internet has not been privatized".
>
> Luis,
>
> Without further and precise definition of both "privatization" and
> "infrastructure" by Ronda, I disagree strongly with the contention
> the Internet has not been privatized. I posted actual data yesterday
> that shows how my communication to the net goes completely through
> You speak of things "we're not familiar with," and I appreciate that
> some of the material under discussion is indeed new to some of the
> participants. But not all the concepts are unfamiliar to everyone on
> the list. Some definitions of the concepts vary among those
> individuals with background.
>
> >I think Michael's and
> >Ronda's book does have the answers we seek.
>
> Let me try to put this as diplomatically as possible. That book
> certainly has some valuable information. It does not have Papal
> infallibility; it is no more and no less than a set of careful
> observations from a thoughtful individual.
>
> >It took long and careful research and
> >hard work (I think to put it mildly) to accomplish its completion
> >and publication.
> >I really have to dig into it, something I find hard at my age(60)
>
> And I am 54. I first touched a computer when I was 18, used
> primitive networking when I was 19, and was working with
> multiple-computer resource-sharing medical networks before I was 21.
>
> I was involved in pre-Internet networed communications by 1970-1971,
> and have been working full-time in the field since then. I can give
> you a list of networks I have actually developed that connect to the
> Internet, as well as authored multiple books and RFCs about the
> Internet.
>
> So, when I say that without significant clarification, when my
> observations and experience lead me to a conclusion completely
> different than Ronda's, I don't think that is useful to dismiss out
> of hand. I suspect the problem, in part, lies that Ronda may be using
> a set of definitions of "privatization" and "infrastructure"
> different from common industry practice. Perhaps by agreeing on
> definitions, we can find out where the disagreements lie.
>
> But no one person brings absolute, unchallengeable truth to this
> discussion. Sir Isaac Newton observed :"If I have seen further than
> other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
> The basic mechanism of science, as well as the basic mechanism of
> political philosophy, is evolutionary. Let us have such an
> evolutionary discussion here, rather than say any one person
> (including myself) or book has the final answers.
>
> >soon to be 61 and
> >especially understanding the words and terminologies in it, but I have good
> >reference sources in Jay and Ronda and of course the wonderful
> >information sources
> >available in the internet.
> >Take care,
> >Luis
> >
> >lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> >
> >> > >[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: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:18:00 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Hello Howard:
Thank you for your detailed explanation of cable service and its pricing. It has
helped me understand better the science behind it. I still miss the days of low
cost television and I do hope that in the future cable companies are able to offer
lower cost packages. Our economy is not getting any better and every little bit in
savings does help.
Lou D.
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Howard: I think the problem with the cheaper cable services is
> >that most of
> >them seem to be out of reach, like you mentioned a cheaper provider in another
> >county.
>
> There are a complex set of reasons why any given cable service is
> priced the way it is. They range from
> --perception by the operator of what price the market will accept
> --size and geography of the area being served (e.g., it's cheaper
> to support apartment houses than widely separated single-family houses)
> --initial installation and operating expense [2] of the cable equipment
> --terms and conditions of the franchise/monopoly
> --incremental profit-making opportunities for the cable operator (e.g.,
> premium channels), and what portion of the market will buy them
>
> [1] In the industry, called Capital Expense or CAPEX. As manufacturing
> and competition increase, CAPEX has tended to drop. At one point, there
> were only a couple of vendors of set-top boxes (e.g., Hughes and
> Scientific Atlanta), while now there are many vendors of units with
> greater capability.
>
> [2] Again in the industry, Operating Expense or OPEX. OPEX tends to be
> higher for older systems.
>
> >Recently I tried to downgrade my cable service because my monthly bill rose
> >up to $90 and change. I thought about discontinuing all the premium
> >channels such
> >as HBO and Showtime and just keeping the basic channels, I found out that it
> >would've only meant a savings for me of about $5.
>
> In my area, Comcast will only provide Internet access over their
> cable system if you buy cable TV service, IIRC the digital service
> but not the premium channels. Most of my bill is for the television
> service, although I make little use of it.
