Netizens-Digest Monday, April 14 2003 Volume 01 : Number 497 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [n... [netz] Service integration & privatization [netz] Possible opportunity for local noncommercial access [netz] Data on violators of the commons Re: [netz] Data on violators of the commons [netz] Bad Things to Avoid, whether done "commercially" or not Re: [netz] Bad Things to Avoid, whether done "commercially" or not Re: [netz] Bad Things to Avoid, whether done "commercially" or not ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:04:01 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [n... - --part1_18a.18766e9b.2bcc19d1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/03 6:32:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > And the issue of service integration (television, telephony, > commercial data, public data) is very fundamental to low cost access > being possible. > Can't you see everyone that we are talking about the same thing? C'mon, or as Michael Jackson might creatively articulate -- "Shia maun." We're getting lost in the details. We all want universal access to communication. What difference does it make how it is paid for, but that it is somehow _responsibly_ paid for? I like that "_" intonation modifier! Larry - --part1_18a.18766e9b.2bcc19d1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/12/03 6:32:57 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

And the issue of service integr= ation (television, telephony,
commercial data, public data) is very fundamental to low cost access
being possible.


Can't you see everyone that we are talking about the same thing?  C'mon= , or as Michael Jackson might creatively articulate -- "Shia maun."  We= 're getting lost in the details.

We all want universal access to communication.  What difference does it= make how it is paid for, but that it is somehow _responsibly_ paid for?&nbs= p; I like that "_" intonation modifier!

Larry - --part1_18a.18766e9b.2bcc19d1_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:40:20 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Service integration & privatization At 10:04 AM -0400 4/14/03, AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 4/12/03 6:32:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > >>And the issue of service integration (television, telephony, >>commercial data, public data) is very fundamental to low cost access >>being possible. >> > > >Can't you see everyone that we are talking about the same thing? >C'mon, or as Michael Jackson might creatively articulate -- "Shia >maun." We're getting lost in the details. I'm in absolute agreement. My concern is that if there is a prerequisite assumption that network services be "noncommercial" and not "privatized", some viable alternatives to universal access may be getting missed. Ronda and Jay, perhaps your use of "privatization" refers less to the actual ownership and economic model for the facilities, and more to the cost of access to put content on those facilities? I'm still struggling to understand your concern. > >We all want universal access to communication. What difference does >it make how it is paid for, but that it is somehow _responsibly_ >paid for? I like that "_" intonation modifier! And again I agree. Some communications companies, especially the broadcasters, have had a free ride because they obtained frequency spectrum at zero or minimum cost. Of course it would hurt their business models if they had to start paying for it, and they are going to object strenuously. I don't want to put them out of business. It may be, however, that we have opportunities to reexamine the use of spectrum as cable/fiber delivery becomes more pervasive. The usual argument about access to cable is that the cable operator wants to be the exclusive ISP, while competitive ISPs point out the cable operator usually is franchised by a locality to have a technical monopoly on a class of broadband facilities. In my local area, there already have been battles between information providers and cable operators, given the model that it is the cable operator that profits from being permitted to carry the information stream (and its advertising). The situation became quite acute in one local county, where the Fox Network was the only broadcaster of the local professional football games. Fox, in turn, demanded of Media General (the cable operator) that the price of carrying the general television channel with the games was also to carry a number of additional Fox information channels. I don't remember if some of these additional channels had additional charges/revenue for Fox. Media General's concern was that its cable system supports a finite number of channels, and the more channels that are committed, the less economic flexibility that Media General has. Neither party was particularly concerned with a "public interest," but the balance of commercial opportunities. Was this something in which regulators should have become involved? I don't know, and I'm always concerned when government organizations start saying what content must be carried -- or not be carried. The war was won in the media. