[10879] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The FCC strikes the Internet (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Rutkowski)
Sun Mar 13 13:08:21 1994
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 09:28:17 +0500
To: James Love <love@essential.org>
From: Tony Rutkowski <amr@isoc.org>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Jamie,
>But I don't think anyone knows what will happen when NSF pulls
>the plug on the backbone, regarding the types of non-commerical
>publishing we now all enjoy.
>
The NSFNet is hardly the only backbone. Indeed, Jessica Yu's seminal
work at the CERN Exchange last year revealed that they see 10 % more
networks than the NSFNet. What NSF is pulling is their funding of
one of many backbones. Some major users might see a slight rise in
their costs. Of course, what you get in return is a more vibrant
Internet with greater freedom because there is no longer an AUP.
You should consider coming to the Internet Society's annual International
Networking Conference (INET'94) in Prague in June where nearly 1000
people from around the world will assemble to focus on the global Internet
and all the myriad backbones, networks, applications, and initiatives
occurring in more than 146 countries. Your concerns and goals are widely
shared around the world.
>I'm at a loss to suggest someone else in the government that would be
>asked to think about this issue.
>
How about Larry Irving at the NTIA? NII Task Force? OTA? NARUC?
Indeed, Marc Rotenberg and I were speakers at last week's NARUC meeting
where this and related subjects were raised. Ultimately it's probably
the PUCs you want to convince anyhow, since they control the local service
telco service offerings and rates. And, they are really interested in
hearing from the Internet community on these matters.
> What is needed is a national system to sending and receiving electronic
>mail,
I don't really think this is what you want. It is the antithesis of the
Internet. The PTTs fought for this on a global basis for several decades
in the ITU and the UPU. They lost. What survives is X.400, national
X400 registration schemes, and the F-series Recommendations.
Multiprotocol electronic messaging via the Internet has become the "national
system" as well as the international system - and it seems to be working and
scaling quite nicely without PTTs moonopolizing the business or the government
becoming involved.
>One thought that I have entertained, is that if the telephone companies
>are required to provide a flat rate service, they might have a different
>attitude about future settlement negotiations. I would be interested in
>your views on this.
The telcos are undergoing cultural transitions on many fronts. One of them
is appreciating that users across the spectrum want flat rate pricing for many
services - and meeting that demand. Some of the new technologies like
SONET/SDH and ATM makes that increasingly possible. Competitive access to the
local loop and competitive local access technologies which the FCC is presently
seeking to effect, will also encourage this result.
>wanted, metered or unmetered. So please do not state incorrectly that we
>are proposing or are in favor of a monopoly service. We prefer
I think you mistook my reference to global telcom liberalization efforts.
The suggestion was that you consider referencing the efforts that have
occurred over many years to force telcos to provide the kinds of flat rate
transport services that many users want. Admittedly these efforts were
led by major corporations wishing to build their own enterprise internets
or to enter the provisioning market on a global basis, but what they sought
to achieve is essentially identical to your efforts. There are lots of
precedents, experiences, and norms you can draw upon.
--tony
THE INTERNET IS ITS OWN REVOLUTION
Internet - une revolution qui lui est propre
