Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 492
Netizens-Digest Saturday, April 12 2003 Volume 01 : Number 492
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:03:19 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
> >[RH]However, if there isn't a sense of a social focus the technical
>>policy is impossible.
>
>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.
>
>>>> >[ML]From my standpoint, the problem is not that we talk about social
>>policy
>> >> issues. It's that we seem to spend so much less time talking about
>> >> what needs
>> >> to be done in order to protect the Net as a social resource.
>> >> I would like that
>> >> to be the central purpose of the Netizens list.
>> >>
>> >[RH]Interesting.
>> >
>> >This is something worth discussing.
>
>He shoots, he scores! <punchy half-grin>
>
>> >[RH]I have tried to contribute to this discussion on the list by
>> >sharing the struggle over the U.S. government effort to privatize
>> >the Internet's infrastructure by creating ICANN.
>
>Yes.
>
> > >[RH]But again this is the netizen list.
>> >
>> >How can it support people who are trying to function as netizens
>> >in the sense that Michael conceived of the concept.
>>
>> [HCB]To me, the best way to support them is to be sure there is a network
>> for them to use.[snip]
>
>Yes, with the clarification that, again, this doesn't just mean the ability to
>plug into "content providers."
To me, content provider has a fairly narrow meaning, although that
meaning can be blurred. Commercial television stations and
pay-per-view are clearly content providers, where there is also a
concern about fairness in content. I also use some
advertiser-supported content providers such as netscape.com, where
indeed drug companies and the like support the web source, but the
content consists of peer-reviewed objective material.
But from a technology standpoint, a totally uncensored mailing list
is a form of "content", if I distinguish, as I do, between content
and transport.
What about telephony? Is that content? If MSNCBCNN offered
competitive telephone service rates as part of a service where I'd
both see their program content as the default, but also had full and
open Internet and phone connectivity at a reasonable price, is that
wrong? Should I be able to choose between Verizon and MSCNCBCNN as
my telephone provider for private phone calls, based on price and
services?
I do not think we have any hope of breaking the digital divide as
long as we are burdened by the cost of separate physical networks for
delivery of data, voice, and video services to the end user.
There can be choices. For example, I use the Eudora email client. It
comes in three versions: free "Eudora Light", full-featured
"sponsored Eudora Pro" where I don't directly pay but must view
advertising, and regular Eudora Pro, which I paid for.
>
>> And that is the question I keep asking. If there are essentially two
>> groups of people that want to discuss different topics and there is
>> minimal overlap between them, then it seems like an amicable divorce
>> -- or annulment -- is in order.
>
>Yup, maybe so. It would be fun to agree on what we're disagreeing
>about before
>we go.
>
>I think that some discussions of social issues are very pertinent to
>protecting
>and developing the Net as a social resource, and others are not. I
>can't offer
>any neat test for telling the one from the other. A discussion of the history
>of Net policy, including whether and it what sense it was democratic, is
>pertinent to the extent that it helps us to understand the future of
>Net policy
>institutions. A discussion of whether the Net will help us to do away with
>representative government is marginal at best. It's as if a list devoted to
>advocating space exploration programs spent much of its time debating whether
>we will someday be able to terraform Mars. Sure, space exploration tends to
>facilitate rather than discourage the terraforming of Mars, and yes, our
>diverging views on terraforming Mars will give interesting insights into our
>value differences, and indeed, at some time in the future our intention to
>terraform Mars would materially affect space exploration. But it's hard to
>believe that the topic has much bearing on space exploration in the immediate
>future.
>
>
> >
>> [HCB]And if that is the consensus, I'd like to know it. But the limits to
>> my involement would be to show how the Internet can help all types of
>> political systems, not only interactive grassroots participatory
>> democracy -- which, frankly, worries me very much as an alternative
>> to existing systems.
>
>Makes sense to me. Frankly, I'm skeptical about Ronda's claim, and I'm not
>sure that my critique will be interpreted as supporting her efforts to be a
>netizen. I would rather spend more time on the many more immediate issues
>where we would be more in agreement.
>
>Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:25:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy
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.
Dan thought we are close to the goal of universal access:
> but it's been already working! Universal access is provided by
> public libraries etc. - when I stayed in frisco last summer I visited
> the local public library (www.sfpl.org) almost every day and I have to
> tell you that there were many homeless people coming in t check their
> emails (!), so I think this already exists in States and some other
> countries with strong economies. Also in Estonia they have special
> street signs pointing to the nearest public internet access point over
> there...
