Netizens-Digest Saturday, May 4 2002 Volume 01 : Number 402 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Something to consider Re: [netz] Something to consider Re: [netz] Something to consider [netz] The vision for the Internet Re: [netz] Something to consider ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:21:48 -0400 (EDT) From: ronda@panix.com Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider Greg Skinner wrote: > I wasn't trying to imply that Internet access should be free. I was >just commenting that some people on this list have suggested that a >model for Internet regulation could be the same as was used for AT&T >prior to its breakup. As I recall, the arguments were that as a >regulated monopoly, AT&T was able to charge reasonable fees for phone >services, which were available to the vast majority of Americans. It >was also able to invest in research. >--gregbo Thanks Greg - the two aspects of the AT&T regulation that seem important were that it was required to support a research arm and that access had to be made available to all at an affordable price, which is critical for a communications system. But also on the comp.dcom.telecom mailing list and newsgroup, Pat, who was the narrator, posted about the fact that even during a rebellion in Chicago, he remembered that telephone repairs were considered critical and telephone workers went out to do service calls. So there was also a level of service that was required of AT&T and that was part of their obligation. And having unionized workers helped to make that service real as the workers had a minimal protection to put their obligations above the management pressures. It is interesting that such an important model was not understood very well by the public. For example I didn't know about Bell Labs and its support for basic research until a few years ago. But there were those who were eager to get the profitable aspects of the AT&T business without the social obligations and that seemed to be behind the lawsuit that led to the breakup. I didn't even know about the law suit breaking up AT&T at the time it was being decided. The public didn't know, but the business interests that were out to grab what aspects would be of benefit to them did know. I always thought that the business world benefitted from having a world class telephone system in the US and a phone system where probably 90+ % of the population had telephones. But I guess there were those that were only interested in lower business rates for certain types of service rather than in a communications system that reached everyone. But somehow we did have such a communications system for many years in the US so something was able to function in a good way. And the challenge was to improve it and learn from it, not to abandon it and throw it away. But also the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) in ARPA from 1962-1986 was an important model of the support for basic research to make an Internet a reality. That also is something there is a need to learn from and understand how to build on. That was the birthplace for the Internet and for the Internet to continue to grow and thrive it would seem that the kind of protection that IPTO worked so hard to provide for the researchers, including funding, is very important. And it was public funding. And a very good use of public funding. Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 09:34:27 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider > > >When AT&T was forced to split up, it was because the regulation that >had been on it was ending and it was being turned into another >unregulated corporation. > >So it is unfair to judge AT&T when it was split up in the same way >as when it was under government regulation. [snip comment about unions. There's a whole separate discussion about identifying an area as critical to a society, and then making it possible for a strike to shut it down. AT&T, and telcos and general, traditionally had what seemed a bloated management structure so they had enough non-union employees to run the network in the event of a strike.] > > >Communications is a critical area for a country and a society. It needs >government oversight and public interest obligations. The concept of "universal service" did come from Theodore Vail, the chairman of AT&T in the early 20th century. His concept, however, was much more that which is described in your second paragraph below: that all telephone operating organizations be able to interconnect. I admire Vail, but he did not come up with the concept of universal service as it would relate to individuals. As a widespread idea, that's probably more a post-WWII concept. > >What is interesting is that AT&T as a regulated entity succeeded in >some very important aspects of making possible a world class telephone >system where it was considered important that universal access was >made affordable to those who lived everywhere, including the places >that would be hard to connect or unprofitable to connect. > >Also before AT&T became a government regulated entity, I have heard >that people had to have two or three telephone systems to be able to >connect to the people who used those different systems. Very much so. > >That was the conclusion of a conference I went to in Berlin in October >which was on the social impact of technology. > >A world class telephone system grew up under good government regulation. > >There was always an effort of the National Association of Manufacturers >(NAM) and other big corporate entities to undermine the aspects of the >regulation that were in favor of the long term public interest. But >there were also opposing efforts. > >Its all a contest and to throw out the contest and say its impossible >and propose something that doesn't work is not helpful. > >What I have learned from my study of the Internet's development, is >that protection is needed for researchers and funding. And they >need communications mechanisms so they can communicate and collaborate >to identify and solve the problems that are intrinsic in the technology >they are trying to develop. Also I found that it was helpful to be >able to have discussions of the social purpose for the technology and >the vision that would help inspire them to work toward a goal. > >This is perhaps what you are meaning by collective in its best sense. And it may very well be worth looking at bodies such as the IETF and seeing if, in fact, they meet this definition of collective. > >But I found this was able to exist and function under government at >times. At other times there is a fierce