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:52:08 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Possible opportunity for local noncommercial access Apropos of my earlier comments about the economics of radio frequency spectrum, the FCC is beginning an inquiry about allowing, in a technically responsible manner, other kinds of service to share some of the television bandwidth (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-229400A1.doc) The kind of technology proposed may be a way of introducing wireless access (i.e., avoiding the large capital cost of cabling) to individual users in local (i.e., short-range) environments. While this kind of access probably can't support full video bandwidth, it certainly should be able to help with access to Web pages that use sane amounts of graphics, with text applications such as mailing lists and newsgroups, and with telephony. It will be interesting to see how the broadcast industry reacts to what they might perceive as a camel putting its nose into the tent, or if they choose to consider the spectrum space as a commons. This might very well be grist for specific proposals involving lowering access costs. It doesn't address the long-haul communications costs, but there won't be any one miracle that solves everything. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:16:40 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Data on violators of the commons Just out is the US government 2002 Internet Fraud Report at http://www1.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/2002_IFCCReport.pdf I find it interesting to see what fraudulent activities might still exist in a "noncommercial" internet. In some of the threads that have gone on here, I've wondered if there is an assumption that the noncommercial internet has a strict AUP as did the NSFNET. If so, how deeply does one look into content to find potential commercial use? Should email be scanned for any kind of sale offer? We might very well agree that it would be to the social good for two freenets to exchange email and have one sell an unneeded server to the other, at below-market prices. But email can also contain targeted frauds, and it also can carry spam. Is the convenience of business-to-consumer commerce a social good? I tend to think so. Personal and current example: I have sleep apnea and use a nighttime breathing machine. There are a wide variety of face masks for such equipment, and I've been getting very unsatisfactory service from the single type available from the local health care equipment vendor. I've found a site that offers many brands, and have sent a message to their customer support team, which they encourage people to do, to get recommendations about the best product for my needs. So by using the Internet for a commercial transaction, I have the opportunity to get a better product, at what probably is a lower cost. Not sure if I've mentioned it, but I'm a serious cook. I can't begin to describe how much easier Internet shopping is for some of the more obscure spices and ingredients. I still patronize my local ethnic groceries for fresh foods and for things they do carry, but it turns out there is no good Italian grocery closer to me than Baltimore. So, I mail-order my polenta and semolina. Is that bad commercial use? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:24:33 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] Data on violators of the commons Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > I find it interesting to see what fraudulent activities might still > exist in a "noncommercial" internet. Oh, certainly. But I keep hoping that the next e-mail I get from a Nigerian multi-zillionaire who is trying to launder his or her money will be the real deal. > Is the convenience of business-to-consumer commerce a social good? I > tend to think so.[...] > So, I mail-order my polenta and semolina. Is that bad commercial use? I think my answers are "not exactly" and "no," respectively. Or maybe my first answer is indeterminate. What do you mean by "social good," exactly? I'm perfectly content and even happy that you can mail-order your polenta via the Internet (although some of my sustainable agriculture friends would cavil). If "social good" implies "something that governments should subsidize," then I would certainly wonder why we need to pay for people to sell us stuff. But if your general point is that not everything commercial is bad, I'm down with that. Michael Hauben's essay on the Net and the Netizens actually has a section on how the Net helps employers connect with job seekers, and helps people do their work -- and a couple of testimonials about people who have bought or sold stuff through ads on the Net. I don't see any about how wonderful it is that we can buy from 'big companies' on the Net, but I don't take that as an anti-corporate bias. I do see a lot of concern that corporate control of the Net could dampen its social benefits. If that concern makes sense to you, can you think of some language to express it without the problematic sweep of "privatization" and "commercialization"? I certainly think the concern about corporate control is legitimate. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:27:13 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Bad Things to Avoid, whether done "commercially" or not At 2:24 PM -0400 4/14/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote: >Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > >> I find it interesting to see what fraudulent activities might still >> exist in a "noncommercial" internet. > >Oh, certainly. But I keep hoping that the next e-mail I get from a Nigerian >multi-zillionaire who is trying to launder his or her money will be the real >deal. > >> Is the convenience of business-to-consumer commerce a social good? I >> tend to think so.