Netizens-Digest Monday, April 21 2003 Volume 01 : Number 508 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] privatization? Re: [netz] privatization? Re: [netz] privatization? Re: [netz] privatization? Re: [netz] privatization? Re: [netz] privatization? Re: [netz] privatization? [netz] Test #6 [netz] Communications Regulation - post to a different group [netz] Responsible information providers [netz] Followup on "communications regulation" [netz] Cross-subsidization today ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:06:21 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? Hello Howard: I fully realize that, but I bet if you could find a spot where medicine was socialized or low cost, with good medical attention, if such a place did exist here, you would try it, rather than paying a lot of money otherwise. In most cases it would be irrelevant since we have medical insurance (I hope you found a good substitute for your lost medical benefit). Private companies and corporations have been responsible for the progress we enjoy, but so are we, the public who buy their products and services, however sometimes I defer from their practices and manuevers. I am not ready to condemn everything they've done as bad or evil, but as I mentioned to you recently, there's no harm in wanting to keep something as public domain and save a buck or avoid another bill and every time I look at that cable tv bill, I cling more to the non privatization of the internet, what's left of it, etc. Luis "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >Hello Larry: I think this is a democratic forum. Pro- and > >anti-capitalistic speech I think is welcome here I think as long as > >it is ethical and respectful. For instance I can post that I want to > >keep the internet or make the internet a collective rather than a > >subsidiary for a corporation or corporations. > > Let me try. > > Luis, the physical facilities of the Internet (I am avoiding the word > "infrastructure") cost a lot of money to install and operate. You may > or may not know of the personally charming bank robber of the 1920's, > Willie Sutton. Someone asked him (he actually gave press > conferences) "Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks?" > > In an infinitely patient tone, he answered > "Because...that's...where...the...money...is." > > And corporations and large government bodies have money. If by giving > them a (possibly regulated) return on investment, I can get medical > services and Internet connectivity into rural Tennessee, I'll do that > -- and am doing that right now. I can't stop and hunt for a > not-yet-existing collective that can buy the millions of dollars > worth of equipment, and hire the skilled people to do that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:42:51 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? Hello Mark: Good point! Capitalism is a reality and I just said to Howard that I am not ready to condemn everything companies and corporations do as evil. In fact I believe private enterprise has been responsible for the progress we enjoy in our nation and others, but has been good legislation and so are we, you, Jay, Ronda, Howard, Larry, Dan and myself,who buy their products and their services. I don't think Jay would advocate the discarding or destruction of corporation created software. Jay would criticize if lets say it was found that a software corp.top management had something to do with union busting,or cheating one or many employees out of their pension, or paying off someone in South America to overthrow a government there or to deplete the amazonian rain forest. That's what I think Jay would condemn. Ronda I believe has also spoken well of AT&T and you're talking about a big part of old Ma'Bell there. So I think there is flexibility on their part, but there are also valid concerns in what they say. Luis Mark Lindeman wrote: > Luis, > > >Hello Mark: You have a point, however we are divided into two philosophies, > >here on this list. One that sponsors corporate or capitalist thinking and > >the other one who sponsors public domain, collectives, communes, etc. > > > Actually, I'm not at all sure what philosophies most of the folks on the > list espouse, but there certainly are some differences, yes. > > Of course Jay can post whatever he wants. If we want to understand each > other, much less to work together, we would be well-served to search > together for language that makes sense across whatever philosophical > differences we may have. > > However anti-capitalist Jay may or may not be, he has not yet proposed > to smash all the capitalist hardware! So at least to some extent we all > seem to be willing to look for ways forward within a partially > capitalist world. > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:35:54 +0000 (GMT) From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > And corporations and large government bodies have money. If by giving > them a (possibly regulated) return on investment, I can get medical > services and Internet connectivity into rural Tennessee, I'll do that > -- and am doing that right now. I can't stop and hunt for a > not-yet-existing collective that can buy the millions of dollars > worth of equipment, and hire the skilled people to do that. From a personal standpoint, I would be happy with private corporations owning and operating the communications (routers, switches, fiber, etc.) and the administrative (IP addresses, DNS mappings and registries) infrastructures if there was a way for them to be regulated in the "public interest" (an arguably debatable topic). Perhaps forums like Netizens could articulate what that "public interest" might be, and provide it (in an organized method) as input to policy formation. - --gregbo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:13:36 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? Hello Greg: I'm glad to see a new posting from you on the list. Corporation administration and or ownership is attractive and when they want to they can produce excellent services. However they haven't been doing to well lately. Endless mergers, which seem to lead nowhere but to massive layoffs, people losing their pensions and their jobs,employee giveaways, degrading benefits, unemployement while in many cases they want us, the public to pay more for the same or even decreased services. I am sure there are success stories to tell in the corporate world, but mistrust against them is also legitimate. Luis Greg Skinner wrote: > Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > And corporations and large government bodies have money. If by giving > > them a (possibly regulated) return on investment, I can get medical > > services and Internet connectivity into rural Tennessee, I'll do that > > -- and am doing that right now. I can't stop and hunt for a > > not-yet-existing collective that can buy the millions of dollars > > worth of equipment, and hire the skilled people to do that. > > From a personal standpoint, I would be happy with private > corporations owning and operating the communications (routers, > switches, fiber, etc.) and the administrative (IP addresses, DNS > mappings and registries) infrastructures if there was a way for them > to be regulated in the "public interest" (an arguably debatable > topic). Perhaps forums like Netizens could articulate what that > "public interest" might be, and provide it (in an organized method) as > input to policy formation. > > --gregbo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:18:31 -0400 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? Greg Skinner wrote: >Perhaps forums like Netizens could articulate what that >"public interest" might be, and provide it (in an organized method) as >input to policy formation. > Yes. