[12026] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Fwd: Short substantive EFF policy question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanton McCandlish)
Mon May 2 21:27:01 1994
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 16:54:27 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: frezza@radiomail.net, farber@central.cis.upenn.edu, djw@eff.org,
com-priv@psi.com, stahlman@radiomail.net, dbuck@world.std.com,
ggilder@mcimail.com, gbolles@radiomail.net,
rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu, Sam_Boyle@mcimail.com,
brodsky@radiomail.net, mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
In-Reply-To: <m0py0NU-000oCyC@venus.mcs.com> from "Karl Denninger" at May 2, 94 10:57:52 am
[someone unidentified says:]
> > Stanton,
Better to send this sort of thing directly to me, I don't read listmail
too often. Usually I just skim it or grep through it.
> > Two weeks ago you committed to provide an authoritative answer to a few
> > basic questions submitted to the EFF on its envisioned funding mechanisms
> > for ensuring Guaranteed Universal Service on the 'Information
> > SuperHighway'. To date, we have not heard from you or anyone else from
> > the EFF that was copied on these questions.
We are busy. I get over 100 queries per day, and don't have time to
follow up on all of them immediately. I have a LOT more to do than just
answer queries as well.
> > Could it be that the EFF issued its Open Platform 2.0 policy without
> > thinking this through? Could it be that the EFF doesn't really want people
> > to think about these issues as it pursues its ambitious fund raising
> > program?
Could it be that the sun won't rise tomorrow? Sure, lots of things are
possible. I think our actions, and our results, on all the issues we are
involved with, speak for themselves. Some people will not like our stance
on NII issues. This is a fact of life. We cannot please everyone
simultaneously. Our position is that minimal regulation is necessary.
I've heard a lot of rhetoric and lot of opinion try to convince me this
stance is somehow in error, and they have failed to do so. I will not go
over the tired old 500-lines-per-message argument again. If you missed it,
I'll be happy to bounce it to you, provided your mailer can take 150k+ files.
> > The questions are repeated below for your convenience. Many of us would
> > still be interested in hearing your answers.
Didn't see them. Like I say, send them direct. Daniel Weitzner has
prepared a to-the-point reply to the more frequent questions, which will come
out in _Network_World_ along with the essays by Frezza and Stahlman. I'll be
working on a more in-depth document over the next few weeks, probably
something like a FAQ. The more times I have to deal with mail like this,
the longer this project will take.
Karl Denninger says:
> It is seriously amusing (NOT) to some of us that the "EFF" comes off as a
> shill for regulated monopoly interests when they publish these treatises.
We are not on the "side" of the telcos and cablecos, if this is what you
mean to vaguely imply. We are interested in open platform architecture,
whatever form it may take, and whatever provider will provide it, whether
it be 2-way cable (which, despite the protestations of Stahlman et al,
IS coming according to cableco exec, who smell future profits in this
direction), or ISDN, or more growth in the internet. The more the merrier.
> Frankly, I find it alarming that the EFF, and Mitch Kapor in particular
> (who made his money by being a <capitalist>)
Nice Catch-22. Had Mitch Kapor been a socialist, you would have said "I
find it alarming that the EFF, and Mitch Kapor in particular (who is a
socialistic anti-capitalist)..." If you are for capitalism, let's not
criticize others for being capitalists, eh?
> now want to impose a
> regulatory burden on the providers of this service that will insure that
> only RBOCs and cable TV companies end up "serving the public".
1) Regulation will come. This is a foregone conclusion, because
2) regulation is already here. This is not a new industry, it is simply
an extension of an older industry. What makes you think 60 years of
regulation is simply going to fade away? We hope, or rather work, for
a world of less regulation, but this does not mean that removing all
regulation in one swell foop will produce a viable market. It won't.
It'll never happen to start with, and even if it did it would leave a
wrecked shell of a market, dominated by a handful of monopolists
handed the entire market on a silver platter decades ago. Regulation
reduction must be a gradual process, not unlike a heroin cure, or collapse
will occur.
3) EFF is calling for minimal regulation. We support moves like HR3636
and HR3626 which would reduce the regulatory burden now hampering the
industry. EFF is for competition, not monopoly.
4) Whether EFF wants to "impose" this or that or the other is immaterial.
EFF is not in a position to impose anything, not being an Executive
agency or a legislative body. And whether EFF "wants" to impose this
or that or the other is likewise irrelvant, since our wishes do not
a law or regulation make. In point of fact, we don't "want" to
"impose" regulation. We simply recognize that regulation is coming,
and that with a market this torqued it is also needed. Nothing is
going to make these facts go away, no matter how big a rug one tries to
sweep them under. Given this, is it better to try to affect the
regulation, or to bury one's head in the sand?
> Then we will have measured service as the only way to get into the net.
The internet is not the NII. And what other service would you prefer?
measured (aka metered) service just means you are charged per-call, rather
than "$20 for unlimited local calls" or "$15 for 50 calls, plus $.12 per
minute for each call thereafter" or whatever special plan a telco might
come up with. What has this to do with regulation? I have measured
service at home myself, because I make so few local calls it saves me money.