>
> If we are talking about the digital divide, Internet access, not
> television, is the fundamental goal. Cable pricing, however, is not
> data-centric, but TV-centric. Since most cable systems were installed
> without Internet access in mind, the cable operators have some
> legitimacy if they scream their business models are smashed if they
> have to spend support costs on data-only connections.
>
> Many of their operating expenses are tied to the number of physical
> locations, not the amount or type of information carried. Premium
> channels are an exception.
>
> The incremental cost of adding new services, such as Internet or
> telephony, is relatively small compared with the initial cost of
> installing the overall cable system. In principle, the cable
> operators gain special profit from adding new services, and may be
> able to adjust rates. In practice, their regulators may not require
> them to do so, since they rarely operate on a return-on-investment
> model.
>
> The operators also claim that they undergo risk in putting in the
> infrastructure to support new services, without knowing if people
> will buy them. They also make the point that they planned a certain
> financial model of paying back their CAPEX, which will be slowed if
> competitors can now operate on their physical plant without sharing
> the original CAPEX. There is some truth to all these claim.
>
> >So I left everything as it was,
> >that's the new digital cable boxes. If it were only possible to
> >switch to a cheaper
> >provider, but it goes by area, in my area its Time Warner Cable,
> >there is no other
> >choice. Going back to DSL Verizon, if you're thinking about
> >installing their modem
> >box, it will increase your phone bill by $50. But there might be packages they
> >offer in which you may be able to save yourself some money.
>
> Agreed that you don't usually have a choice of cable provider
> (satellite is a much more restricted offering than it seems -- I
> can't even consider it because trees block the line-of-sight to the
> satellite). Also agreed you rarely have a choice of local telephone
> company (not long distance) -- your only real alternative is cellular.
>
> If, however, you have the option of getting telephone service from
> the cable operator, you introduce the potential of competition and
> rate cuts. Telephone companies, not unreasonably, claim that they
> should, therefore, have the right to offer competitive TV services.
> Regulators generally prevent telephone companies from entering the
> cable TV business, and this may or may not be anticompetitive and
> thus artificially increase prices.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:31:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] privatization?
Hi,
I have not been able to read the list but I did write this to a friend and
thought maybe those here will find it a contribution too.
Take care.
Jay
- -----------------
The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and
electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc.
The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US government
shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science
Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the Internet
via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final
responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US Department of
Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is for one
year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its obligations.
Such oversight is a common mechanism by which public activity is managed
by contractors rather than the government itself. The US government is
trying to privatize the oversight of the Internet via ICANN but has so far
not agreed to let ICANN be the private entity to over see the Internets
operation.
So the Internet has not yet been privatized and much of the Internet is
still in the public domain. Many government departments have government
owned routers, many public educational institutions particiapte intimately
in the Internet using public property and publicly employed people. Must
of the information on the Internet is in the public domain or is put on
the Internet without restriction by citizens and netizens who are
contributing to the content of the Internet without any profit or personal
gain expected. Many governments for better or for worse throughout the
world maintain a hand in Internet operation and even in Internet content.
All the people at home and in libraries and at school who make up the
human component of the Internet along with the wonderful technicians and
engineers and scientists who spend their time contributing to its
operation, its growth and its development are mostly part of the public.
The private sector is not the people in general but that subset of the
people who are motivated by private gain and profit. They can make a
contribution but not of the magnitude and in the direction that the mass
of people can make.
This is the reality that someone seeing things form a property ownership
point of view can not see but there are other points of view and from
these the reality looks and is different."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:45:36 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
>Hi,
>
>I have not been able to read the list but I did write this to a friend and
>thought maybe those here will find it a contribution too.
>
>Take care.
>
>Jay
>-----------------
>The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and
>electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc.
Why not throw in the birds in the sky and the fish in the ocean as
well? Fundamentally, Jay, I find this piece so ideological in nature
that, as you put it at the end, I can't see the things you do. I must
exist in a completely different reality.
I hear so much anger at capitalism and at organization in general
that I'm not sure there are ground for meaningful communications
between us. I have been, for some weeks, attempting to start
discussions of current and specific problems, and try to create
discussion about solutions. But your response seems to reject
anything that is, and is so perfused with radical political theory
that I'm not sure there are any useful grounds for discussion.