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:22:14 +0000 (GMT) From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? Luis De Quesada wrote: > Hello Greg: I'm glad to see a new posting from you on the list. Thanks > Corporation administration and or ownership is attractive and when > they want to they can produce excellent services. However they > haven't been doing to well lately. Endless mergers, which seem to > lead nowhere but to massive layoffs, people losing their pensions > and their jobs,employee giveaways, degrading benefits, > unemployement while in many cases they want us, the public to pay > more for the same or even decreased services. I am sure there are > success stories to tell in the corporate world, but mistrust against > them is also legitimate. I view a lot of these problems as the result of poor or no regulation. - --gregbo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:45:14 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] privatization? Hello Greg: I agree with you, but also poor and greedy management, which by the way is not limited to private enterprise its everywhere. Luis Greg Skinner wrote: > Luis De Quesada wrote: > > > Hello Greg: I'm glad to see a new posting from you on the list. > > Thanks > > > Corporation administration and or ownership is attractive and when > > they want to they can produce excellent services. However they > > haven't been doing to well lately. Endless mergers, which seem to > > lead nowhere but to massive layoffs, people losing their pensions > > and their jobs,employee giveaways, degrading benefits, > > unemployement while in many cases they want us, the public to pay > > more for the same or even decreased services. I am sure there are > > success stories to tell in the corporate world, but mistrust against > > them is also legitimate. > > I view a lot of these problems as the result of poor or no regulation. > > --gregbo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:00:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] Test #6 Hi, Majordomo, the list engine for netizens list was down since Saturday morning. If you get this message that means majordomo is back up. You can resubmit posts made over the weekend if you want. Take care. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:26:53 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Communications Regulation - post to a different group [I seem to be having some problem posting, according to Jay. Maybe this will get through] - ---------------- posted to the alt.books.tom-clancy newsgroup, with a long snippage of other newsgroups. - ---------------- In article <21noa.732$Rg6.245@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, "Iconoclast" wrote: > "torresD" wrote in message > news:IDhoa.2701$bp2.358@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/medi-a17.shtml > [long snippage of rallies across the country organized by radio stations owned by Clear Channel, the largest holding company of radio stations.] No argument that the content of these rallies is supportive of the Bush Administration, and that the top executives have strong Republican ties. > > That Clear Channel is now able to exert such extraordinary power is a > > consequence of telecommunications deregulation that began in 1996 under > the > > Clinton administration. Prior to the passage of the Telecommunications > > Act > > of that year, a single company could own no more than two radio > > stations > in > > any one market, and no more than 28 stations nationwide. This restriction, removed by new legislation and rapidly being enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, are the real heart of the problem. As the original writer points out, this isn't a Republican or Democratic trend; the deregulation started under Clinton. The current FCC is headed by Colin Powell's son, Michael. Let me hasten to add that Michael Powell has legitimate credentials for the job--this was not a "make the big guy happy" appointment; Michael is much more conservative than Colin. Broadcast radio and television stations obtained their frequencies early in the development of telecommunications, when the frequency space seemed unlimited. It is a technical necessity that somebody, usually government, assigns frequencies to prevent multiple stations interfering with another. It turned out, of course, that frequency space has immense economic value, and subsequent allocations for cellular and other services have involved auctions where frequency spectrum users paid substantial amounts to the US treasury. The traditional broadcasters, however, were "grandfathered." Forcing them to pay for their admittedly valuable space smacks of ex post facto law. Nevertheless, it represents what in today's market is an immensely valuable resource. The biggest bar to entry to radio or TV broadcasting is obtaining a frequency. Clear Channel, quite legally, has been buying up small stations that have long-term frequency allocations. So we do have a special case where broadcasters are effectively subsidized. By removing the ownership restrictions, the opportunity was created for a giant, which, for business reasons of efficiency, standardizes content. There has been a traditional view that radio and TV stations, to some extent, compensate for the frequency subsidy by airing local content, including local political content. Yes, Clear Channel pushes a Republican agenda. But another media giant, perhaps in television, could push a Democratic agenda. I'm a telecommunications engineer, and believe some deregulation has been extremely responsible and good for the community. In no sense am I opposed to the free market. But free markets don't operate well either under excessive regulation or in the presence of major monopolies. Deregulation for the sake of deregulation, without considering all implications or the dangers of monopoly, can and does go too far (e.g., the California electrical power fiasco). > > > Sad but true. However, they operate under the rules of free speech and > nobody