Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 493
Netizens-Digest Sunday, April 13 2003 Volume 01 : Number 493
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
Role of government in Net's development (Was:Re: [netz] Re: What do
Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:50:08 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy
Jay wrote,
>Hi,
>
>When I said I wanted to contribute to the goal of free or low cost
>universal access, I included "free or low cost" because if you consider
>the state of poverty that is prevelant in the world it is easy to see that
>any cost will be a barrier to many people everywhere. Poor people on every
>continent will only have access when access is a right guaranteed by their
>governments perhaps joining in a world treaty.
I keep saying rights. You cite the various Declarations, but for
things that were not capital intensive.
Again and again, I ask the question, where does the money come from
to pay for the physical infrastructure and skilled people to allow
these rights to be exercised?
Are you proposing Marxist economics to pay for the net? If not, what
model are you using?
How do you avoid the tragedy of the commons? This is not a
hypothetical -- we daily see teenage hackers trying to get all the
bandwidth they can, just for status.
>
>
>The access I would see as the goal of netizens is expressed in the
>following Declaration:
>
> Proposed Declaration of the Rights of Netizens*
>
> We Netizens have begun to put together a Declaration of the Rights
>of Netizens and are requesting from other Netizens contributions,
>ideas, and suggestions of what rights should be included. Following
>are some beginning ideas.
>
>The Declaration of the Rights of Netizens:
> In recognition that the net
Right away, this is ambiguous. My impression is that you think of the
net as a venue for private communications. What do things like
telephony, private data, commercial entertainment, run over? If
these are different nets, how do you compensate for the loss of
economies of scale in the transmission plant?
>represents a revolution in human
>communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial process,
Well, actually, a completely tax-supported government process, in the
first couple of decades.
>the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen is presented
>for Netizen comment.
> As Netizens are those who take responsibility
Please define those responsibilities, side-by-side with the rights.
>and care for the Net,
>the following are proposed to be their rights:
>o Universal access at no or low cost
But there is cost to providing that access. Who pays?
>o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange of knowledge
> without fear of reprisal
As long as the expression doesn't interfere with the exchange of
knowledge by others, sure. In other words, no hacktivism, and
carefully considered tradeoffs between anonymity and accountability
to identify attackers.
>o Uncensored Expression
Are there any restrictions on content availability to children?
>o Access to Broad Distribution
>o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
Can there be private information? Do you have access to my healthcare
information, which I want available on a public net (for emergency
access) but only to people to whom I grant access?
>o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
>o No limitation of access to read, to post and to otherwise
> contribute
Are you speaking in general terms, or do you support the right for
anyone to post any content anywhere, regardless of the purpose of the
posting venue?
>o Equal quality of connection
How do you reconcile equal quality for a role-playing game and for
life-critical telemedicine?
>o Equal time of connection
Are you saying that commercial and government organizations use a
different net? The bandwidth and connection requirements for such
things as medical image transfer, or backing up a financial
institution, are vastly greater than plausible individual
communications need.
>o No Official Spokesperson
Who has responsibility for fixing problems?
>o Uphold the public grassroots purpose and participation
>o Volunteer Contribution - no personal profit from the
> contribution freely given by others
>o Protection of the public purpose from those who would use it
> for their private and money making purposes
>
> The Net is not a Service, It is a Right. It is only valuable when
>it is collective and universal. Volunteer effort protects the
>intellectual and technological common-wealth that is being created.
> DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE NET and NETIZENS.
>
>---------
>Inspiration from: RFC 3 (1969),
Intent being for shared use among scientists.
>Thomas Paine, Declaration of
>Independence (1776),
No significant capital requirement.
>Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
>Citizen (1789),
No significant capital requirement.
>NSF Acceptable Use Policy,
An AUP that did not include a right of public access, but requiring
the NSFNET to be used only for academic and research purposes. Both
commercial use and individual use not under the academic/research
umbrella were not acceptable uses of the Internet.
>Jean Jacques Rousseau, and
>the current cry for democracy worldwide.
>
>----
>*Michael Hauben, New Year's message, January 1993.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>A vision such as this sets a high goal but also gives inspiration to seek
>means to achieve it.
