Netizens-Digest        Saturday, April 12 2003        Volume 01 : Number 491

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: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
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.

>>>  >[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."

> >[RH]And further that when I post something it has seemed at times to
> >be misrepresented and the subject changed.

Yeah, well, _I_ could tell you some stor-- oh, never mind.  You wouldn't 
believe me.  <punchy bigger grin>

> 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.

> >[RH]I haven't said that this is the "single social purpose". You are
> >accurate. But the development of the Internet through an interactive
> >grassroots process is a model for a more participatory democracy.
> >
> >This is something that is relevant to the Netizens list, rather than
> >something that should be discouraged on it.
>
> [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 21:56:29 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship?

- --part1_14.ee7ec53.2bca1dcd_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.  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?

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.

Secondary service providers -->  These guys buy 'commoditized' bandwidth from 
the pre-trunk providers and add value.  Sell services directly to the 
consumer.

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. 


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.

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
> 
> 


- --part1_14.ee7ec53.2bca1dcd_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/11/03 12:07:06 AM Eastern Dayligh=
t Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&gt;&gt;GC&gt;For example they=20=
would seek to offer international VoIP over their<BR>
&gt;&gt;GC&gt;own dedicated network while a new competitor can dispense with=
 the<BR>
&gt;&gt;GC&gt;sunk cost of maintaining a physical network by simply renting=20=
access<BR>
&gt;&gt;GC&gt;to an Internet that others maintain. Since the competition has=
 only<BR>
&gt;&gt;GC&gt;to rent access to transport and run voice as an application on=
 that<BR>
&gt;&gt;GC&gt;transport, it can offer service that is unencumbered by legacy=
 costs.<BR>
&gt;&gt;GC&gt;The business model of control of both applications and custome=
rs<BR>
&gt;&gt;GC&gt;prevents productive investment<BR>
&gt;&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
L&gt;Never go against the flow.&nbsp; Regarding 'commoditization,' we should=
 <BR>
L&gt;just acquiesce to the will of the market.&nbsp; The government should<B=
R>
L&gt;<BR>
L&gt;(1) buy out all of the legacy infrastructure.<BR>
<BR>
H&gt;Bond issue? Special taxation? User fees? How does the budget get passed=
?<BR>
H&gt;<BR>
H&gt;I really _am_ open to ideas here.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
IDEAS, IDEAS, IDEAS:<BR>
<BR>
Bond issue -- of course.&nbsp; Details. Details. Details...&nbsp; Being way=20=
too young, I had never met Bob Moses, and I am definitely no Bob Moses, but=20=
if I had the information, I could figure it out.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
Can't do it without real facts.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
Instinctively, I'd prefer to decentralize issues and let the states handle i=
t as opposed to the Federal government.&nbsp; If we look at this issue from=20=
the perspective of public works, e.g., bridge and tunnel building, perhaps w=
e are looking at a public authority that would be created to administer the=20=
leases to intrastate PTP (pre-trunk provider) domains and issue the bonds.<B=
R>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">L&gt;<BR>
L&gt;(2) partition physical regions nationwide by a consumer density <BR>
L&gt;metric or otherwise 'viability,' whatever that is supposed to mean. <BR=
>
L&gt;Revenue is derived from 'last mile infrastructure maintenance fees' <BR=
>
L&gt;or from the provision of value-added services to consumers or the <BR>
L&gt;construction of 'whatever works' in each partitioned domain.&nbsp; To <=
BR>
L&gt;define these domains, you classify consumer types and come up with a <B=
R>
L&gt;mix of corporate and non-corporate subscribers that you know must be <B=
R>
L&gt;in a domain to engender a profit.<BR>
<BR>
H&gt;As you may already know, the classical model for regulated telephone <B=
R>
H&gt;companies was a guaranteed fixed return on investment. This <BR>
H&gt;encouraged capital investment, but tended to minimize the <BR>
