Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 494
Netizens-Digest Sunday, April 13 2003 Volume 01 : Number 494
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)
[netz] Bounced message
[netz] Government and net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:05:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Howard,
> 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.
Fair enough. By "plugged into AOLYahooMSNBCNN" I was trying to evoke basically
passive consumption. It's not my view that corporations can never be used to
provide social goods -- although I admit that when they start crowing about
their social contributions, I keep my hand on my wallet. But I really wasn't
trying to comment on how the Internet should be supported; my intended emphasis
was on how the Internet can be used.
> >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 think you'd better assign "MSNBCNN" to a keyboard shortcut (yet another
punchy grin).
I lost the first draft of that message, so I'm lucky if it made any sense at
all. I think I'm probably abusing the term "content provider," although after
reading a definition at http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_content_provider.html , I'm
not much more sure that I understand what it means. (Maybe I should have stuck
to "regime"!) I can tell you what I meant: a content provider would be someone
who creates and controls content, so while an uncensored mailing list would
indeed be content, MSNBCNN wouldn't be the "content provider" in the sense that
I intended.
To touch on your remaining questions: I don't think of telephony as "content,"
but I'm open to instruction; I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong," but I would
certainly consider that deal; I'd be happy to have a choice between Verizon (my
current phone company and ISP) and anyone else. My previous message wasn't
intended to imply positions or predispositions on any of these questions.
(Again, I meant "plug into" to imply passive consumption, not open
connectivity -- just careless writing on my part.)
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: [netz] Bounced message
The following post bounced because it had three "Re:"'s in its header.
Please trim headers or introduce new ones when appropriate.
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 12:48:36 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: R: Role of government in Net's development (Was:R: [netz] R: 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.
And I ask that you consider, or explain how it is outside the model
of the "Internet," how commercial _users_ are accomodated in this
model.
Or do you see a separate internet for noncommercial use?
If so, how do you fund it, especially if you give up the economies of
scale of combining services on a local loop?
>
>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.
Ronda, let's get something on the table. When, if ever, is it a good
thing for someone to make a profit? Don't get me wrong -- I think the
profit motive can terribly distort the delivery of various services.
Healthcare in the US is one of them, but there are special factors
there -- unfortunately, the US healthcare payment system developed,
for obscure financial reasons, outside anything that resembled a
rational free market system. Its historical funding model, however,
tends to make it unresponsive to people who need healthcare.
I don't believe in "leaving everything to the market," incidentally,
for several reasons. One, as we've seen with Worldcom, Adelphia and
Enron (people may not be aware that Enron was also in the bandwidth
business), there can be outright fraud and inaccurate information.
The net can assist in this area by making more financial data
available to the public, including some data that commercial
enterprises will scream is "proprietary". Either a re-strengthened
public auditing function or government information is needed to
ensure accuracy.
Two, and this is more than just a "commercial" issue, is the human
tendency for the "tragedy of the commons". This applies both to
companies that crush competitors simply because they can do so, and
to crackers that get an emotional (I am not being facetious) benefit
from getting all the net resources they can, regardless of the
effects on others.
Three, the particular capital formation, tax policy, and other
regulatory factors in play may cause managements to optimize for
short-term shareholder value rather than for long-term value in a
cooperative service.
>
>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.
Data? I seem to be able to get far more done in the present
environment than in the past.
>
>AT&T provided phone service in the US under government regulation
>that required that all have access.
Historically inaccurate. AT&T never provided all telephone service.
Between 1913 and 1975, it did provide virtually all long-distance,
intercity communications. In 1913, AT&T negotiated the Kingsbury
Compromise in which it gave up the right to offer telegraph service
in return for a predominant (but not strict monopoly) position on
intercity communications. As part of that, AT&T also took on some
necessary operational functions that competitors needed to be done by
one organization, such as telephone number assignment -- think the
current analogy to IP address allocation.
AT&T owned or dominated local exchange carriers did provide much of
the local callng structure, but, until about 1975, there were
approximately 6000 independent telephone companies in the US, from
small rural cooperatives to major companies such as GTE and United
Telecom.
Once the technology permitted it, there were alternatives to AT&T for
long-distance service, many of which were restricted to particular
industries, and almost always were available only to businesses.
Electrical utilities, railroads, and pipeline utilities often ran
cable or microwave along their rights-of-way. Sprint is a spinoff of
the Southern Pacific Railroad -- it's an acronym, if I quote
correctly, for Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Technology.
Pipeline firms spun off an assortment of telecommunications carriers
that went through an assortment of name changes, but Qwest is a good
example. Government often had its own independent communications,
especially for national security operations.
Incidentally, while Bell Labs was the dominant telecommunications
research arm, it certainly was not the only one. GTE had a
substantial research facility,as did others.
>
>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.
You are correct about AT&T as the parent of UNIX, and the role of
UNIX in AT&T. It's worth bringing up, however, that for many years,
AT&T would not make UNIX available to private companies and
individuals. In an incredibly smart marketing move, AT&T made UNIX
available to universities, so a generation of computer scientists
grew up intending to do things that depended on an operating system
controlled by AT&T. Some of Microsoft's dominance came from the
difficulty of getting UNIX. The long-term role of LINUX is a
fascinating one -- I don't know how it will evolve and hopefully
increase competition.