To me, if you are proposing "the net" is there to be the least common
denominator for grassroots interaction, with no attention paid to the
information structuring we have found incredibly useful in managing
massive amounts of information, and not recognizing valid needs for
commercial, scientific, governmental, and other purposes, this vision
doesn't inspire me. It frightens me.
It becomes an electronic version of Harrison Bergeron.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 03:00:16 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
- --part1_197.18aa9df8.2bca6500_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/12/03 10:24:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
> L>INTRODUCTION OF NEW LANGUAGE OR BRIEF GLOSSARY:
> L>
> L>Pre-trunk providers --> Able heterogeneous (copper, fiber,
> L>wireless, etc.) network caretakers at the local 'pre-trunk' end,
> L>responsibly trusted and exploited by the government -- bondholders
> L>have to be paid. PTPs sell classes of 'bandwidth access contracts'
> L>on a commodities exchange to secondary service providers or SSPs.
> L>
> H>Are these the providers that connect to the end consumer, or perhaps
> H>to multi-tenant buildings, and bring the individual links to a point
> H>of broadband aggregation? One such animal would be the Incumbent
> H>Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) that owns the copper telephone plant
> H>that goes to individual users. Cable TV providers also own
> H>facilities.
> H>
You are referring to SSPs. "SSP is to PTP" as "semantic is to syntactic."
To clarify, 'pre-trunk' is the network right up to the, e.g., AOL owned high
density fiber infrastructure. The predominant role of PTPs is to manage,
maintain, and develop the heterogeneous physical layer infrastructure within
their local respective domains.
> H>Does your model include broadband aggregators that do _not_ sell
> H>directly to consumers, but introduce efficiencies of scale as they
> H>bundle multiple consumer links onto high-efficiency pipes? Or do I
> H>read correctly that is bundled into the SSP function, rather than
> H>being a niche of its own (it can work either way)?
>
Yes indeed, that is the SSPs. Broadband aggregators that do not sell
directly to consumers are also SSPs.
Larry
- --part1_197.18aa9df8.2bca6500_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/12/03 10:24:11 PM Eastern Dayligh=
t Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">L>INTRODUCTION OF NEW LANGUA=
GE OR BRIEF GLOSSARY:<BR>
L><BR>
L>Pre-trunk providers --> Able heterogeneous (copper, fiber, <BR=
>
L>wireless, etc.) network caretakers at the local 'pre-trunk' end, <BR>
L>responsibly trusted and exploited by the government -- bondholders <BR>
L>have to be paid. PTPs sell classes of 'bandwidth access contracts=
' <BR>
L>on a commodities exchange to secondary service providers or SSPs.<BR>
L><BR>
H>Are these the providers that connect to the end consumer, or perhaps <B=
R>
H>to multi-tenant buildings, and bring the individual links to a point <B=
R>
H>of broadband aggregation? One such animal would be the Incumbent=20=
<BR>
H>Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) that owns the copper telephone plant <BR>
H>that goes to individual users. Cable TV providers also own <BR>
H>facilities.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff=
fff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">H><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2=
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">You are referring to SSPs.&n=
bsp; "SSP is to PTP" as "semantic is to syntactic." <BR>
<BR>
To clarify, 'pre-trunk' is the network right up to the, e.g., AOL owned high=
density fiber infrastructure. The predominant role of PTPs is to mana=
ge, maintain, and develop the heterogeneous physical layer infrastructure wi=
thin their local respective domains.</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=
=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial"=20=
LANG=3D"0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2=
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">H>Does your model include br=
oadband aggregators that do _not_ sell <BR>
H>directly to consumers, but introduce efficiencies of scale as they <BR>
H>bundle multiple consumer links onto high-efficiency pipes? Or do=20=
I <BR>
H>read correctly that is bundled into the SSP function, rather than <BR>
H>being a niche of its own (it can work either way)?<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Yes indeed, that is the SSPs. Broadband aggregators that do not sell d=
irectly to consumers are also SSPs.<BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_197.18aa9df8.2bca6500_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 03:09:58 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
- --part1_12.2f7637ee.2bca6746_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 4/12/03 10:24:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
> L>Pre-trunk providers --> Able heterogeneous (copper, fiber,
> L>wireless, etc.) network caretakers at the local 'pre-trunk' end,
> L>responsibly trusted and exploited by the government -- bondholders
> L>have to be paid. PTPs sell classes of 'bandwidth access contracts'
> L>on a commodities exchange to secondary service providers or SSPs.
