Netizens-Digest Monday, April 14 2003 Volume 01 : Number 496 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy Re: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy Re: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship? [netz] Commons ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 00:31:41 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy > >But recently, in the name of greater focus or the attraction of unknown >new subscribers, for the first time that I am aware some posts and some >possible threads have been criticized for their public or social >intentions. The only threads I am aware of that are criticized for social intention are those that appear, perhaps incorrectly, to require belief in a particular representational model as a requirement for netizenship. The other area of criticism is meant to be constructive, and is a social norm for any large mailing list. Unless there are some guidelines for relevant posts -- and that certaintly doesn't mean there can't be multiple cooperative lists -- the volume of traffic becomes unmanageable. "Ignoring posts" works only up to a certain volume. >Also for the first time there have been threats of leaving the >list. In the past those satisfied with the public purpose advocacy have >stayed on the list. Those who were dissatisfied or opposed have left. >People have come and gone at will. Also, the right to ignore a post is >inalienable. Now something has changed. The essence of many of the posts has >lost connection with the vision of a public commons, protected by >governments and perhaps international treaties. And when the vision is >raised, it is answered with the questions that would throw us back to only >considering commercialization and privatization. I certainly don't consider commercialization the only model. Indeed, I think there has been a great deal of potential funding inappropriately squandered in the area of frequency space and rights-of-way. I confess, however, that I am utterly confused what you mean by "privatization," as if it were a future choice, when the vast majority of the Internet operates over privately owned facilities. > >For example, I wrote, > >>>When I said I wanted to contribute to the goal of free or low cost >>>universal access, I included "free or low cost" because if you consider >>>the state of poverty that is prevalent in the world it is easy to see >>>that any cost will be a barrier to many people everywhere. Poor people >>>on every continent will only have access when access is a right >>>guaranteed by their governments perhaps joining in a world treaty. > >Howard replied: > >>Again and again, I ask the question, where does the money come from >>to pay for the physical infrastructure and skilled people to allow >>these rights to be exercised? > >That question has been answered over and over again by pointing out that >the net creates and enhances social wealth. I don't disagree that there is wealth creation. I ask how that future wealth can be drawn upon to pay immediate bills. > >The question who pays for it is really the question who will make money >profit from it. I think the realities are that to do something in the near term, it must either be funded by governments or private enterprise, or some combination of the two. Private enterprise, in the current economic climate, doesn't look much beyond the next quarter. There certainly are precedents, such as the Apollo Project, for making a national commitment to fund something without immediate payback. It might be perfectly reasonable for a sitting President to propose such an agenda, at least for the US. If that's a good idea, then I would like to work toward making it happen. Alternatively, there might be tax incentives, etc., that incentivize industry to make the investment. Whichever approach is taken, I'd like to see concrete proposals about how it can be facilitated. > Please do not assume I am red baiting when I refer to Marxist economics -- I'm using it as one of various economic philosophies. If you had said "Marxist," I wouldn't have regarded that as a negative answer. While I generally support market solutions, I wouldn't reject out of hand a modernized Marxist model based on wealth creation. > > >Howard asks: > >>How do you avoid the tragedy of the commons? > >But isn't that questioning the whole vision of the net as a vast public >electronic commons. Absolutely not, if one looks at the actual behavior of a large fraction of the "hacker community," where the less responsible members gain peer group status by acquiring resources -- be they website penetrations, stolen credit card numbers, etc. > >The answer is social responsibility for the commons, which happens with >all actually functioning commons. I'm not a professional economist, but it's my understanding that the entire concept of the tragedy of the commons came from observed behavior of irresponsible use, originally in the area of overgrazing common pastures. >Common irrigation ditches are >defended by their users from those who might try to divert water for >their own greater advantage. Let governments provide full >and equal access to the net and the netizens will protect the commons. Are you saying the government or the netizens will provide the protection? If the latter, what is their enforcement mechanism? How do netizens, for example, stop a major virus spread (e.g., Klez) or denial of service attack aimed at bandwidth (e.g., SYN flooding)? Jay, I would be delighted to hear actual proposals on how this could happen. But staying at the level of social goals doesn't seem to produce implementable proposals. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:18:29 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy Quoting Jay Hauben : > In the seven years of its existence there have been almost 500 digests or > more than 10,000,000 bytes of postings most pursuing that goal. Among the > posts have been comments, pointers, articles and occasionally discussions > and debates. A public Internet for scientific, educational and personal, > non-commercial purposes was always championed. The occasional voices > favoring commercialization over public purposes have had their say. But > never until now sought to change the netizens list. Yeesh. If you can show me where anyone has actually "favor[ed] commercialization over public purposes," I might have some clue what this means. All I'm really getting from it is some sense that certain unnamed of us are foxes in the henhouse, snakes in the garden, wolves in sheep's clothing. We (they?) may say that we (they?) care about the Net as a social commons, but somehow you just know that we (they?) don't really mean it. And the crowning offense, it seems, is that we (they?) keep threatening to leave! My sense is that Howard, in particular, is challenging your assumptions about what is and what isn't essential to the Netizens creed. This is what democracy looks like. I work with Marxists, socialists, anarchists, libertarians, capitalists, muddled moderates, all sorts of people (no McCarthyites, however). It's fun. Usually. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:37:24 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy Howard, > I'm not a professional economist, but it's my understanding that the > entire concept of the tragedy of the commons came from observed > behavior of irresponsible use, originally in the area of overgrazing > common pastures. Garrett Hardin's essay about the tragedy of the commons was cast as a "parable" about such a pasture. He rather gave the impression that every commons must end in tragedy, which palpably isn't the case. On the other hand, Jay's formulation that "social responsibility for the commons... happens with all actually functioning commons" seems either optimistic or tautological -- especially in a setting where just a few reckless individuals can do great damage. Not to say that commons can't function, just that indeed we need to think hard about how they function. If you're curious, a good shortish essay on "tragedy of the commons" and common pool resources from the Encyclopedia of Environmental Science is at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdeyoung/tragedy.html Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:18:39 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Time Perspectives on Netizenship? - --part1_f8.2b63c6f6.2bcc0f2f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/03 1:22:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > H>Financial Issues > H>---------------- > H> In bond issues and the like, how does one reflect the value of > H>owned ILEC facilities? Is some of this discounted because it was > H>built and depreciated under a regulated monopoly model? To what > H>extent, if any, should the value of obsolescent but omnipresent > H>copper wire plant be written down as an obsolescent technology? Howard, this is very exciting! I have some ideas. I need a couple of days to work out the concept clearly. For the following, I am going to have to do some research. > H> What is the proper model for recovering the value of radio > H>frequency spectrum space? Thanks for kicking me in the shin. > > H>For the more recent services, there have > H>been auctions, but the reality is that commercial radio and TV have > H>not paid for their spectrum. Of course, broadcasters will fight to > H>the death to preserve that "asset." > H> What incentives exist, in each category, for modernization that > H>reduces the cost of access and use (i.e., reducing the digital > H>divide)? > H> What is the proper role of local governments in, perhaps, > H>installing and leasing fiber, much as they install (and usually > H>operate, perhaps in a local consortium) water-sewer, or install and > H>lease underground duct space? H> > H> What concessions are appropriate for localities to demand of > H>lessees or those carriers to whom they have granted a technical > H>monopoly/franchise? Cable TV carriers tend to resist "any willing > H>ISP" having access to their facilities, on the grounds that would cut > H>sufficiently into their profit margins to make the original > H>investment a bad business decision. > H> > H> Do note that I consider many of these industry decisions completely > H>self-serving, but that they are politically entrenched and will be > H>hard to change. I generally agree that this particular characterization of the politics is not subject to debate. Larry > > > At 3:09 AM -0400 4/13/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 4/12/03 10:24:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > > > >>L>Pre-trunk providers --> Able heterogeneous (copper, fiber, > >>L>wireless, etc.) network caretakers at the local 'pre-trunk' end, > >>L>responsibly trusted and exploited by the government -- bondholders > >>L>have to be paid. PTPs sell classes of 'bandwidth access contracts' > >>L>on a commodities exchange to secondary service providers or SSPs. > >> > >>H>Are these the providers that connect to the end consumer, or perhaps > >>H>to multi-tenant buildings, and bring the individual links to a point > >>H>of broadband aggregation? One such animal would be the Incumbent > >>H>Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) that owns the copper telephone plant > >>H>that goes to individual users. Cable TV providers also own > >>H>facilities. > >> > > > > > >Yes, this is the property of the PTP. > > > >Larry > > - --part1_f8.2b63c6f6.2bcc0f2f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/13/03 1:22:59 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