I do note that you have infrequently answered any specifics I have
posted, but have responded with general and political statements.
Maybe there is someone on the list wiser than I am that can suggest
ways we can find mutual ground to communicate, but I'm beginning to
despair of it.
>
>The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US government
>shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science
>Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the Internet
>via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final
>responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US Department of
>Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is for one
>year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its obligations.
The US Government doesn't have oversight over the Internet,
contracted out or not. It hasn't in years. Deal with it. There are a
huge number of Internet governance issues that ICANN doesn't attempt
to deal with.
>
>Such oversight is a common mechanism by which public activity is managed
>by contractors rather than the government itself. The US government is
>trying to privatize the oversight of the Internet via ICANN but has so far
>not agreed to let ICANN be the private entity to over see the Internets
>operation.
I am utterly mystified how an entity oversees the Internet.
Ironically, the Interet operates not principally from oversight, but
by cooperation. Yes, cooperation, often between Evil Corporations
that see that cooperation producing profits -- and, incidentally, a
great deal of social benefit.
>
>So the Internet has not yet been privatized and much of the Internet is
>still in the public domain. Many government departments have government
>owned routers, many public educational institutions particiapte intimately
>in the Internet using public property and publicly employed people. Must
>of the information on the Internet is in the public domain or is put on
>the Internet without restriction by citizens and netizens who are
>contributing to the content of the Internet without any profit or personal
>gain expected. Many governments for better or for worse throughout the
>world maintain a hand in Internet operation and even in Internet content.
If other governments are doing this, then how is the US government
failing in its oversight role, subcontracted or not? Make up your
mind.
>All the people at home and in libraries and at school who make up the
>human component of the Internet along with the wonderful technicians and
>engineers and scientists who spend their time contributing to its
>operation, its growth and its development are mostly part of the public.
>The private sector is not the people in general but that subset of the
>people who are motivated by private gain and profit.
Thus, they are evil, I guess.
>They can make a
>contribution but not of the magnitude and in the direction that the mass
>of people can make.
>
>This is the reality that someone seeing things form a property ownership
>point of view can not see but there are other points of view and from
>these the reality looks and is different."
Well, yes, I guess I can't see what I've been doing for 30 years or
so. Building networks, enabling people, enabling private enterprise,
enabling government.
Bah.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:48:52 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Hello Howard: You are asked for someone "wiser" to suggest effective ways in
which you and Jay can communicate better. Well if I may be of help I'll gladly
do so, although I do not consider myself "wiser" than anyone else on this list,
in fact I am an apprentice, your apprentice, in matters of computers, the
internet, etc.
I think where you are going wrong is that you seem to react in an angry fashion
at Jay's postings. Remarks like you just posted "I'm beginning to despair of
it", "bah!" etc. If I may suggest, to let Jay post whatever he wants and if you
feel that he has not answered your question in an accurate fashion, then post
your reply and say, "Jay, I don't think my question has been answered correctly
and then state your reasons", without getting angry. After all this is just a
forum on issues pertaining the internet. ITs not CNN Crossfire (although at
times it seemed so). And even in Crossfire you see everybody shaking hands and
smiling at each other at the end, that's why I enjoy watching it whenever I
can.
Jay & Ronda stand for keeping the internet infrastructure or whatever's left of
it not privatized, as a collective or public domain like I do. You seem to
stand for the opposite. So we have different points of view, which is fine in a
democratic forum such as this one.
I think at this point neither of you are going to change your minds about the
subject.
So if I may suggest, do not despair of it. Do not get angry of it, its just all
friendly discussion among netizens. I think its like let say in an expo or
market place you have a kiosk or stand where you sell Coke and Jay has another
one across from you where he sells Pepsi. Let's say its you, Mark, Dan and
Larry at the Coke concessionary stand and its Jay, Ronda and me at the Pepsi
stand. What are we going to do, yell and throw bottles at each other, or do we
wave at each other in a friendly manner while selling our product to the public
and every now and then, order some pizza and lets all have some lunch together,
tell jokes, etc. Then let the people there choose freely between Coke and
Pepsi, I think the rivalry between those two is another game of tick-tack toe,
but it goes on. At our age we must avoid anything that's aggravating. I think
calmed discussion is far more productive to our list and a lot healthier.