>
> H>Are these the providers that connect to the end consumer, or perhaps
> H>to multi-tenant buildings, and bring the individual links to a point
> H>of broadband aggregation? One such animal would be the Incumbent
> H>Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) that owns the copper telephone plant
> H>that goes to individual users. Cable TV providers also own
> H>facilities.
>
Yes, this is the property of the PTP.
Larry
- --part1_12.2f7637ee.2bca6746_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/12/03 10:24:11 PM Eastern Dayligh=
t Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">L>Pre-trunk providers -->=
Able heterogeneous (copper, fiber, <BR>
L>wireless, etc.) network caretakers at the local 'pre-trunk' end, <BR>
L>responsibly trusted and exploited by the government -- bondholders <BR>
L>have to be paid. PTPs sell classes of 'bandwidth access contracts=
' <BR>
L>on a commodities exchange to secondary service providers or SSPs.<BR>
<BR>
H>Are these the providers that connect to the end consumer, or perhaps <B=
R>
H>to multi-tenant buildings, and bring the individual links to a point <B=
R>
H>of broadband aggregation? One such animal would be the Incumbent=20=
<BR>
H>Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) that owns the copper telephone plant <BR>
H>that goes to individual users. Cable TV providers also own <BR>
H>facilities.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Yes, this is the property of the PTP. <BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_12.2f7637ee.2bca6746_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 10:06:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Role of government in Net's development (Was:Re: [netz] Re: What do
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote quoting Mark:
> >
> >As I read Michael's invitation, the shared social focus is that we're not
> >interested in "technically sweet" issues of how to get people plugged into
> >AOLYahooMSNBCNN. We care passionately about the Net as a participatory,
> >collaborative social resource. Yes, we do. Wherever the divide is
> >between "social" and "technical" issues on this list, it isn't there, thank
> >goodness.
>
> To the extent that AOLYahooMSNBCNN provide unrestricted connectivity
> to unrestricted content, if they provide a way around the financial
> constraints of connectivity, don't dismiss them out of hand. I'm not
> saying advertiser supported connectivity is good or bad, but it is
> something to be considered in the overall cost equation.
All that is being considered is a commercial model.
There was the Cleveland Freenet and other Freenets around the
US and Canada in the 1990's.
The commercial providers made it very difficult for the noncommercial
to survive.
The noncommercial network developments supported people contributing
to the net, not people trying to make money from it.
There was a different environment than arises from one where so
many are encouraged to try to make their personal fortunes from the
net.
The Internet is harmed by the commercialization, not supported by it.
AT&T provided phone service in the US under government regulation
that required that all have access.
That did provide for a techically advanced communications medium.
Also Bell Labs at AT&T was where the Unix time sharing system was
developed, and where USENET got the support to spread.
Unix and Usenet helped to spread the development of tcp/ip, the
protocol that has made the Internet possible.
Non of these, including tcp/ip were developed by commercial entities.
TCP/IP was developed under the Information Processing Techniques Office
at ARPA, with collaboration from British and Norwegian researchers
and with French researchers working with the US technical community
supported by IPTO leadership and funding.
These are what the need needs, not figuring out which commercial
entities are the lesser of the evils.
It needs good activity by governments and recognition and knowledge
of the role needed from government/s and from noncommercial entities.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 13:21:44 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
Larry, let's see the extent to which your terminology maps to some
current industry terminology. I hasten to add here that the original
industry terminology, mostly resulting from the Modified Final
Judgement of 1975, oversimplifies the problem.
This isn't criticism, it's just an attempt to help work out a
consistent taxonomy for which we then can float proposals. Your work
to date is valuable, because it gives a nontraditional view of some
of the traditional roles.
Roles (often historical)
- ------------------------
Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC). Regulated, profits from
return on investment model. Own and operate major local loop
facilities. Traditional "local telephone company" or "baby Bell." May
provide services within a multicity or multistate area, but are
generally restricted in the full range of services they can offer.
