Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 504
Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 17 2003 Volume 01 : Number 504
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] Trying to define infrastructure and privatization
Re: [netz] Trying to define infrastructure and privatization
Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:40:00 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
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. 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. 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.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >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: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:36:32 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
>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 09:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Luis,
> 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".
Well, judging from Howard's reactions, it doesn't count as a "clarification"
yet.
This is a kind of confusion that I'm used to in political science. No one can
tell us the right meaning of words like "public," "democracy," "privatization."
At best, they mean different things in different contexts. They also mean
different things to different people. A lot of arcane social-science jargon is
an attempt to create a technical language where everyone agrees on the meaning
of the jargon, bypassing the inevitable disagreements over "ordinary" words.
Of course, this often doesn't work very well.
By the way, if we can now smile about this, this is why I was much happier
about being called a "bully" than being accused of "censorship." We probably
more or less agree what "bully" means, but we didn't agree at all about
what "censorship" meant, and that is a social scientist's worst nightmare -- an
argument in which people use the same words in different ways and don't try to
solve the communication problem. Shared vocabulary but no common language.
I'm going to put some other comments over in the thread on "Trying to
define...".
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:55:15 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
>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: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:25:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Trying to define infrastructure and privatization
Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
> 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?
With respect to "privatization," this may be the pivot of the definitional
difference.
Pending Ronda's explanation, I'll only add that in political science there is
extensive discussion of "privatization" as applied to government services, and
there is no agreed definition -- in large part, I believe, because the term is
not really of our choosing. It has a complicated history, some of which I
surely don't even suspect. Anyway, it's no surprise that we're having trouble
with this term. It's not hard to imagine, for instance, that ICANN as a not-
for-profit corporation with elaborate (but controversial) "accountability"
mechanisms would play out differently under different definitions.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:38:41 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Trying to define infrastructure and privatization
>Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
>
>> 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?
>
>With respect to "privatization," this may be the pivot of the definitional
>difference.
Remember also that the definition of "infrastructure" remains open,
and presumably interlinked to "privatization".
>
>Pending Ronda's explanation, I'll only add that in political science there is
>extensive discussion of "privatization" as applied to government services, and
>there is no agreed definition -- in large part, I believe, because the term is
>not really of our choosing. It has a complicated history, some of which I
>surely don't even suspect. Anyway, it's no surprise that we're having trouble
>with this term. It's not hard to imagine, for instance, that ICANN as a not-
>for-profit corporation with elaborate (but controversial) "accountability"
>mechanisms would play out differently under different definitions.
>
>Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:48:56 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Malthus was wrong (was) "The Tragedy of The Commons"
Mark: Words have different definitions, democracy being one of them. For example
the former East Germany used to call itself "German Democratic Republic". I used to
tell Jay that in my opinion the only truthful word about that name was "german",
the other two words was just Ulrich & his buddies covering up the true nature of
the beast. As you say we can now smile at the angry debates and I think the outcome
was a positive one and we all came out with a better understanding of each other
and our list. There is still much to learn and discuss. And I think that's the key
for the success of our list, educating and enlightening discussion, among
ourselves, ("a la Gandhi") rather than angry debate.
All these definitions by Ronda, Jay and Howard are very informative, so we'll see
about the outcome.
Take care,
Lou D.
lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> Luis,
>
> > 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".
>
> Well, judging from Howard's reactions, it doesn't count as a "clarification"
> yet.
>
> This is a kind of confusion that I'm used to in political science. No one can
> tell us the right meaning of words like "public," "democracy," "privatization."
> At best, they mean different things in different contexts. They also mean
> different things to different people. A lot of arcane social-science jargon is
> an attempt to create a technical language where everyone agrees on the meaning
> of the jargon, bypassing the inevitable disagreements over "ordinary" words.
> Of course, this often doesn't work very well.
>
> By the way, if we can now smile about this, this is why I was much happier
> about being called a "bully" than being accused of "censorship." We probably
> more or less agree what "bully" means, but we didn't agree at all about
> what "censorship" meant, and that is a social scientist's worst nightmare -- an
> argument in which people use the same words in different ways and don't try to
> solve the communication problem. Shared vocabulary but no common language.
>
> I'm going to put some other comments over in the thread on "Trying to
> define...".
>
> Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #504
******************************
