Netizens-Digest Thursday, January 2 2003 Volume 01 : Number 411 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace [netz] end of the beginning Re: [netz] end of the beginning [netz] The 20th anniversary of the Internet [netz] Foreign Affairs on ICANN and the upcoming new year [netz] Happy Birthday, Dear Internet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:39:56 -0500 (EST) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] The UN Security Council's vote for war and the netizen desire for peace R, v Head wrote: > As I recall, Inspectors were withdrawn by the US and Britain preparatory > to bombing, which was done for the ostensible purpose of punishing Iraq > for its recalcitrance with the inspection regime. > > It is false to say that Iraq expelled the inspectors, though of course it > could be argued that, had they been 100% cooperative, the bombing would > not have been necessary. Yes. (For the record, unlike the Bush administration, I was careful not to say that Iraq expelled the inspectors!) Many war critics have portrayed Iraqi noncooperation as a pretext, more than a rationale, for US and British actions. Many of the same war critics have cited Scott Ritter's recent statements that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. So it's worth remembering that in 1998, Scott Ritter was criticizing the Clinton administration for not taking a _harder_ line on inspections. While it's debatable how this issue relates to the mission of the Netizens list, as long as we are discussing it, we should make every effort to see the whole issue, not just debating points on one side or another. My comments are intended in that spirit -- to round out the story, not to impose one version of it. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:30:50 +0100 From: John Horvath Subject: [netz] end of the beginning Hi everybody, The list has been a little quiet lately so I thought the following article might be of interest to some. John - ---------------------------------------- End of the Beginning by John Horvath As 3G continues to be hit by a series of financial and technical setbacks, it has now become obvious to many that the next wave in the digital revolution is indeed over, this before it even had a chance to begin Next generation mobile telephony, also known as 3G technology or by its acronym UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System), was hyped during the dying days of dot-com mania as the "the next wave" in the so-called digital revolution. Such was the belief that 3G would further carry the digital revolution to dizzying new heights that major telecom operators bet their future on its success. Likewise, the European Commission (EC) took a special interest in facilitating the development of UMTS within the European Union (EU). Because of the relative success of the GSM standard for mobile telephony, Eurocrats were convinced that UMTS would give Europe a distinct advantage over the US in the global economy. As events would subsequently prove, this was all a classic example of counting chickens before they're hatched: over 120 billion euros have been invested by European companies in 3G technology, and several European telecom operators landed themselves in huge debt when they bought expensive third generation mobile licences. Amid concerns these companies and telecom operators would never realise the planned returns from their expenditures, investors pulled back from investing in telecoms, sending share prices plummeting. Burdened by debt and an angry mob of shareholders, telecom operators have since become more concerned with their day-to-day survival than with the development of 3G. In conjunction with this, problems from a lack of handsets to technical delays have further beleaguered the development of 3G technology. For the EC, all this has meant a severe blow to their vision of an "information society". Third generation mobile communications technology was seen as one of the elements needed for creating an information society, providing fast web and e-mail applications on a roaming basis. Now that in many parts of the EU a full 3G mobile telecommunications network won't be up and running as planned means one of the key elements of the information society roll out in the EU has been delayed. Sweden highlights the problems that exist, as it has recently been announced that a full 3G network won't be available in the Scandinavian country for at least another four years. Sweden was expected to be one of the first European countries to make 3G services available throughout the country, and had opted to pursue a plan that suited the country best rather than auction licences to the highest bidder. However, one of the four license holders in the country, Orange, has asked for a three year delay in the original schedule that would have seen more than 99 per cent of the population covered by the end of 2003. The new date by which Sweden should have the proposed 3G coverage is the end of 2006. There has also been a request from Orange to reduce the level of coverage from 8.86 million people in Sweden to 8.3 million. The move is attributed to the economic difficulties that have been experienced by telecom operators across Europe, all of whom are now looking to reduce spending in the 3G area. As well as the request made to the Swedish telecoms authority for postponement, Orange has also announced that it will cut back spending at its German venture, Mobilcom. Spanish telecommunications company Telefonica has also said that it is pulling out of spending any money on non-Spanish 3G developments. While Orange is only one of the four license holders in Sweden, its move could affect the others, as the plans for establishing the 3G infrastructure in rural areas in the country is a collaborative effort between all four license holders. News of such setbacks for 3G roll out is common throughout Europe. The