I think Dan exaggerates the availablity of net access. Also he has in mind
less access than I would consider necessary to give all people the chance
to participate fully in the joys and possible political empowerment the
net makes possible.
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 represents a revolution in human
communications that was built by a cooperative non-commercial process,
the following Declaration of the Rights of the Netizen is presented
for Netizen comment.
As Netizens are those who take responsibility and care for the Net,
the following are proposed to be their rights:
o Universal access at no or low cost
o Freedom of Electronic Expression to promote the exchange of knowledge
without fear of reprisal
o Uncensored Expression
o Access to Broad Distribution
o Universal and Equal access to knowledge and information
o Consideration of one's ideas on their merits
o No limitation of access to read, to post and to otherwise
contribute
o Equal quality of connection
o Equal time of connection
o No Official Spokesperson
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), Thomas Paine, Declaration of
Independence (1776), Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen (1789), NSF Acceptable Use Policy, 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.
Take care.
Jay
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:20:24 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?
>In a message dated 4/11/03 12:07:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>> >>GC>For example they would seek to offer international VoIP over their
>>>>GC>own dedicated network while a new competitor can dispense with the
>>>>GC>sunk cost of maintaining a physical network by simply renting access
>>>>GC>to an Internet that others maintain. Since the competition has only
>>>>GC>to rent access to transport and run voice as an application on that
>>>>GC>transport, it can offer service that is unencumbered by legacy costs.
>>>>GC>The business model of control of both applications and customers
>>>>GC>prevents productive investment
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>L>Never go against the flow. Regarding 'commoditization,' we should
>>L>just acquiesce to the will of the market. The government should
>>L>
>>L>(1) buy out all of the legacy infrastructure.
>>
>>H>Bond issue? Special taxation? User fees? How does the budget get passed?
>>H>
>>H>I really _am_ open to ideas here.
>>
>
>
>IDEAS, IDEAS, IDEAS:
>
>Bond issue -- of course. Details. Details. Details... Being way
>too young, I had never met Bob Moses, and I am definitely no Bob
>Moses, but if I had the information, I could figure it out.
>
>Can't do it without real facts.
>
>Instinctively, I'd prefer to decentralize issues and let the states
>handle it as opposed to the Federal government.
That certainly can work for intrastate resources and even resource
between pairs of states. The mechanics of a transcontinental fiber
link with the ability to drop and add bandwidth along its path is
more problematic. Wireless transport mechanisms have the ability to
spill over state boundaries, or even international ones -- the
motivation for things like the World Administrative Radio Conference
for allocating the frequency space.
> If we look at this issue from the perspective of public works,
>e.g., bridge and tunnel building, perhaps we are looking at a public
>authority that would be created to administer the leases to
>intrastate PTP (pre-trunk provider) domains and issue the bonds.
>
>
>>L>
>>L>(2) partition physical regions nationwide by a consumer density
>>L>metric or otherwise 'viability,' whatever that is supposed to mean.
>>L>Revenue is derived from 'last mile infrastructure maintenance fees'
>>L>or from the provision of value-added services to consumers or the
>>L>construction of 'whatever works' in each partitioned domain. To
>>L>define these domains, you classify consumer types and come up with a
>>L>mix of corporate and non-corporate subscribers that you know must be
>>L>in a domain to engender a profit.
>>
>>H>As you may already know, the classical model for regulated telephone
>>H>companies was a guaranteed fixed return on investment. This
>>H>encouraged capital investment, but tended to minimize the
>>H>introduction and improvement of existing services because customer
>>H>revenues really weren't incentives for the service providers.
>>
>
>
>
>I understand that growth is about the agglomeration of more and more
>consumers to whom you are providing service -- not about getting an
>enhanced return from value-adding services to a fixed audience. Is
>this what you mean by the classical model?
I think so...let me paraphrase to be sure. The classical utility
invests capital in service and gets a guaranteed rate of return on
that investment, at least to the extent that its customer revenue
produces that return. If the revenue does not, they are allowed to
raise rates. Of course, if consumers won't pay more than a given
amount, the provider is out of luck.
Whether or not the provider is incentivized to offer especially
profitable services that are not of universal interest gets extremely
complex. Regulated utilities have always cross-subsidized, such as
skimming profit from high-margin business communications to cover the
costs of links to remote farms.