It's a useful billing option. I don't think I see anything anywhere
preventing providers from offering other service plans. I was offered
them, and rejected them. In short, what are you getting at? If you mean
to imply that the presence of a little regulation will somehow make it
impossible for service providers to have any billing scheme other than
measured service, then you are demonstrably proven wrong by the current
reality of telephone service.
> Commercial providers are doing an EXCELLENT job of providing Internet to
> the public right now. To those who say that "but you don't cover East
> Podunk, USA" I say "Go after the damn telco tariffs that LEGALLY PREVENT
> the provision of flat-rate inter-LATA telephone service, and this problem
> becomes a non-issue". Flat-rate Internet access, and CHEAP timed access is
> already available from HUNDREDS of providers. Unleash us from the
> REGULATED, "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" (NOT!) telco chain and you'll have your
> accessibility.
Huh?
1) again, the net is not the NII
2) the voice telephone system is not the Internet
3) the NII is not the voice telephone system.
4) telco tariffs have nothing at all to do with whether you can get
online in Harlem or Washingboard, Oklahoma.
5) telco tariffs don't prevent flat-rate inter-LATA service. Tariffs are
set prices, they aren't regulations themselves. If you say regulations
legally prevent such service, that would be true. Incidentally I think
almost everyone would agree that these are lousy regulations.
6) they aren't "damn telco" tariffs, they are "damn PUC" tariffs. Telcos
don't really get to pick and choose, you know.
7) no commericial providers of anything are in the public interest, by
definition. Your last jab not only misses the mark, but seems to be
aimed at an illusion in the first place. Commercial entities exist to
make a profit. This holds true of internet access providers as much
as it does of telcos.
> Oh, and those who want to claim that "but you need a computer to access
> the net" need to gopher over to "www.mcs.net" and read our announcement
> regarding the North Suburban Library System deal we just signed. It
I could make a wry comment here, but will refrain.
> should dispell THAT piece of nonsense. I would hope that the way we
> went about this becomes a model for other systems nationwide.
This all seems very peripheral to me. Where does needing a computer or
not enter into the debate?
> Those who would like to argue that the Internet is an entitlement, IMHO,
> should go crawl in a hole. We have too many "entitlements" in this society
> as it is.
Who is arguing that the internet is an entitlement? And do you mean
entitlement in the real-world legal sense (entitlement = right) or in the
libertarian philosophical sense (entitlement = something like a right, but
abridging someone else's right[s])?
> I hear a lot of noise about "high speed access to the home, cheap!". What
> isn't explained is how that's going to get paid for. I am the President of
> this company, and I cannot afford "high speed" access to MY home, despite
> the fact that MCSNet has more than a half-million bucks of infrastructure
> in place here in Chicago! Dial-up packet mode (PPP & SLIP) access is
> sufficient for me, it brings the Internet home, and until the cost of
> bandwidth and the support equipment for it drops it is the most reasonable
> and economical method for individuals to get to the net.
1) again, again: the net is not the NII anyone is talking about.
2) a few years ago, this would have read "I...cannot afford PPP & SLIP
access to MY home, or even a 9600 baud modem. Dial-up VT100 terminal mode
(1200 baud) is sufficient for me..." And you'd've been right. Let's not
forget about progress. I don't think anyone here is picturing a
ready-made NII that will simply drop into place by 1-Q '95. It's not
today-right-now technology.
3) in the information infrastructure world, $half-a-mil is nothing.
4) how it gets paid for is open to question, and depends upon your
socio-political outlook. Stahlman would have it that all of it will
arrive eventually anyway, as part of the processes of upgrades and
competition in the free market. Others might envision a need to fund the
entire thing with "government" (our) money. EFF's position lies between
these extremes.
> Its also available <right now>.
What is? We aren't talking about modems, or even T3, here.
> I consider the EFF's continued silence to the questions raised to be
> indicitive of malevolent intent
Puh-lease. "Yes! You've discovered our secret plot! We are conspiring
with the Illuminati, the Trilaterialists and the Bilderbergers to sping
upon a surprised world our secret plan for alien invasion, brainwashing,
mass extermination, and the incarnation of Satan hisself in the flesh, as
part of our New World Order!! Muah-ha-ha-HAAAAA!"
I think not. "Malevolent intent" indeed.
> and as such have withdrawn any and all
> support of all EFF positions and policies until such questions are answered
> in full.
What support? What makes you think we have nothing better to do that
answer every single question RIGHT NOW DAMMIT OR ELSE, or that we actually
have the stafftime to respond instantly to every random flame that arrives
at eff.org? It just ain't so. We are busy, and I've already stated that
we have a response to these kinds of accusations, misunderstandings,
misreadings, misinterpretations, disagreements, and differences of opinion.
Some of it will clear up factual errors, some of it will simply be a
reaffirmation of our opinion and stance. If it differs with yours, that's
fine. It would be a pretty dull world if no one disagreed. But we all
have better things to do that bicker about this kind of thing.
If you want the NII to look Your Way (TM) - GO BUILD IT. No one is
denying you a voice, or the means at your disposal to do what you can
about whatever you like.
--
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
- Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994