Italian operator Omnitel, which is owned by Vodafone, has cited a lack of handsets as one of the main reasons why it has stalled the roll out of commercial 3G services in Italy until May 2003. And in Ireland, where only three companies applied for the 3G licences on offer, operator O2 has confirmed that it wants to share the cost of constructing a 3G network. The costs of establishing the network would mean that the company would seek an alliance, possibly with Vodafone. A similar arrangement to share 3G infrastructure costs in Germany has already been approved by the EC between O2's parent company mmO2 and T-mobile. The two European mobile phone operators are expected to save around 5.13 billion euro in building third generation infrastructures by pooling resources, in particular by combining base stations and antennae. The two companies also plan to get regulatory approval from the EC for an alliance in the UK as well. While some suggest that given present circumstances cooperation is now key for 3G companies, others see the whole process as nothing more than corporate welfare. Furthermore, a European Commission spokesperson admitted there have been fears that the cooperation agreements would be anti-competitive, but stressed that these agreements have been drafted in a way that addresses these concerns. Although the EC has been lenient in allowing telecom operators to pool their resources so as to somehow keep the hopes of 3G technology alive, it's nevertheless apparent that the Commission realises which way the wind is blowing. Indeed, many within the Commission believe that Europe's 3G operators will not break even until 2014. Much of this skepticism comes from a recent report by Forrester Research, which forecasted that only 10 per cent of European mobile users will be using UMTS (universal mobile telecommunications system) by 2007, which will mean a delay in payback until 2014 at the earliest. [1] Furthermore, according to the report Finland, France, Italy and Switzerland will hit break even first, sometime between 2010 and 2012. In France and Italy this is because of the relatively few 3G competitors and the large market size, meaning the cost-potential revenue ratio. Finland will benefit from zero-cost 3G licences and the prohibition of handset subsidies, while Switzerland has the highest average revenue per user rate in Europe. The UK, Germany, Spain and Portugal, meanwhile, are not expected to break even until 2014. In Germany and the UK, this is due to high licence fees, but all four are experiencing a growth in the number of competing operators, requiring higher spending to acquire and retain customers and greater handset subsidies. Even more depressing is the outlook by the Finnish research institute VTT, which has predicted that 3G mobile phones will be rendered obsolete by a fifth-generation (5G) of mobile technology. [2] According to VTT researchers, 5G offerings, based on high-frequency mobile extensions of today's fixed-line broadband Internet networks, could begin to supersede the third-generation networks as early as 2010. VTT also envisage the emergence of a fourth generation of mobile services that will allow users to connect to different networks depending on their location. For example, a handset could connect to a wireless local area network (WLAN) when inside a building, switch to a 3G mast when outside, and connect to a standard network in areas with no 3G coverage. Pertti Raatikainen, a research professor at VTT, is quoted as saying that "over the next five to ten years GPRS [general packet radio service], 3G and WLAN will all be accessible via multi-network terminals and this type of roaming between networks will be called '4G'. But beyond 2010 a new network labelled 5G will start to render 3G obsolete." VTT's vision of 5G technologies has a basis in the work of the European Commission's Samba project, funded under the ACTS (advanced communications technologies and services) section of the Fourth Framework Programme. [3] The Samba project created a trial environment for the use of broadband services by mobile users. The results gave researchers a valuable insight into the technology challenges, and have helped in the drive towards a fourth and fifth generation of mobile platforms. As a result of the pessimistic outlook for 3G technology, the EC has already been looking beyond UMTS as a means for furthering its information society agenda. To this extent, the it has been putting pressure on five Member States that are holding up the introduction of a new wireless technology that can already rival third generation mobile phones. The technology, known as Wi-Fi or wireless fidelity, allows laptop users to access the Internet via wireless connections at much greater speeds than 3G. Wi-Fi has already a foothold in the US. The goal in Europe is to create Internet access in "hotspots" such as train stations, airports and hotels. However, France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Luxembourg have been delaying the full implementation of regulations that cover the public use of Wi-Fi. The EC, meanwhile, has been pushing the countries to allow the technology. Indubitably, push may come to shove when in July 2003 the EC will gain new powers to overrule national telecoms regulators. It has already warned that any unfair restriction on the use of Wi-Fi technology would be a breach of EU law. As conflict between the old and the new emerge (or more precisely, the uninitiated versus the unimplemented), the future of Europe's digital landscape looks as uncertain now as ever before. Whereas during the heyday of the tech boom all were in agreement on in which direction the "revolution" should go, now there is no such vision. On one side, there is the EC and some hi-tech companies who believe that new technology, such as Wi-Fi, can be complementary to 3G and further their agenda for technological development; on the other are companies and large telecom operators who have invested most of their future in the success of 3G, and are intent on at least recuperating their costs. For the end user, however, it will all end up being the same old story: more hype and less substance, with neither side offering anything really different. Notes and References - -------------------- 1. 