I don't know if this is helpful to you. I sincerely hope it is. Today is good
Friday, the day of my lord and I feel that I must do some good today as I try
to do every day, but unfortunately some times I fail, but I think that's human
nature.
Let me know what you think,
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have not been able to read the list but I did write this to a friend and
> >thought maybe those here will find it a contribution too.
> >
> >Take care.
> >
> >Jay
> >-----------------
> >The Internet is made up of people and computers and wires and
> >electomagnetic waves in the air and routers and protocols, etc.
>
> Why not throw in the birds in the sky and the fish in the ocean as
> well? Fundamentally, Jay, I find this piece so ideological in nature
> that, as you put it at the end, I can't see the things you do. I must
> exist in a completely different reality.
>
> I hear so much anger at capitalism and at organization in general
> that I'm not sure there are ground for meaningful communications
> between us. I have been, for some weeks, attempting to start
> discussions of current and specific problems, and try to create
> discussion about solutions. But your response seems to reject
> anything that is, and is so perfused with radical political theory
> that I'm not sure there are any useful grounds for discussion.
>
> I do note that you have infrequently answered any specifics I have
> posted, but have responded with general and political statements.
> Maybe there is someone on the list wiser than I am that can suggest
> ways we can find mutual ground to communicate, but I'm beginning to
> despair of it.
> >
> >The US Department of Commerce is unfortuately where the US government
> >shifted its oversight of the Internet from the National Science
> >Foundation. The US government has exercised its oversight of the Internet
> >via contracting out the day to day activity but keeping the final
> >responsibility in its hands. ICANN operates under the US Department of
> >Commerce. The DOC has warned ICANN that the current contract is for one
> >year because ICANN has not fulfilled satisfactorily its obligations.
>
> The US Government doesn't have oversight over the Internet,
> contracted out or not. It hasn't in years. Deal with it. There are a
> huge number of Internet governance issues that ICANN doesn't attempt
> to deal with.
>
> >
> >Such oversight is a common mechanism by which public activity is managed
> >by contractors rather than the government itself. The US government is
> >trying to privatize the oversight of the Internet via ICANN but has so far
> >not agreed to let ICANN be the private entity to over see the Internets
> >operation.
>
> I am utterly mystified how an entity oversees the Internet.
> Ironically, the Interet operates not principally from oversight, but
> by cooperation. Yes, cooperation, often between Evil Corporations
> that see that cooperation producing profits -- and, incidentally, a
> great deal of social benefit.
>
> >
> >So the Internet has not yet been privatized and much of the Internet is
> >still in the public domain. Many government departments have government
> >owned routers, many public educational institutions particiapte intimately
> >in the Internet using public property and publicly employed people. Must
> >of the information on the Internet is in the public domain or is put on
> >the Internet without restriction by citizens and netizens who are
> >contributing to the content of the Internet without any profit or personal
> >gain expected. Many governments for better or for worse throughout the
> >world maintain a hand in Internet operation and even in Internet content.
>
> If other governments are doing this, then how is the US government
> failing in its oversight role, subcontracted or not? Make up your
> mind.
>
> >All the people at home and in libraries and at school who make up the
> >human component of the Internet along with the wonderful technicians and
> >engineers and scientists who spend their time contributing to its
> >operation, its growth and its development are mostly part of the public.
> >The private sector is not the people in general but that subset of the
> >people who are motivated by private gain and profit.
>
> Thus, they are evil, I guess.
>
> >They can make a
> >contribution but not of the magnitude and in the direction that the mass
> >of people can make.
> >
> >This is the reality that someone seeing things form a property ownership
> >point of view can not see but there are other points of view and from
> >these the reality looks and is different."
>
> Well, yes, I guess I can't see what I've been doing for 30 years or
> so. Building networks, enabling people, enabling private enterprise,
> enabling government.
>
> Bah.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #505
******************************