As part of this, the regulated utilities tend to have a dependable
cash stream and are able to offer new services at a lower rate than
other market entrants, relying on cross-subsidization -- and even to
make market entry uneconomic for competitors.
>
>Not much would have changed in the new model in this respect. All
>that I have attempted to do was to constructively reassign the debt
>that the legacy companies owe lenders for 'grossly depreciated
>capital infrastructure' to the government.
>
>
>INTRODUCTION OF NEW LANGUAGE OR BRIEF GLOSSARY:
>
>Pre-trunk providers --> Able heterogeneous (copper, fiber,
>wireless, etc.) network caretakers at the local 'pre-trunk' end,
>responsibly trusted and exploited by the government -- bondholders
>have to be paid. PTPs sell classes of 'bandwidth access contracts'
>on a commodities exchange to secondary service providers or SSPs.
Are these the providers that connect to the end consumer, or perhaps
to multi-tenant buildings, and bring the individual links to a point
of broadband aggregation? One such animal would be the Incumbent
Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) that owns the copper telephone plant
that goes to individual users. Cable TV providers also own
facilities.
Does your model include broadband aggregators that do _not_ sell
directly to consumers, but introduce efficiencies of scale as they
bundle multiple consumer links onto high-efficiency pipes? Or do I
read correctly that is bundled into the SSP function, rather than
being a niche of its own (it can work either way)?
>
>Secondary service providers --> These guys buy 'commoditized'
>bandwidth from the pre-trunk providers and add value. Sell services
>directly to the consumer.
So these would be the Internet service providers, private data
providers, video providers, telephone companies, etc.?
>
>Commodities exchange --> a new commodities exchange would be
>created to enable a valuation of particularly bandwidth resources
>and to help both PTPs and SSPs plan for future resource allocation
>with advantages like price discovery. With the information provided
>by the exchange, PTPs and SSPs use resources responsibly and
>ultimately lower the risk of the Government bonds.
Sadly, bandwidth commodities exchanges were actually getting
started...except one of the major players happened to be Enron.
>
>
>ADVENT OF THE PRE-TRUNK PROVIDERS:
>
>The government designs into the bond, a rate schedule that is
>manageable by the minimum expected revenue generated by the leases
>that will be auctioned to PTPs. PTPs provide management and
>maintenance services for the local heterogeneous network, based on
>copper, fiber, and wireless under their aegis, for the government.
>The network is not necessarily heterogeneous -- parts can be 'tailor
>made' logically homogeneous.
>
>But logical aggregation is the function of the SSPs -- I introduce them later.
>
>Anyway, the PTPs buy lease agreements from the government.
>Government uses the revenue to pay down a certain amount of bond
>debt. Lease terms can last from 15 to 35 yrs. The amount by which
>the rate of repayment of PTP 'leasees' exceeds the compulsory
>schedule will commensurately enable an incentive plan whereby the
>lease term can be extended indefinitely. In other words, if the PTP
>leasee is a good risk, keep him. Lease extension provides incentive
>for the pre-trunk provider to continuously upgrade resources; it
>would make no sense for a PTP leasee to add value and then have to
>leave peremptorily without being able to capitalize on the
>investment.
>
>In terms of adding value to resources under their aegis, PTP leasees
>can design new classes** of bandwidth access that can be
>'commoditized.' 'Commoditization' is discussed later.
>
>'PTP Holding Companies' would be encouraged that could consist of an
>unlimited number of PTPs for the purpose of exploiting economies of
>scale so as to facilitate repayment of bonds by the government to
>the bondholders. But ownership limits would be placed on an
>'intraregional basis' to protect the consumer.
>
>Ultimately, consumers on these heterogeneous local networks pay on
>the basis of levels or classes of guaranteed bandwidth. It is not
>about the particular services that are being used -- I understand
>that is not entirely true, moreover this is a SSP issue.
>Nonetheless, what the PTP wants to do is to generally encourage
>subscribers to enhance their consumption. All the while, primary
>providers will be intelligently managing their 'costs to provide
>bandwidth' as in 'just in time bandwidth,' so as to avoid waste.
>
>Providers, both PTPs and SSPs, formally exploit commoditization, in
>the sense of, i.e., an exchange, as a tool to assess and manage
>aggregate subscriber bandwidth need.