attack on this collaborative >process and long term view. A very real problem in the current economy is that equipment vendors recognize the need for research on technologies we KNOW will be needed in about 5 years, if the Internet is to survive. But, as a result of their declining profits (if any) and stockholder responsibilities, they have decided research is a cost they cannot afford. I used to work for the corporate research lab of Nortel, which has been almost completely gutted. The survivors are primarily supporting applied research for specific products, with expectation of results in 6-18 months. > >Perhaps you would find it of interest to read a bit of the process >by which the Internet was born and developed under government protection, >and under scientific goals and collaboration. > >This process is hidden from the public in general and instead the >private and proprietary processes are lauded as having been responsible >for the achievements that came from the scientists. Been there, done that, even have the T-shirts from the early technical meetings. Yes, a tremendous amount of initiatives came from scientists. Some were funded under government contract, others were academic, and others were supported by private industry. AT&T was much less involved in early Internet development than computer companies, because the Internet technical model is antithetical to the traditional telephone technical model. These models, however, have converged. The telephone industry did provide active support to development of optical and other improved transmission systems, which are the mechanism of providing the immense bandwidth needed by the current Internet. The original ARPANET used 56 kilobit lines in its backbones, where 10 gigabit links are quite common today, with faster links (or parallel 10 gigabit) emerging from the labs. As an aside, 40 gigabits (possibly 80) seems to be the physical limit on individual link transmission speeds based on known technology. The trend is now to use parallel 10 Gbps links, multiplexed onto single fibers. > >Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:57:19 -0400 (EDT) From: ronda@panix.com Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: >>Communications is a critical area for a country and a society. It needs >>government oversight and public interest obligations. >The concept of "universal service" did come from Theodore Vail, the >chairman of AT&T in the early 20th century. His concept, however, >was much more that which is described in your second paragraph >below: that all telephone operating organizations be able to >interconnect. >I admire Vail, but he did not come up with the concept of universal >service as it would relate to individuals. As a widespread idea, >that's probably more a post-WWII concept. Yes I agree that it was more than all organizations being able to connect. It was also that all had to be able to have access to the phone system. Are there other pieces you feel I am leaving out? > >>What is interesting is that AT&T as a regulated entity succeeded in >>some very important aspects of making possible a world class telephone >>system where it was considered important that universal access was >>made affordable to those who lived everywhere, including the places >>that would be hard to connect or unprofitable to connect. > >>Also before AT&T became a government regulated entity, I have heard >>that people had to have two or three telephone systems to be able to >>connect to the people who used those different systems. >Very much so. And the implications toward the internet need to be drawn. That the Internet is a communications system. Because of the way it was developed it supported the cooperative process that meant internationally it was possible to support interconnection among different countries. Also the technology of tcp/ip makes it possible for different kinds of networks under different forms of political or administrative control to communicate. (...) > >>What I have learned from my study of the Internet's development, is >>that protection is needed for researchers and funding. And they >>need communications mechanisms so they can communicate and collaborate >>to identify and solve the problems that are intrinsic in the technology >>they are trying to develop. Also I found that it was helpful to be >>able to have discussions of the social purpose for the technology and >>the vision that would help inspire them to work toward a goal. > >>This is perhaps what you are meaning by collective in its best sense. >And it may very well be worth looking at bodies such as the IETF and >seeing if, in fact, they meet this definition of collective. Yes it would be a worthwhile. However, the IETF has had different stages in its development, stages where it was under government support and protection and stages where it has lost that support to some degree. I was disappointed in how the IETF leadership tried to suppress the debate about the creation and development of ICANN To suppress such discussion is contrary to the whole process of open discussion about social aims and technical ways to achieve such aims. That was what I saw in the early mailing list discussions about the Internet and Usenet. And that seems to get less support now in the IETF or elsewhere. >>But I found this was able to exist and function under government at >>times. At other times there is a fierce attack on this collaborative >>process and long term view. >A very real problem in the current economy is that equipment vendors >recognize the need for research on technologies we KNOW will be >needed in about 5 years, if the Internet is to survive. But, as a >result of their declining profits (if any) and stockholder >responsibilities, they have decided research is a cost they cannot >afford. I used to work for the corporate research lab of Nortel, >which has been almost completely gutted. The survivors are primarily >supporting applied research for specific products, with expectation >of results in 6-18 months. That is the problem of having to rely on private industry for research. I realize that there are periods when there were important research labs in certain large corporations. But also at the time there was support in government for research as well. It seems that the government support is critical to making other support happen as well. This is support for basic forms of research that looks ahead 10 and 20 years and provides the means to work toward developments that will take that longer period of time. Also it means supporting the ways of looking at the problems in a new way