H&gt;introduction and improvement of existing services because customer <BR>
H&gt;revenues really weren't incentives for the service providers.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I understand that growth is about the agglomeration of more and more consume=
rs to whom you are providing service -- not about getting an enhanced return=
 from value-adding services to a fixed audience.&nbsp; Is this what you mean=
 by the classical model?<BR>
<BR>
Not much would have changed in the new model in this respect.&nbsp; All that=
 I have attempted to do was to constructively reassign the debt that the leg=
acy companies owe lenders for 'grossly depreciated capital infrastructure' t=
o the government.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
INTRODUCTION OF NEW LANGUAGE OR BRIEF GLOSSARY:<BR>
<BR>
Pre-trunk providers --&gt;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; PTPs=20=
sell classes of 'bandwidth access contracts' on a commodities exchange to se=
condary service providers or SSPs.<BR>
<BR>
Secondary service providers --&gt;&nbsp; These guys buy 'commoditized' bandw=
idth from the pre-trunk providers and add value.&nbsp; Sell services directl=
y to the consumer.<BR>
<BR>
Commodities exchange --&gt;&nbsp; a new commodities exchange would be create=
d to enable a valuation of particularly bandwidth resources and to help both=
 PTPs and SSPs plan for future resource allocation with advantages like pric=
e discovery.&nbsp; With the information provided by the exchange, PTPs and S=
SPs use resources responsibly and ultimately lower the risk of the Governmen=
t bonds. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
ADVENT OF THE PRE-TRUNK PROVIDERS:<BR>
<BR>
The government designs into the bond, a rate schedule that is manageable by=20=
the minimum expected revenue generated by the leases that will be auctioned=20=
to PTPs.&nbsp; PTPs provide management and maintenance services for the loca=
l heterogeneous network, based on copper, fiber, and wireless under their ae=
gis, for the government.&nbsp; The network is not necessarily heterogeneous=20=
- -- parts can be 'tailor made' logically homogeneous.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
But logical aggregation is the function of the SSPs -- I introduce them late=
r.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, the PTPs buy lease agreements from the government.&nbsp; Government=20=
uses the revenue to pay down a certain amount of bond debt.&nbsp; Lease term=
s can last from 15 to 35 yrs.&nbsp; The amount by which the rate of repaymen=
t of PTP 'leasees' exceeds the compulsory schedule will commensurately enabl=
e an incentive plan whereby the lease term can be extended indefinitely.&nbs=
p; In other words, if the PTP leasee is a good risk, keep him.&nbsp; Lease e=
xtension provides incentive for the pre-trunk provider to continuously upgra=
de resources; it would make no sense for a PTP leasee to add value and then=20=
have to leave peremptorily without being able to capitalize on the investmen=
t.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
In terms of adding value to resources under their aegis, PTP leasees can des=
ign new classes** of bandwidth access that can be 'commoditized.'&nbsp; 'Com=
moditization' is discussed later.<BR>
<BR>
'PTP Holding Companies' would be encouraged that could consist of an unlimit=
ed number of PTPs for the purpose of exploiting economies of scale so as to=20=
facilitate repayment of bonds by the government to the bondholders.&nbsp; Bu=
t ownership limits would be placed on an 'intraregional basis' to protect th=
e consumer.<BR>
<BR>
Ultimately, consumers on these heterogeneous local networks pay on the basis=
 of levels or classes of guaranteed bandwidth.&nbsp; It is not about the par=
ticular services that are being used -- I understand that is not entirely tr=
ue, moreover this is a SSP issue.&nbsp; Nonetheless, what the PTP wants to d=
o is to generally encourage subscribers to enhance their consumption.&nbsp;=20=
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.=
<BR>
<BR>
Providers, both PTPs and SSPs, formally exploit commoditization, in the sens=
e of, i.e., an exchange, as a tool to assess and manage aggregate subscriber=
 bandwidth need.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
THE ADVENT OF THE BANDWIDTH COMMODITIES EXCHANGE:<BR>
<BR>
Consider that there will come the advent of SSPs that aggregate bandwidth fr=
om primary pre-trunk providers for value-added services.&nbsp; These guys di=
