Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 508
Netizens-Digest Monday, April 21 2003 Volume 01 : Number 508
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
Re: [netz] privatization?
[netz] Test #6
[netz] Communications Regulation - post to a different group
[netz] Responsible information providers
[netz] Followup on "communications regulation"
[netz] Cross-subsidization today
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:06:21 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Hello Howard: I fully realize that, but I bet if you could find a spot
where medicine was socialized or low cost, with good medical attention,
if such a place did exist here, you would try it, rather than paying a
lot of money otherwise. In most cases it would be irrelevant since we
have medical insurance (I hope you found a good substitute for your lost
medical benefit). Private companies and corporations have been
responsible for the progress we enjoy, but so are we, the public who buy
their products and services, however sometimes I defer from their
practices and manuevers. I am not ready to condemn everything they've
done as bad or evil, but as I mentioned to you recently, there's no harm
in wanting to keep something as public domain and save a buck or avoid
another bill and every time I look at that cable tv bill, I cling more to
the non privatization of the internet, what's left of it, etc.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Larry: I think this is a democratic forum. Pro- and
> >anti-capitalistic speech I think is welcome here I think as long as
> >it is ethical and respectful. For instance I can post that I want to
> >keep the internet or make the internet a collective rather than a
> >subsidiary for a corporation or corporations.
>
> Let me try.
>
> Luis, the physical facilities of the Internet (I am avoiding the word
> "infrastructure") cost a lot of money to install and operate. You may
> or may not know of the personally charming bank robber of the 1920's,
> Willie Sutton. Someone asked him (he actually gave press
> conferences) "Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks?"
>
> In an infinitely patient tone, he answered
> "Because...that's...where...the...money...is."
>
> And corporations and large government bodies have money. If by giving
> them a (possibly regulated) return on investment, I can get medical
> services and Internet connectivity into rural Tennessee, I'll do that
> -- and am doing that right now. I can't stop and hunt for a
> not-yet-existing collective that can buy the millions of dollars
> worth of equipment, and hire the skilled people to do that.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:42:51 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Hello Mark: Good point! Capitalism is a reality and I just said to Howard that I
am not ready to condemn everything companies and corporations do as evil. In
fact I believe private enterprise has been responsible for the progress we enjoy
in our nation and others, but has been good legislation and so are we, you, Jay,
Ronda, Howard, Larry, Dan and myself,who buy their products and their services.
I don't think Jay would advocate the discarding or destruction of corporation
created software. Jay would criticize if lets say it was found that a software
corp.top management had something to do with union busting,or cheating one or
many employees out of their pension, or paying off someone in South America to
overthrow a government there or to deplete the amazonian rain forest. That's
what I think Jay would condemn. Ronda I believe has also spoken well of AT&T and
you're talking about a big part of old Ma'Bell there. So I think there is
flexibility on their part, but there are also valid concerns in what they say.
Luis
Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Luis,
>
> >Hello Mark: You have a point, however we are divided into two philosophies,
> >here on this list. One that sponsors corporate or capitalist thinking and
> >the other one who sponsors public domain, collectives, communes, etc.
> >
> Actually, I'm not at all sure what philosophies most of the folks on the
> list espouse, but there certainly are some differences, yes.
>
> Of course Jay can post whatever he wants. If we want to understand each
> other, much less to work together, we would be well-served to search
> together for language that makes sense across whatever philosophical
> differences we may have.
>
> However anti-capitalist Jay may or may not be, he has not yet proposed
> to smash all the capitalist hardware! So at least to some extent we all
> seem to be willing to look for ways forward within a partially
> capitalist world.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:35:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> And corporations and large government bodies have money. If by giving
> them a (possibly regulated) return on investment, I can get medical
> services and Internet connectivity into rural Tennessee, I'll do that
> -- and am doing that right now. I can't stop and hunt for a
> not-yet-existing collective that can buy the millions of dollars
> worth of equipment, and hire the skilled people to do that.