has to listen to them. If you don't like limbaugh, turn him off > that's what I do. But, as you can see, there is a market in the US for > their > crap and they have a right to spew it. They are the messenger and > wouldn't > exist if people didn't tune into the message. The problem, my friend, > lies > witht the American people. We are the ones that have to wise up and seek > out > more reasonable voices. Believe me Clear Channel and the others will go > where the listeners are. Their not as interested in the message as you > say. > If people didn't tune into Rush, he wouldn't exist. Clear Channel just > wants > to make money. The moral is, if you feel strongly don't listen and don't > support their sponsors and get other to do likewise. > Iconoclast > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:26:37 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Responsible information providers Thought I'd share some early thoughts about some guidelines for responsibly providing information to netizens. I'm thinking here less of people on mailing lists and newsgroups than those that create websites to act as information sources. Again, this is the sort of discussion I understand, rather than ideologically mired discussions between people using different vocabularies and/or definitions. I think it's a positive step toward netizenship. 1. We recognize that many Internet users have low-speed connections. For that reason, we emphasize text as our basic form of content. Clearly, there are times graphics are necessary to explain or illustrate things, but we will not set up graphics-intensive download as the default behavior for our site. We will explore technical means of adapting the display depending on the resources of the user. These include access bandwidth and whether the user pays for connection time. These also include signaling the provider when the user requires a text-oriented display for compatibility with assistive devices for physical disabilities. 2. To the extent possible, we will make our site accessible to people with physical disabilities. Some design practices to do this include at least labeling icons with text, so a text-to-speech converter can help people with visual disabilities. We will avoid complex multilevel menus requiring complex movements with a mouse or other pointing device. 3. We will be responsible in applying software patches and good system administration practice to help protect the integrity of our own content, as well as preventing our systems from being compromised by malicious hackers who would use us as a platform for launching attacks. 4. As online publishers, we take responsibility that content on our site is not libelous, contains stolen property, violates widely accepted concerns such as child pornography, or can be used destructively. We will publish terms of service that identify why such material will not be permitted. 5. If we have created our online publication to promulgate a certain point of view, we will identify that view and, if we restrict posting opposed to it, state our policies for refusing posts. 6. If we are a provider of access to information sources, we will not restrict user access to them principally to force them to commercial equivalents we operate. 7. We accept the need to balance interests in our operation. If we benefit from shared resources, we will be thoughtful of their scarcity and participate in appropriate regulation. We recognize that the Internet requires some self-regulation to maintain its technical integrity. 8. We will clearly identify our privacy and security policy, with the understanding that we may be restricted from disclosing certain information due to laws in the jurisdiction of our operation. We will clearly identify our policy for disclosing user information policies, and put both third-party disclosure and unsolicited mailings under double opt-out controls. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:40:38 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Followup on "communications regulation" Before anyone says "but Howard's example was radio, and we are talking about the Internet," remember that for valid technical reasons, previously different communications media are converging on a common broadband base. There also are resources that could be acquired in the Internet -- consider the practice of domain squatting and trademark issues. It's not just naming; there are continuing discussions about whether economic controls are relevant to more responsible use of address space. Unfortunately, the issues in the latter are rather technical, so I'll defer that to a later time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:20:19 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Cross-subsidization today On the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup, Sam Rogers made some observations on cross-subsidization in the regulated Massachusetts local telephone company. I want to expand on these a bit, as food for thought about the costs of providing separate Internet, video and voice networks to end users on the bad side of the digital divide. >Verizon is the sole incumbent local telephone carrier for most (all?) >of Massachusetts. The state's PUC, known as the DTE, has just passed >a rate increase for local service. > >According to the DTE's findings, Verizon loses an average of more than >$6 (per month) for residential local service, which must be made up >with business revenue. However the DTE decided that a $6 increase >would be too great so, it decided on $2.44. What would be interesting to see is how many of the residences involved have cable TV, and what the cost would be of providing telephone service over the same cable. > >Why a goofy number like $2.44? Because the $0.49 Touch-Tone line item >charge is being removed. So the increase for the 87% of customers >that pay for Touch-Tone service will see a net increase of $1.95, >conveniently just under $2.00. Touch-tone service charges have been one of the great illusions of telephone bills for decades. At first, touch-tone service was an add-on to central office switches designed for dial phones (i.e., pulse dialing). Touch-tone really was an added feature and a charge was reasonable. But as new switches were developed, they were designed around tone, not the old pulse dialing. The cost of operation of the switches dropped, but the touch-tone surcharges persisted in many jurisdictions. > >The low income service "LifeLine" subsidy will be increased to at >least offset the extra charges. LifeLine service typically includes a certain amount of local calling plus 911 service. The idea of lifeline may be reasonable to use as the starting point for defining universal net access. > >The DTE believes that the increases in regulated rates will spur more >competition for local service. ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #508 ******************************