[...] >> So, I mail-order my polenta and semolina. Is that bad commercial use? > >I think my answers are "not exactly" and "no," respectively. Or >maybe my first >answer is indeterminate. What do you mean by "social good," exactly? To be honest, anything that doesn't push buttons of "big corporation badness" or "totalitarian government." >I'm >perfectly content and even happy that you can mail-order your polenta via the >Internet (although some of my sustainable agriculture friends would cavil). Actually, it might be worth asking the sustainable agriculture people: what if consumers can buy directly from food producers, cutting out a large part of the intermediate distribution overhead that goes to Big Bad Corporations. *sigh* not all corporations are big. A Subchapter S corporation still can have an Internet presence, and is simply out to sell its polenta, not to put massive barriers to entry to the net, and restrict freedom of information exchange. > If >"social good" implies "something that governments should subsidize," then I >would certainly wonder why we need to pay for people to sell us stuff. > >But if your general point is that not everything commercial is bad, I'm down >with that. Down as in "approve"? >Michael Hauben's essay on the Net and the Netizens actually has a >section on how the Net helps employers connect with job seekers, and helps >people do their work -- and a couple of testimonials about people who have >bought or sold stuff through ads on the Net. I don't see any about how >wonderful it is that we can buy from 'big companies' on the Net, but I don't >take that as an anti-corporate bias. I do see a lot of concern that corporate >control of the Net could dampen its social benefits. > >If that concern makes sense to you, can you think of some language >to express it >without the problematic sweep of "privatization" and "commercialization"? I >certainly think the concern about corporate control is legitimate. Let me try to identify some things that we want to avoid, bearing in mind that some of the avoidances are not unrestricted due to legal issues beyond the scope of the network/content/information operator. Here's a start: 1. price gouging on "basic" access that perpetuates a digital divide. 1.1 "Basic" access needs some definition. A bus or subway is "basic" transportation if it provides reasonable service between destinations; a car may be "basic" if there are no other alternatives. A Mercedes, however, is not a "basic" car. Connectivity to 911 or equivalent emergency service is a good floor on basic access. 1.2 If the service provider can demonstrate that "basic" service cannot be provided affordably to a certain part of the population, then mechanisms are needed to subsidize that access. If access is considered good for the society as a whole, I would personally prefer that the subsidies come from general tax revenues than being hidden as user fees or surcharges 2. restrictions on information offered by private individuals, unless that information violates law. Slander/libel, spamming and other AUP violations, content such as child pornography, etc., may be subject to such restrictions. 2.1 The provider is entitled to characterize statistical user patterns, and distinguish the traffic volume associated with a public web site, for example, from a web/mail user. The provider may charge additional fees for the resources consumed by a public facility. 3. preventing "any willing provider" from having access to facilities granted via monopoly or franchise. The willing provider, however, has to pay fair market value for the commercial service. 4. providing safe havens or anonymity to malicious hackers, spammers, etc. 5. not being able to quarantine, for demonstrable technical reasons, an entity connected to the network that generates, even through error, control information or floods of user data that jeopardizes network integrity, ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:34:41 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] Bad Things to Avoid, whether done "commercially" or not Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > *sigh* not all corporations are big. A Subchapter S corporation > still can have an Internet presence, and is simply out to sell its > polenta, not to put massive barriers to entry to the net, and > restrict freedom of information exchange. OK, the above seems like a good summary of a key theme. Perhaps I'll send my deep thoughts on polenta as sustainable agriculture separately.... > >But if your general point is that not everything commercial is bad, I'm > >down with that. > > Down as in "approve"? Yeah. Sorry, still pretty punchy over here. > Let me try to identify some things that we want to avoid, bearing in > mind that some of the avoidances are not unrestricted due to legal > issues beyond the scope of the network/content/information operator. > Here's a start: > > 1. price gouging on "basic" access that perpetuates a digital divide. > > 1.1 "Basic" access needs some definition. A bus or subway is "basic" > transportation if it provides reasonable service between > destinations; > a car may be "basic" if there are no other alternatives. A > Mercedes, > however, is not a "basic" car. > > Connectivity to 911 or equivalent emergency service is a good floor > on > basic access. Huh? does this mean that I have adequate Net connectivity if I can use my computer to