and trying to develop something new. Internet technology proved to make it cost less to make interactive resource sharing communication possible than ever before. Somehow this seems to be lost in the urge to get tv online. The Internet is a resource sharing metasystem. And one that makes possible interactive communication. This is critical to keep in mind when making decisions of what technology will further this basic nature and what technical developments might stifle it (such as getting the tv industry onto the Internet and their control onto the Internet) > >>Perhaps you would find it of interest to read a bit of the process >>by which the Internet was born and developed under government protection, >>and under scientific goals and collaboration. > >>This process is hidden from the public in general and instead the >>private and proprietary processes are lauded as having been responsible >>for the achievements that came from the scientists. >Been there, done that, even have the T-shirts from the early >technical meetings. Yes, a tremendous amount of initiatives came from >scientists. Some were funded under government contract, others were >academic, and others were supported by private industry. AT&T was >much less involved in early Internet development than computer >companies, because the Internet technical model is antithetical to >the traditional telephone technical model. These models, however, >have converged. Yes I realize you were there. I was suggesting that those who don't have this background would do well to learn about it. It is helpful your sharing these experiences with us. And I know that AT&T was not interested in the Internet model early on but the Bell labs people made their profound contribution by creating and developing and spreading Unix. Unix is also critical to the development of the Internet. >The telephone industry did provide active support to development of >optical and other improved transmission systems, which are the >mechanism of providing the immense bandwidth needed by the current >Internet. The original ARPANET used 56 kilobit lines in its >backbones, where 10 gigabit links are quite common today, with faster >links (or parallel 10 gigabit) emerging from the labs. As an aside, >40 gigabits (possibly 80) seems to be the physical limit on >individual link transmission speeds based on known technology. The >trend is now to use parallel 10 Gbps links, multiplexed onto single >fibers. I am now looking at the early satellite link to Norway. Norway was the first international link to the Arpanet in June 1973. Research collaboration between researchers in the US, Norway and Great Britain was the research that set the foundation for the Internet and for an international nature for the Internet. Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 10:00:30 -0400 (EDT) From: ronda@panix.com Subject: [netz] The vision for the Internet In a post I did on May 1 I promised to send a statement I found in the 1974 ARPANET News about the nature of the vision for the ARPANET which subsequently helped to inspire the Internet and make it a reality: "(...)Inherent in the concept of a resource sharing computer network is the idea of cooperative, collaborative working mode. This calls for a very special "place for people's heads" -- a special ability to be cognizant of and concerned for the welfare of the whole. This long-term objective and viewpoint requires a personal feeling of responsibility for the welfare of the network instead of the short-sightedness of acquisitive self-interest.... With the backing of ARPA-IPT in this endeavor... the ARPANET shows every promise of becoming the global tool for enhanced communication and understanding between nations and their scientists and people that was envisioned for it in its beginning." (February 1974, Editorial, 2-3) Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 11:00:30 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Something to consider >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >>>Communications is a critical area for a country and a society. It needs >>>government oversight and public interest obligations. > >>The concept of "universal service" did come from Theodore Vail, the >>chairman of AT&T in the early 20th century. His concept, however, >>was much more that which is described in your second paragraph >>below: that all telephone operating organizations be able to >>interconnect. > >>I admire Vail, but he did not come up with the concept of universal >>service as it would relate to individuals. As a widespread idea, >>that's probably more a post-WWII concept. > >Yes I agree that it was more than all organizations being able to connect. > >It was also that all had to be able to have access to the phone system. > >Are there other pieces you feel I am leaving out? > >> >>>What is interesting is that AT&T as a regulated entity succeeded in >>>some very important aspects of making possible a world class telephone >>>system where it was considered important that universal access was >>>made affordable to those who lived everywhere, including the places >>>that would be hard to connect or unprofitable to connect. >> >>>Also before AT&T became a government regulated entity, I have heard >>>that people had to have two or three telephone systems to be able to >>>connect to the people who used those different systems. > >>Very much so. > >And the implications toward the internet need to be drawn. > >That the Internet is a communications system. Because of the way >it was developed it supported the cooperative process that meant >internationally it was possible to support interconnection among >different countries. Also the technology of tcp/ip makes it >possible for different kinds of networks under different forms >of political or administrative control to communicate. > >(...) >> >>>What I have learned from my study of the Internet's development, is >>>that protection is needed for researchers and funding. And they >>>need communications mechanisms so they can communicate and collaborate >>>to identify and solve the problems that are intrinsic in the technology >>>they are trying to develop. Also I found that it was helpful to be >>>able to have discussions of the social purpose for the technology and >>>the vision that would help inspire them to work toward a goal. >> >>>This is perhaps what you are meaning by collective in its best sense. > >>And it may very well be worth looking at bodies such as the IETF and >>seeing if, in fact, they meet this definition of collective. > > >Yes it would be a worthwhile. > >However, the IETF has