From a personal standpoint, I would be happy with private
corporations owning and operating the communications (routers,
switches, fiber, etc.) and the administrative (IP addresses, DNS
mappings and registries) infrastructures if there was a way for them
to be regulated in the "public interest" (an arguably debatable
topic). Perhaps forums like Netizens could articulate what that
"public interest" might be, and provide it (in an organized method) as
input to policy formation.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:13:36 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Hello Greg: I'm glad to see a new posting from you on the list. Corporation
administration and or ownership is attractive and when they want to they
can produce excellent services. However they haven't been doing to well
lately. Endless mergers, which seem to lead nowhere but to massive layoffs,
people losing their pensions and their jobs,employee giveaways, degrading
benefits, unemployement while in many cases they want us, the public to
pay more for the same or even decreased services. I am sure there are
success stories to tell in the corporate world, but mistrust against them
is also legitimate.
Luis
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > And corporations and large government bodies have money. If by giving
> > them a (possibly regulated) return on investment, I can get medical
> > services and Internet connectivity into rural Tennessee, I'll do that
> > -- and am doing that right now. I can't stop and hunt for a
> > not-yet-existing collective that can buy the millions of dollars
> > worth of equipment, and hire the skilled people to do that.
>
> From a personal standpoint, I would be happy with private
> corporations owning and operating the communications (routers,
> switches, fiber, etc.) and the administrative (IP addresses, DNS
> mappings and registries) infrastructures if there was a way for them
> to be regulated in the "public interest" (an arguably debatable
> topic). Perhaps forums like Netizens could articulate what that
> "public interest" might be, and provide it (in an organized method) as
> input to policy formation.
>
> --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:18:31 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Greg Skinner wrote:
>Perhaps forums like Netizens could articulate what that
>"public interest" might be, and provide it (in an organized method) as
>input to policy formation.
>
Yes.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:22:14 +0000 (GMT)
From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Luis De Quesada wrote:
> Hello Greg: I'm glad to see a new posting from you on the list.
Thanks
> Corporation administration and or ownership is attractive and when
> they want to they can produce excellent services. However they
> haven't been doing to well lately. Endless mergers, which seem to
> lead nowhere but to massive layoffs, people losing their pensions
> and their jobs,employee giveaways, degrading benefits,
> unemployement while in many cases they want us, the public to pay
> more for the same or even decreased services. I am sure there are
> success stories to tell in the corporate world, but mistrust against
> them is also legitimate.
I view a lot of these problems as the result of poor or no regulation.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:45:14 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] privatization?
Hello Greg:
I agree with you, but also poor and greedy management, which by the way is
not limited to private enterprise its everywhere.
Luis
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Luis De Quesada wrote:
>
> > Hello Greg: I'm glad to see a new posting from you on the list.
>
> Thanks
>
> > Corporation administration and or ownership is attractive and when
> > they want to they can produce excellent services. However they
> > haven't been doing to well lately. Endless mergers, which seem to
> > lead nowhere but to massive layoffs, people losing their pensions
> > and their jobs,employee giveaways, degrading benefits,
> > unemployement while in many cases they want us, the public to pay
> > more for the same or even decreased services. I am sure there are
> > success stories to tell in the corporate world, but mistrust against
> > them is also legitimate.
>
> I view a lot of these problems as the result of poor or no regulation.
>
> --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] Test #6
Hi,
Majordomo, the list engine for netizens list was down since Saturday
morning. If you get this message that means majordomo is back up. You can
resubmit posts made over the weekend if you want.
Take care.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:26:53 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Communications Regulation - post to a different group
[I seem to be having some problem posting, according to Jay. Maybe
this will get through]
- ----------------
posted to the alt.books.tom-clancy newsgroup, with a long snippage of
other newsgroups.