call the cops? Yeah, I'm afraid I really am that confused. > > 1.2 If the service provider can demonstrate that "basic" service cannot > be provided affordably to a certain part of the population, then > mechanisms are needed to subsidize that access. If access is > considered > good for the society as a whole, I would personally prefer that the > subsidies come from general tax revenues than being hidden as user > fees or surcharges OK. > 2. restrictions on information offered by private individuals, unless that > information violates law. Slander/libel, spamming and other AUP > violations, content such as child pornography, etc., may be subject > to such restrictions. > > 2.1 The provider is entitled to characterize statistical user patterns, > and distinguish the traffic volume associated with a public web > site, > for example, from a web/mail user. The provider may charge > additional > fees for the resources consumed by a public facility. I'm a bit lost here. Your point is, roughly, that high-bandwidth users can be charged more and this shouldn't count as a restriction on information? > 3. preventing "any willing provider" from having access to facilities > granted via monopoly or franchise. The willing provider, however, has > to pay fair market value for the commercial service. > > 4. providing safe havens or anonymity to malicious hackers, spammers, etc. > > 5. not being able to quarantine, for demonstrable technical reasons, > an entity connected to the network that generates, even through error, > control information or floods of user data that jeopardizes network > integrity, These seem reasonable. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:57:42 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Bad Things to Avoid, whether done "commercially" or not >Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > >> *sigh* not all corporations are big. A Subchapter S corporation >> still can have an Internet presence, and is simply out to sell its >> polenta, not to put massive barriers to entry to the net, and >> restrict freedom of information exchange. > >OK, the above seems like a good summary of a key theme. Perhaps I'll send my >deep thoughts on polenta as sustainable agriculture separately.... Seriously, do consider how business-to-consumer sales can empower the small business. > >> >But if your general point is that not everything commercial is bad, I'm >> >down with that. >> >> Down as in "approve"? > >Yeah. Sorry, still pretty punchy over here. > >> Let me try to identify some things that we want to avoid, bearing in >> mind that some of the avoidances are not unrestricted due to legal >> issues beyond the scope of the network/content/information operator. >> Here's a start: >> > > 1. price gouging on "basic" access that perpetuates a digital divide. [snip] > > Connectivity to 911 or equivalent emergency service is a good floor >> on >> basic access. > >Huh? does this mean that I have adequate Net connectivity if I can use my >computer to call the cops? Yeah, I'm afraid I really am that confused. Sorry. I was thinking of what might or might not be an analogy, depending on the level of integration between data and telephony. Calling the cops is a basic _telephony_ function. Incidentally, I am very aware of the limits of centralizing telephony resources in a larger organization, whether the telephones go through a conventional PBX or through a single IP telephony call processor. When I'm giving seminars on telephony design, I will often hear a student team presentation, bring out a birthday candle, light it, place it on their PBX equivalent, and then say "OK. The PBX or IPT call processor is now on fire." Tell me how you call the fire department. At the residential level, however, integrating voice, video, and telephony to reduce costs makes sense. Assuming a reliable central IP box (no, I don't mean a Windows PC but something more like a cable TV set-top box), a disaster that knocks out one service is probably going to knock everything out. If you want diversity, have a cell phone as wellk. > > >> 2. restrictions on information offered by private individuals, unless that >> information violates law. Slander/libel, spamming and other AUP >> violations, content such as child pornography, etc., may be subject >> to such restrictions. >> >> 2.1 The provider is entitled to characterize statistical user patterns, >> and distinguish the traffic volume associated with a public web >> site, >> for example, from a web/mail user. The provider may charge >> additional >> fees for the resources consumed by a public facility. > >I'm a bit lost here. Your point is, roughly, that high-bandwidth users can be >charged more and this shouldn't count as a restriction on information? Right. Otherwise, the cost per user becomes that of the most resource-intensive user. To meet that, you put a _lot_ of resources into the commons that may be of benefit only to a few. Incidentally, one of the fundamental design assumptions of TCP proper is that it will gradually try to acquire more and more bandwidth until it receives negative feedback; the first-in host has an advantage. UDP is even worse, as it has no means of receiving negative feedback, so its tendency is to blast at maximum bandwidth from the start. There are numerous congestion control paradigms that specifically keep a single host from monopolizing bandwidth. ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #497 ******************************