>
>
>THE ADVENT OF THE BANDWIDTH COMMODITIES EXCHANGE:
>
>Consider that there will come the advent of SSPs that aggregate
>bandwidth from primary pre-trunk providers for value-added services.
>These guys directly provide your digital cable TV, video phone, and
>Internet access over the heterogeneous fiber and wireless networks
>that the PTPs manage. And to be competitive they will make use of
>advanced traffic metrics to purchase commoditized bandwidth.
>
>Highly specialized contracts for bandwidth will be purchased and
>sold on a commodities exchange. The buyers are the SSPs; the
>sellers are the primary PTPs. Such contracts, strategically
>purchased via the use of proprietary traffic metric analysis more
>accurate than that ever provided by the likes of Jupiter Media
>Metrix and Nielsen, will allow secondary providers to provide the
>minimum necessary bandwidth for their customers at any given moment
>in time. The guys with the best analysis toys will be able to
>provide cheaper value-added service to customers.
There's been a huge amount of work among ISPs in this area. In
particular, there are the concepts of transit versus peering
relationships. Transit relationships are consumer-provider: I, the
consumer, pay the provider to connect me to the Internet. Carriers
with roughly equal consumer bases, however, enter into peering
arrangements, assuming that they have roughly equal value in allowing
mutual access between their customers, and don't try for detailed
accounting.
The peering model is not the classic model of telephone companies,
which involves the concept of "separations" -- companies originating
calls make payments to the various carriers along the path for
carrying their customers' traffic. A technical reality is that this
is MUCH easier to do for relatively long-duration telephone calls
than it is for packets.
>
>To give needed chronicle context, I forgot to add 'way back' that
>bandwidth commoditization happens right after the government sells
>the pre-trunk leases to the management PTPs. SSPs buy access
>contracts to types of bandwidth, of which there are myriad
>recognized classes on the exchange.
>
>Let's discuss the true salience of commoditization of government
>owned - PTP managed resources. Commoditization is how you enable a
>fair and real-time valuation of bandwidth resource. Resources are
>used more efficiently. Companies and consumers can exploit where
>and when network activity is the least. There is no such thing as
>'wasted bandwidth' because access contracts would have been
>purchased so as to avoid this possibility.
>
>Pre-trunk primary providers know when to shut down facilities or
>rather to enable what I call a 'super quiescent' mode to manage
>costs such as, i.e., electricity and labor allocation.
>
>Yugimoto, I place 'Licentious maenad of Bacchus' in defense mode and
>two cards face down, ending my turn.
>
>**NOTE: By classes, I meaningfully refer to types of capacity that
>are canonically recognized on the bandwidth commodities exchange; it
>does not make sense to list a product for trade that is not easily
>made liquid.
>
>>L>
>>L>(3) auction leased access to these partitioned regions to new
>>L>companies (probably 'the usual suspects' renamed) who will locally
>>L>manage or maintain the local end of the new Stupid networks and the
>>L>local gateways to the main trunks. These companies will control the
>>L>consumers -- not necessarily run any apps.
>>
>>H>If you could get these auctions established, through the legislative
>>H>equivalent of Armageddon, you might indeed be able to solve #1. I
>>H>suspect some sort of financial instruments and short-term bridge
>>H>financing bonds might be constructed that could do that, if the
>>H>vested interests could agree. What the instruments might look like is
>>H>outside the scope of my expertise.
>>
>
>
>
>My answer to the plausibility issue is simply 'Robert Moses.'
>Robert Moses was the most prolific of public works builders in
>possibly the history of the modern world. The New York State
>Legislature has always been 'a hard room to work' and yet most of
>the roadways in New York State that you drive on today were
>nonetheless built.
>
>Additionally, note that during this process, masses of people were
>displaced and neighborhoods destroyed.
>
>Robert Moses proved that anything is possible. In terms of the
>financing, as you may also know, it was Robert Moses who was
>responsible for the implementation of the Public Authority concept
>as we know it in the United States.
>
>It is noteworthy that Bob was not a particularly diplomatic guy and
>yet he was effective.
>
>I know Bob was building roadways and bridges. We are building
>networks. I do not believe I am stretching the analogy. I do
>believe discussion of Bob Moses to be meaningfully germane.
>
>I could get the auctions established.
>
>Larry
>
>>L>
>>L>Problem solved. Now we can enjoy commoditized services. Next.
>>L>
>>L>Larry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #492
******************************