- ----------------
In article <21noa.732$Rg6.245@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, "Iconoclast"
<priapusx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IDhoa.2701$bp2.358@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/medi-a17.shtml
>
[long snippage of rallies across the country organized by
radio stations owned by Clear Channel, the largest holding
company of radio stations.]
No argument that the content of these rallies is supportive of the Bush
Administration, and that the top executives have strong Republican ties.
> > That Clear Channel is now able to exert such extraordinary power is a
> > consequence of telecommunications deregulation that began in 1996 under
> the
> > Clinton administration. Prior to the passage of the Telecommunications
> > Act
> > of that year, a single company could own no more than two radio
> > stations
> in
> > any one market, and no more than 28 stations nationwide.
This restriction, removed by new legislation and rapidly being enforced
by the Federal Communications Commission, are the real heart of the
problem. As the original writer points out, this isn't a Republican or
Democratic trend; the deregulation started under Clinton. The current
FCC is headed by Colin Powell's son, Michael. Let me hasten to add that
Michael Powell has legitimate credentials for the job--this was not a
"make the big guy happy" appointment; Michael is much more conservative
than Colin.
Broadcast radio and television stations obtained their frequencies early
in the development of telecommunications, when the frequency space
seemed unlimited. It is a technical necessity that somebody, usually
government, assigns frequencies to prevent multiple stations interfering
with another.
It turned out, of course, that frequency space has immense economic
value, and subsequent allocations for cellular and other services have
involved auctions where frequency spectrum users paid substantial
amounts to the US treasury.
The traditional broadcasters, however, were "grandfathered." Forcing
them to pay for their admittedly valuable space smacks of ex post facto
law. Nevertheless, it represents what in today's market is an immensely
valuable resource. The biggest bar to entry to radio or TV broadcasting
is obtaining a frequency. Clear Channel, quite legally, has been buying
up small stations that have long-term frequency allocations.
So we do have a special case where broadcasters are effectively
subsidized. By removing the ownership restrictions, the opportunity was
created for a giant, which, for business reasons of efficiency,
standardizes content.
There has been a traditional view that radio and TV stations, to some
extent, compensate for the frequency subsidy by airing local content,
including local political content. Yes, Clear Channel pushes a
Republican agenda. But another media giant, perhaps in television,
could push a Democratic agenda.
I'm a telecommunications engineer, and believe some deregulation has
been extremely responsible and good for the community. In no sense am I
opposed to the free market.
But free markets don't operate well either under excessive regulation or
in the presence of major monopolies. Deregulation for the sake of
deregulation, without considering all implications or the dangers of
monopoly, can and does go too far (e.g., the California electrical power
fiasco).
> >
> Sad but true. However, they operate under the rules of free speech and
> nobody has to listen to them. If you don't like limbaugh, turn him off
> that's what I do. But, as you can see, there is a market in the US for
> their
> crap and they have a right to spew it. They are the messenger and
> wouldn't
> exist if people didn't tune into the message. The problem, my friend,
> lies
> witht the American people. We are the ones that have to wise up and seek
> out
> more reasonable voices. Believe me Clear Channel and the others will go
> where the listeners are. Their not as interested in the message as you
> say.
> If people didn't tune into Rush, he wouldn't exist. Clear Channel just
> wants
> to make money. The moral is, if you feel strongly don't listen and don't
> support their sponsors and get other to do likewise.
> Iconoclast
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:26:37 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Responsible information providers
Thought I'd share some early thoughts about some guidelines for
responsibly providing information to netizens. I'm thinking here less
of people on mailing lists and newsgroups than those that create
websites to act as information sources.
Again, this is the sort of discussion I understand, rather than
ideologically mired discussions between people using different
vocabularies and/or definitions. I think it's a positive step toward
netizenship.
1. We recognize that many Internet users have low-speed connections. For
that reason, we emphasize text as our basic form of content. Clearly,
there are times graphics are necessary to explain or illustrate things,
but we will not set up graphics-intensive download as the default
behavior for our site.