H>Financial Issues
H>----------------
H>  In bond issues and the like, how does one reflect the value of <= BR> H>owned ILEC facilities? Is some of this discounted because it was
H>built and depreciated under a regulated monopoly model?  To what <= BR> H>extent, if any, should the value of obsolescent but omnipresent
H>copper wire plant be written down as an obsolescent technology?

Howard, this is very excitin= g!  I have some ideas.  I need a couple of days to work out the co= ncept clearly.  For the following, I am going to have to do some resear= ch.

H>  What is the proper=20= model for recovering the value of radio
H>frequency spectrum space?


Thanks for kicking me in the= shin. 

H>For the more recent services, there have
H>been auctions, but the rea= lity is that commercial radio and TV have
H>not paid for their spectrum. Of course, broadcasters will fight to
H>the death to preserve that "asset."
H>  What incentives exist, in each category, for modernization that=20=
H>reduces the cost of access and use (i.e., reducing the digital
H>divide)?
H>  What is the proper role of local governments in, perhaps,
H>installing and leasing fiber, much as they install (and usually
H>operate, perhaps in a local consortium) water-sewer, or install and H>lease underground duct space?

H>
H>  What concessions ar= e appropriate for localities to demand of
H>lessees or those carriers to whom they have granted a technical
H>monopoly/franchise?  Cable TV carriers tend to resist "any willing=
H>ISP" having access to their facilities, on the grounds that would cut <= BR> H>sufficiently into their profit margins to make the original
H>investment a bad business decision.
H>
H>  Do note that I cons= ider many of these industry decisions completely
H>self-serving, but that they are politically entrenched and will be
H>hard to change.


I generally agree that this=20= particular characterization of the politics is not subject to debate.=

Larry



At 3:09 AM -0400 4/13/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/12/03 10:24:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>>L>Pre-trunk providers -->  Able heterogeneous (copper, fi= ber,
>>L>wireless, etc.) network caretakers at the local 'pre-trunk' end= ,
>>L>responsibly trusted and exploited by the government -- bondhold= ers
>>L>have to be paid.  PTPs sell classes of 'bandwidth access c= ontracts'
>>L>on a commodities exchange to secondary service providers or SSP= s.
>>
>>H>Are these the providers that connect to the end consumer, or pe= rhaps
>>H>to multi-tenant buildings, and bring the individual links to a=20= point
>>H>of broadband aggregation?  One such animal would be the In= cumbent
>>H>Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) that owns the copper telephone pl= ant
>>H>that goes to individual users.  Cable TV providers also ow= n
>>H>facilities.
>>
>
>
>Yes, this is the property of the PTP.
>
>Larry



 - --part1_f8.2b63c6f6.2bcc0f2f_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:47:19 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Commons >Mark wrote, >Garrett Hardin's essay about the tragedy of the commons was cast as >a "parable" >about such a pasture. He rather gave the impression that every commons must >end in tragedy, which palpably isn't the case. I agree completely, and didn't want to suggest that the commons model can't work. As you suggest, all participants have to be responsible. Whether or not the spammer is a netizen, the spammer still operates in the same network commons. Spammers and others, however, demonstrably have little sense of social cooperation. I remember a time when I was in the mainframe systems programming group at a government data center. We had a fairly complex chargeback algorithm for computer use. One economist user just LOVED to find loopholes in the algorithm, to a point where eventually told him we would guarantee him the best rates as long as he came to us first and told us what loophole he had discovered. While some of his loopholes did minimize the price he paid, they also presented unusual costs of delivering service. Sometimes, as is quite common in areas like Internet security, his approach was less "technical" than what security specialists call "social engineering" -- exploiting the mindsets of the computer user. For example, we had three priorities for batch jobs, each priority having a set of price categories based on resource use. This economist noted that our second-shift operator emotionally couldn't tolerate what the operator considered excessively long queues. The economist then wrote a program that generated 49 consecutive requests to run his job, each containing an error that would cause them to be discarded instantly, followed by the real job submission. The operator would see 50 jobs suddenly added to the queue, not let the automated system deal with prioritization, but would start exception-case processing for the queue. Of course, 49 jobs would flush and our economist would get his low-priority "standby" job run in "first class." Behavior of this type definitely extends to the very diverse hacker community. Certain members are not out to disrupt the commons, but it's an intellectual challenge to see if they can exploit the system. Other members, for business, political, or emotional reasons, are interested in disruption for the sake of disruption. >On the other hand, Jay's >formulation that "social responsibility for the commons... happens with all >actually functioning commons" seems either optimistic or tautological -- >especially in a setting where just a few reckless individuals can do great >damage. Not to say that commons can't function, just that indeed we need to >think hard about how they function. With the traditional grazing commons, the population could see who was overgrazing and at least try to apply peer pressure. In the Internet, a hacker may be anonymous, behind multiple concealing links, and is much harder to confront with pressure. Remember also that some of such users are literally hormone-crazed and bored adolescents, a group not noted for its sense of social responsibility. Of course, spammers have even less sense of social responsibility. :-) This is why I raise the issue of spammers -- they represent a group, going back to Cantor & Siegel, who demonstrably do not care about broader social goals but their own agenda. A viable net needs to be able to control their damage. ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #496 ******************************