rectly provide your digital cable TV, video phone, and Internet access over=20=
the heterogeneous fiber and wireless networks that the PTPs manage.&nbsp; An=
d to be competitive they will make use of advanced traffic metrics to purcha=
se commoditized bandwidth.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
Highly specialized contracts for bandwidth will be purchased and sold on a c=
ommodities exchange.&nbsp; The buyers are the SSPs; the sellers are the prim=
ary PTPs.&nbsp; Such contracts, strategically purchased via the use of propr=
ietary traffic metric analysis more accurate than that ever provided by the=20=
likes of Jupiter Media Metrix and Nielsen, will allow secondary providers to=
 provide the minimum necessary bandwidth for their customers at any given mo=
ment in time.&nbsp; The guys with the best analysis toys will be able to pro=
vide cheaper value-added service to customers.<BR>
<BR>
To give needed chronicle context, I forgot to add 'way back' that bandwidth=20=
commoditization happens right after the government sells the pre-trunk lease=
s to the management PTPs.&nbsp; SSPs buy access contracts to types of bandwi=
dth, of which there are myriad recognized classes on the exchange.<BR>
<BR>
Let's discuss the true salience of commoditization of government owned - PTP=
 managed resources.&nbsp; Commoditization is how you enable a fair and real-=
time valuation of bandwidth resource.&nbsp; Resources are used more efficien=
tly.&nbsp; Companies and consumers can exploit where and when network activi=
ty is the least.&nbsp; There is no such thing as 'wasted bandwidth' because=20=
access contracts would have been purchased so as to avoid this possibility.<=
BR>
<BR>
Pre-trunk primary providers know when to shut down facilities or rather to e=
nable what I call a 'super quiescent' mode to manage costs such as, i.e., el=
ectricity and labor allocation.<BR>
<BR>
Yugimoto, I place 'Licentious maenad of Bacchus' in defense mode and two car=
ds face down, ending my turn.<BR>
<BR>
**NOTE: By classes, I meaningfully refer to types of capacity that are canon=
ically recognized on the bandwidth commodities exchange; it does not make se=
nse to list a product for trade that is not easily made liquid.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">L&gt;<BR>
L&gt;(3) auction leased access to these partitioned regions to new <BR>
L&gt;companies (probably 'the usual suspects' renamed) who will locally <BR>
L&gt;manage or maintain the local end of the new Stupid networks and the <BR=
>
L&gt;local gateways to the main trunks.&nbsp; These companies will control t=
he <BR>
L&gt;consumers -- not necessarily run any apps.<BR>
<BR>
H&gt;If you could get these auctions established, through the legislative <B=
R>
H&gt;equivalent of Armageddon, you might indeed be able to solve #1. I <BR>
H&gt;suspect some sort of financial instruments and short-term bridge <BR>
H&gt;financing bonds might be constructed that could do that, if the <BR>
H&gt;vested interests could agree. What the instruments might look like is <=
BR>
H&gt;outside the scope of my expertise.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
My answer to the plausibility issue is simply 'Robert Moses.'&nbsp; Robert M=
oses was the most prolific of public works builders in possibly the history=20=
of the modern world.&nbsp; 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=20=
drive on today were nonetheless built.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
Additionally, note that during this process, masses of people were displaced=
 and neighborhoods destroyed.<BR>
<BR>
Robert Moses proved that anything is possible.&nbsp; In terms of the financi=
ng, as you may also know, it was Robert Moses who was responsible for the im=
plementation of the Public Authority concept as we know it in the United Sta=
tes.<BR>
<BR>
It is noteworthy that Bob was not a particularly diplomatic guy and yet he w=
as effective.<BR>
<BR>
I know Bob was building roadways and bridges.&nbsp; We are building networks=
.&nbsp; I do not believe I am stretching the analogy.&nbsp; I do believe dis=
cussion of Bob Moses to be meaningfully germane.<BR>
<BR>
I could get the auctions established.<BR>
<BR>
Larry<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">L&gt;<BR>
L&gt;Problem solved.&nbsp; Now we can enjoy commoditized services.&nbsp; Nex=
t.<BR>
L&gt;<BR>
L&gt;Larry<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_14.ee7ec53.2bca1dcd_boundary--

------------------------------

End of Netizens-Digest V1 #491
******************************