>
>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.
True. But they were developed by _governmental_, not individual
entities. I think it is important to distinguish when things were
developed under capitalist, socialists, and community/individual
entities. Noncommercial doesn't always mean free and open access.
>
>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.
Do rememeber that IPTO was a government office that funded
researchers according to government priorities.
>
>These are what the need needs, not figuring out which commercial
>entities are the lesser of the evils.
Is it fair to say -- and this is a question -- that you prefer things
be done as much as possible by government or individual collectives,
and market-based development models are, in you view, always to some
extent an evil?
>
>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 19:11:44 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Government and net
[Slightly edited after bouncing due to 3 Re's in header]
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 12:48:36 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: R: Role of government in Net's development (Was:R: [netz] R: 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.
And I ask that you consider, or explain how it is outside the model
of the "Internet," how commercial _users_ are accomodated in this
model.
Or do you see a separate internet for noncommercial use?
If so, how do you fund it, especially if you give up the economies of
scale of combining services on a local loop?
>
>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.
Ronda, let's get something on the table. When, if ever, is it a good
thing for someone to make a profit? Don't get me wrong -- I think the
profit motive can terribly distort the delivery of various services.
Healthcare in the US is one of them, but there are special factors
there -- unfortunately, the US healthcare payment system developed,
for obscure financial reasons, outside anything that resembled a
rational free market system. Its historical funding model, however,
tends to make it unresponsive to people who need healthcare.
I don't believe in "leaving everything to the market," incidentally,
for several reasons. One, as we've seen with Worldcom, Adelphia and
Enron (people may not be aware that Enron was also in the bandwidth
business), there can be outright fraud and inaccurate information.
The net can assist in this area by making more financial data
available to the public, including some data that commercial
enterprises will scream is "proprietary". Either a re-strengthened
public auditing function or government information is needed to
ensure accuracy.
Two, and this is more than just a "commercial" issue, is the human
tendency for the "tragedy of the commons". This applies both to
companies that crush competitors simply because they can do so, and
to crackers that get an emotional (I am not being facetious) benefit
from getting all the net resources they can, regardless of the
effects on others.
Three, the particular capital formation, tax policy, and other
regulatory factors in play may cause managements to optimize for
short-term shareholder value rather than for long-term value in a
cooperative service.
>
>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.
Data? I seem to be able to get far more done in the present
environment than in the past.
>
>AT&T provided phone service in the US under government regulation
>that required that all have access.
Historically inaccurate. AT&T never provided all telephone service.
Between 1913 and 1975, it did provide virtually all long-distance,
intercity communications. In 1913, AT&T negotiated the Kingsbury
Compromise in which it gave up the right to offer telegraph service
in return for a predominant (but not strict monopoly) position on
intercity communications. As part of that, AT&T also took on some
necessary operational functions that competitors needed to be done by
one organization, such as telephone number assignment -- think the
current analogy to IP address allocation.
AT&T owned or dominated local exchange carriers did provide much of
the local callng structure, but, until about 1975, there were
approximately 6000 independent telephone companies in the US, from
small rural cooperatives to major companies such as GTE and United
Telecom.
Once the technology permitted it, there were alternatives to AT&T for
long-distance service, many of which were restricted to particular
industries, and almost always were available only to businesses.
Electrical utilities, railroads, and pipeline utilities often ran
cable or microwave along their rights-of-way. Sprint is a spinoff of
the Southern Pacific Railroad -- it's an acronym, if I quote
correctly, for Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Technology.
Pipeline firms spun off an assortment of telecommunications carriers
that went through an assortment of name changes, but Qwest is a good
example. Government often had its own independent communications,
especially for national security operations.
Incidentally, while Bell Labs was the dominant telecommunications
research arm, it certainly was not the only one. GTE had a
substantial research facility,as did others.
>
>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.
You are correct about AT&T as the parent of UNIX, and the role of
UNIX in AT&T. It's worth bringing up, however, that for many years,
AT&T would not make UNIX available to private companies and
individuals. In an incredibly smart marketing move, AT&T made UNIX
available to universities, so a generation of computer scientists
grew up intending to do things that depended on an operating system
controlled by AT&T. Some of Microsoft's dominance came from the
difficulty of getting UNIX. The long-term role of LINUX is a
fascinating one -- I don't know how it will evolve and hopefully
increase competition.
>
>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.
True. But they were developed by _governmental_, not individual
entities. I think it is important to distinguish when things were
developed under capitalist, socialists, and community/individual
entities. Noncommercial doesn't always mean free and open access.
I'm really rather confused when I hear suggestions that
representative democracy (i.e., a government function) should be
replaced as undemocratic, yet there seem to be a fair number of
things that are being approved of as "noncommercial" when they were,
in fact, just such government functions.
>
>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.
Do rememeber that IPTO was a government office that funded
researchers according to government priorities. That government was
republican, not self-representative.
>
>These are what the need needs, not figuring out which commercial
>entities are the lesser of the evils.
Is it fair to say -- and this is a question -- that you prefer things
be done as much as possible by government or individual collectives,
and market-based development models are, in you view, always to some
extent an evil?
>
>It needs good activity by governments and recognition and knowledge
>of the role needed from government/s and from noncommercial entities.
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #494
******************************