had different stages in its development, >stages where it was under government support and protection and >stages where it has lost that support to some degree. > >I was disappointed in how the IETF leadership tried to suppress >the debate about the creation and development of ICANN My sense, at the time, was less of suppression than of picking one's fights. It was fairly clear ICANN was going to happen, given the US Government interest. IETF has a productive history of simply ignoring things that are outside its main scope and concentrating on what it does well. I cite, among other things, OSI protocols vs. TCP/IP, ATM proper as opposed to the interface between IP and ATM, etc. > >To suppress such discussion is contrary to the whole process of >open discussion about social aims and technical ways to achieve >such aims. Not disagreeing, but the IETF may not be the right forum. The Internet Society might be closer. Incidentally, Ronda, I know you've tried and failed to do things at the international ISOC level. There are local chapters of ISOC, at least in DC, and I'd suspect New York. You may get a better response by offering to present at the local level and start getting grassroots support for moving up the food chain. > >That was what I saw in the early mailing list discussions about >the Internet and Usenet. And that seems to get less support now >in the IETF or elsewhere. On the lists, probably so. I think that's a matter of bandwidth. Less formal mechanisms do exist and are used -- I've had lots of such discussions in the hallways and bars of IETF meetings, and things do come up at the IAB plenary. Again, I don't think IETF sees itself as the proper forum for such things -- possibly in the IAB, definitely in ISOC. > > >>>But I found this was able to exist and function under government at >>>times. At other times there is a fierce attack on this collaborative >>>process and long term view. > >>A very real problem in the current economy is that equipment vendors >>recognize the need for research on technologies we KNOW will be >>needed in about 5 years, if the Internet is to survive. But, as a >>result of their declining profits (if any) and stockholder >>responsibilities, they have decided research is a cost they cannot >>afford. I used to work for the corporate research lab of Nortel, >>which has been almost completely gutted. The survivors are primarily >>supporting applied research for specific products, with expectation >>of results in 6-18 months. > >That is the problem of having to rely on private industry for research. > >I realize that there are periods when there were important research >labs in certain large corporations. But also at the time there was >support in government for research as well. > >It seems that the government support is critical to making other >support happen as well. > >This is support for basic forms of research that looks ahead 10 and >20 years and provides the means to work toward developments that >will take that longer period of time. Also it means supporting the >ways of looking at the problems in a new way and trying to develop >something new. > >Internet technology proved to make it cost less to make interactive >resource sharing communication possible than ever before. Somehow >this seems to be lost in the urge to get tv online. Actually, the basic technical problems of putting TV online are not all that obscure. The operational coordination, security, and economics of interdomain multicast are probably the biggest remaining area. The challenges are in billing and regulation, in the local physical plant for broadband, etc. > >The Internet is a resource sharing metasystem. And one that makes possible >interactive communication. This is critical to keep in mind when >making decisions of what technology will further this basic nature >and what technical developments might stifle it (such as getting >the tv industry onto the Internet and their control onto the Internet) Part of the problem is that the TV industry, telcos, etc., are providing the capital-intensive physical transmission facilities, especially for broadband applications. Historically, the Internet is architected to be agnostic to the underlying physical medium. > > >>Been there, done that, even have the T-shirts from the early >>technical meetings. Yes, a tremendous amount of initiatives came from >>scientists. Some were funded under government contract, others were >>academic, and others were supported by private industry. AT&T was >>much less involved in early Internet development than computer >>companies, because the Internet technical model is antithetical to >>the traditional telephone technical model. These models, however, >>have converged. > >Yes I realize you were there. I was suggesting that those who don't have >this background would do well to learn about it. It is helpful your >sharing these experiences with us. > >And I know that AT&T was not interested in the Internet model early >on but the Bell labs people made their profound contribution by >creating and developing and spreading Unix. > >Unix is also critical to the development of the Internet. mmmm...widely used? Yes. Happening to provide the first TCP/IP reference implementation in BSD 4.2? Yes. Providing a development environment? A qualified yes; there are alternatives. Most real-time products such as routers do not use UNIX, but purpose-built real-time operating systems. Admittedly, the line blurs. Juniper routers use a locally written kernel, but a modified UNIX above it. Cisco's IOS was written from scratch and is not UNIX-like. There are an assortment of operating systems in Nortel products, VMworks probably being the most common. You can develop for VMworks using simulators either under UNIX or Windows. > > >I am now looking at the early satellite link to Norway. Norway >was the first international link to the Arpanet in June 1973. There just MIGHT be some Canadians that disagree...Waterloo and McGill Universities and the University of British Columbia were on quite early. Intercontinental, yes. Incidentally, most of the cost of the link from Norway was covered by existing military/intelligence connectivity to sensors there. The first open participant was a seismic research institute in Norway which was involved with seismic detection of nuclear tests. > > >Research collaboration between researchers in the US, Norway and >Great Britain was the research that set the foundation for the Internet >and for an international nature for the Internet. > > >Ronda ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #402 ******************************