2. 3. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:43:39 -0500 (EST) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: Re: [netz] end of the beginning From: Alexandru Petrescu Date: 11 Dec 2002 17:35:47 +0100 John Horvath quotes John Horvath: > VTT, which has predicted that 3G mobile phones will be rendered obsolete > by a fifth-generation (5G) Wow this is new. I've heard previously about 3G, Beyond 3G and 4G; but 5G is new. Let's see whether people can pronounce sixth g: s-i-x-t-h gee. Anybody remembers the project of the 5th Computer Generation? Alex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:18:13 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: [netz] The 20th anniversary of the Internet Sorry for not posting for a while, but I was at a conference in Berlin and am still feeling affected by the jet lag from the trip back. I thought that people on the Netizens list would find this email from some other mailing lists of interest. Actually, the early development of tcp/ip began in 1973. So the coming new year is the 30th anniversary of both the cutover to tcp/ip from ncp on the arpanet and the split between arpanet and milnet in 1983 and the early beginning of tcp/ip in 1973 Ronda - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:02:54 -0500 From: Dave Farber To: ip Subject: [IP] The 20th anniversary of the Internet I still have the button and still have the memories of tht week djf - ------ Forwarded Message From: Bob Braden Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:08:38 -0800 (PST) To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: internet-history@postel.org Subject: The 20th anniversary of the Internet We ought not to let pass unnoticed the impending 20th anniversary of the Internet. The most logical date of origin of the Internet is January 1, 1983, when the ARPANET officially switched from the NCP protocol to TCP/IP. Six months later, the ARPANET was split into the two subnets ARPANET and MILNET, which were connected by Internet gateways* (routers). The planning for the January 1983 switchover was fully documented in Jon Postel in RFC 801. The week-by-week progress of the transition was reported in a series of 15 RFCs, in the range RFC 842 - RFC 876, by UCLA student David Smallberg. There may still be a few remaining T shirts that read, "I Survived the TCP/IP Transition". People sometimes question that any geeks would have been in machine rooms on January 1. Believe it!! Some geeks got very little sleep for a few days (and that was before the work "geek" was invented, I believe.) So, on New Year's Eve, hoist one for the 20th anniversary of the Internet. Bob Braden ____________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:24:00 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: [netz] Foreign Affairs on ICANN and the upcoming new year Surprisingly there is an article about ICANN in the November/December 2002 issue of Foreign Affairs. The article "Governing the Internet"(pgs 15-20) by Zoe Baird admits the failure of ICANN. She writes: "The rapid growth of the Internet has led to a worldwide crisis of governance." However, the author seems to know nothing about the development of the Internet or does she seem to care about its development. She writes: "In the early years of Internet development, the prevailing view was that government should stay out of Internet governance; market forces and self-regulation would suffice to create order and enforce standards of behavior." This makes one wonder what she considers as the early years of Internet development. This coming new year (2003) is the 30th anniversary of the birth of TCP/IP and the 20th anniversary of the cuttover from the protocol NCP on the ARPANET to TCP/IP, a protocol which made it possible to have an Internet. The early development of the Internet was done under government. The form of government, however, was a good form, (unlike much we see since). This form of government was an office within the US Dept of Defense under the leadership of computer scientists. If Zoe Baird were interested in understanding what is wrong with ICANN, it would be appropriate to learn this history and understand the lessons from it with regard to the future development of the Internet. Instead, she has a new proposal to replace ICANN. She is currently President of an NGO, the Markle Foundation. Not surprisingly, she is proposing that the new ICANN be designed to include NGO's and Government and Industry. This is as contrary to the Internet's origins as is ICANN. Thus she acknowledges a serious problem. But her treatment of this problem shows disdain for the Internet and its origins. Yet it is significant that the problem ICANN represents should be included in an issue of a journal like Foreign Affairs. This demonstrates that the Internet is under the foreign policy purvue of the US government and they are planning new means of trying to forge that policy ignoring the nature and needs of the Internet and its users. This is an important challenge for the new year for netizens. May we find ways to collaborate to take on challenges like this in 2004. with best wishes Ronda ronda@panix.com P.S. I have recently heard from someone I know that there is an effort of people to propose legislation that would be helpful toward various forms of media in the U.S. In this context he asked what kind of legislation would people propose regarding the Internet and its development. This is a topic that would take serious discussion and consideration. So hopefully