Typically can offer "dial tone" telephone service but not ISP or
video services. Many ILEC's have spun off unregulated subsidiaries
to offer such services, and there is constant question if those
subsidiaries receive preferential treatment.
Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC). Nonregulated, operating in
the same area as an ILEC, but not necessarily on the same geographic
borders. May install its own physical cabling, lease capacity from
ILECs (e.g., DSL providers), operate its own physical plant (e.g.,
cable TV), manage a wireless communication system within the "public"
frequency space, etc. CLECs typically offer at least some services
beyond "dial tone", from telephony to video. They may bundle content
with their offerings (e.g., my internet access comes from my cable TV
provider). Cable carriers are closest to CLECs, but their content
provider role confuses things.
Interexchange Carrier (IXC). Primarily unregulated due to established
competition. The traditional AT&T (or more precisely the AT&T Long
Lines Department) role, IXCs interconnect xLECs. Before 1975, the IXC
service was part of the LEC telephone bill. Now, it can be separate.
IXCs may enter into "bypass" arrangements where large customers
connect directly to the long-haul facilities by microwave, private
cable, etc., that does not involve the LEC.
Content providers, application service providers, and content
delivery facilitators. This is a very mixed category. Providers of
video programming are the obvious first case of content providers,
but suppliers of data bases -- data bases that may be critical to
government- and policy-oriented research -- may also be available
only for a fee.
A good example of an application service provider is a web hosting
company, which supports individual websites in a high-availability,
high-economy-of-scale data center.
Content delivery providers include such firms as Akamai, who
improve the delivery of content in a "middleman" role. I'm not sure
Akamai still has the CNN contract, but when they did, CNN did not
operate most of its delivery network. Instead, it contracted to
Akamai to enhance delivery at the subscriber side. Akamai would pay
for putting slave cache servers into local ISPs, so that users got
faster service -- and consumed less bandwidth -- than having to go
all the way to the CNN site in Atlanta. Akamai could also use its
equipment at local ISPs to service other customers, gaining economies
of scale.
Financial Issues
- ----------------
In bond issues and the like, how does one reflect the value of
owned ILEC facilities? Is some of this discounted because it was
built and depreciated under a regulated monopoly model? To what
extent, if any, should the value of obsolescent but omnipresent
copper wire plant be written down as an obsolescent technology?
What is the proper model for recovering the value of radio
frequency spectrum space? For the more recent services, there have
been auctions, but the reality is that commercial radio and TV have
not paid for their spectrum. Of course, broadcasters will fight to
the death to preserve that "asset."
What incentives exist, in each category, for modernization that
reduces the cost of access and use (i.e., reducing the digital
divide)?
What is the proper role of local governments in, perhaps,
installing and leasing fiber, much as they install (and usually
operate, perhaps in a local consortium) water-sewer, or install and
lease underground duct space?
What concessions are appropriate for localities to demand of
lessees or those carriers to whom they have granted a technical
monopoly/franchise? Cable TV carriers tend to resist "any willing
ISP" having access to their facilities, on the grounds that would cut
sufficiently into their profit margins to make the original
investment a bad business decision.
Do note that I consider many of these industry decisions completely
self-serving, but that they are politically entrenched and will be
hard to change.
At 3:09 AM -0400 4/13/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/12/03 10:24:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>>L>Pre-trunk providers --> Able heterogeneous (copper, fiber,
>>L>wireless, etc.) network caretakers at the local 'pre-trunk' end,
>>L>responsibly trusted and exploited by the government -- bondholders
>>L>have to be paid. PTPs sell classes of 'bandwidth access contracts'
>>L>on a commodities exchange to secondary service providers or SSPs.
>>
>>H>Are these the providers that connect to the end consumer, or perhaps
>>H>to multi-tenant buildings, and bring the individual links to a point
>>H>of broadband aggregation? One such animal would be the Incumbent
>>H>Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) that owns the copper telephone plant
>>H>that goes to individual users. Cable TV providers also own
>>H>facilities.
>>
>
>
>Yes, this is the property of the PTP.
>
>Larry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #493
******************************