We will explore technical means of adapting the display depending on
the resources of the user. These include access bandwidth and whether the
user pays for connection time. These also include signaling the provider
when the user requires a text-oriented display for compatibility with
assistive devices for physical disabilities.
2. To the extent possible, we will make our site accessible to people with
physical disabilities. Some design practices to do this include at least
labeling icons with text, so a text-to-speech converter can help people
with visual disabilities. We will avoid complex multilevel menus requiring
complex movements with a mouse or other pointing device.
3. We will be responsible in applying software patches and good system
administration practice to help protect the integrity of our own content,
as well as preventing our systems from being compromised by malicious
hackers who would use us as a platform for launching attacks.
4. As online publishers, we take responsibility that content on our site
is not libelous, contains stolen property, violates widely accepted
concerns such as child pornography, or can be used destructively.
We will publish terms of service that identify why such material will
not be permitted.
5. If we have created our online publication to promulgate a certain point
of view, we will identify that view and, if we restrict posting opposed
to it, state our policies for refusing posts.
6. If we are a provider of access to information sources, we will not restrict
user access to them principally to force them to commercial equivalents
we operate.
7. We accept the need to balance interests in our operation. If we benefit
from shared resources, we will be thoughtful of their scarcity and
participate in appropriate regulation. We recognize that the Internet
requires some self-regulation to maintain its technical integrity.
8. We will clearly identify our privacy and security policy, with the
understanding that we may be restricted from disclosing certain information
due to laws in the jurisdiction of our operation. We will clearly
identify our policy for disclosing user information policies, and put
both third-party disclosure and unsolicited mailings under double opt-out
controls.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:40:38 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Followup on "communications regulation"
Before anyone says "but Howard's example was radio, and we are
talking about the Internet," remember that for valid technical
reasons, previously different communications media are converging on
a common broadband base.
There also are resources that could be acquired in the Internet --
consider the practice of domain squatting and trademark issues. It's
not just naming; there are continuing discussions about whether
economic controls are relevant to more responsible use of address
space. Unfortunately, the issues in the latter are rather technical,
so I'll defer that to a later time.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:20:19 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Cross-subsidization today
On the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup, Sam Rogers made some observations
on cross-subsidization in the regulated Massachusetts local telephone
company. I want to expand on these a bit, as food for thought about
the costs of providing separate Internet, video and voice networks to
end users on the bad side of the digital divide.
>Verizon is the sole incumbent local telephone carrier for most (all?)
>of Massachusetts. The state's PUC, known as the DTE, has just passed
>a rate increase for local service.
>
>According to the DTE's findings, Verizon loses an average of more than
>$6 (per month) for residential local service, which must be made up
>with business revenue. However the DTE decided that a $6 increase
>would be too great so, it decided on $2.44.
What would be interesting to see is how many of the residences
involved have cable TV, and what the cost would be of providing
telephone service over the same cable.
>
>Why a goofy number like $2.44? Because the $0.49 Touch-Tone line item
>charge is being removed. So the increase for the 87% of customers
>that pay for Touch-Tone service will see a net increase of $1.95,
>conveniently just under $2.00.
Touch-tone service charges have been one of the great illusions of
telephone bills for decades. At first, touch-tone service was an
add-on to central office switches designed for dial phones (i.e.,
pulse dialing). Touch-tone really was an added feature and a charge
was reasonable.
But as new switches were developed, they were designed around tone,
not the old pulse dialing. The cost of operation of the switches
dropped, but the touch-tone surcharges persisted in many
jurisdictions.
>
>The low income service "LifeLine" subsidy will be increased to at
>least offset the extra charges.
LifeLine service typically includes a certain amount of local calling
plus 911 service. The idea of lifeline may be reasonable to use as
the starting point for defining universal net access.
>
>The DTE believes that the increases in regulated rates will spur more
>competition for local service.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #508
******************************