there will be a way to have such discussion in the new year. Following are some of the more recent research and writing I have done to try to understand the nature of the government institution that made it possible to create the Internet, and the nature of the international collaboration that was so crucial to the development of the international computer communications metasystem that we call the Internet. part 0 http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/lick101.doc part I http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/arpa_ipto.txt part II http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/basicresearch.txt part III http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/centers-excellence.txt part IV http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/computer-communications.txt part V http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/birth_internet.txt part VI http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/misc/paper1031.txt Also it is interesting that one of the laws passed by Congress previously regarding the Internet had Netizens in its title. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 00:28:52 -0500 (EST) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: [netz] Happy Birthday, Dear Internet Hi, 2003 is the 30th anniversary of the first drafts of the paper "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication" by Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn. Jan 1 2003 is also the 20th anniversay of the target date (Jan 1 1983) for the cutover from the ARPANET protocol NCP to the Internet protocol suite TCP/IP. There should be celebration of these significant events in the development of the Internet. The following article appears in the current online Wired News. It is good to see there is some effort to acknowledge these important historic events. It was not that the cut over was seen as something that needed to be jammed down anyones throughts. There were problems having adequate implementations for all operating systems used on the ARPANET in time for the cutover. If interested in more details you can see: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/tcpdigest_paper.txt Take care. Jay Wired: 02:00 AM Dec. 31, 2002 PT Happy Birthday, Dear Internet http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,57013,00.html By Justin Jaffe >From its early days as a pet project in the Department of Defense to its infamous time nestled under Al Gore's wing, the history of the Internet is littered with dozens of so-called birthdays. But, as Gore can surely attest, not everyone agrees when they are. Wednesday is one of those days. Some historians claim the Internet was born in 1961, when Dr. Leonard Kleinrock first published a paper on packet-switching technology at MIT. Others cite 1969, when the Department of Defense commissioned the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, known as ARPANET, to research a communication and command network that could withstand a nuclear attack. The 1970s boast a slew of what could be pegged essential Internet milestones, including the advent of e-mail and the splintering off of ARPANET from military experiment to public resource. But perhaps the most famous of the lot is the acclaimed Jan. 1, 1983, switch from Network Control Protocol to Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol. The transition from NCP to TCP/IP may not have been the sexiest moment in Internet history, but it was a key transition that paved the way for today's Internet. Call it one small switch for man, but one giant switch for mankind.com. Protocols are communication standards that allow computers to speak to one another over a network. Just as English speakers of different dialects and accents can often understand one another, protocols provide a lingua franca for all the different kinds of computers that hook into the Internet. Until that fateful moment 20 years ago, the fewer than 1,000 computers that connected to ARPANET used the primitive Network Control Protocol, which was useful for the small community despite some limitations. "NCP was sufficient to allow some Internetting to take place," said Kleinrock, now a computer science professor at UCLA. "It was not an elegant solution, but it was a sufficient solution. "They saw a more general approach was needed." Indeed, as ARPANET continued its exponential growth into the 1980s, the project's administrators realized they would need a new protocol to accommodate the much larger and more complicated network they foresaw as the Internet's future. Vint Cerf, who is credited with co-designing the TCP/IP protocol with Robert Kahn, said, "It was designed to be future-proof and to run on any communication system." The switch was "tremendously important," according to Rhonda Hauben, co-author of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. "It was critical because there was an understanding that the Internet would be made up of lots of different networks," Hauben said. "Somehow the Internet infrastructure had to be managed in a way to accommodate a variety of entities." But despite the need to take ARPANET to the next level, the decision to switch to TCP/IP was controversial. Like the current Windows versus Linux debate, there were factions of the community that wanted to adopt different standards, most notably the Open Systems Interconnection protocol. "A lot of people in the community -- even though we had given them six months' to a year's notice -- they didn't really take it seriously," Kahn said. "We had to jam it down their throats," Cerf said. It was worth the jamming, Hauben said. "They had the vision," she said. "They understood that this was going to be something substantial, and that's what they provided for in a very special way." © Copyright 2002, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #411 ******************************