[12044] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Fwd: Short substantive EFF policy question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Tue May 3 03:44:53 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 23:42:40 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, 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
In-Reply-To: <199405022054.QAA03851@eff.org> from "Stanton McCandlish" at May 2, 94 04:54:27 pm
Stanton said:
> 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.
That's all? I get over <300> on an average day!
> ....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.
My mailer can take 150k files, but here's the point:
YOU HAVE NOT DEFINED THE REGULATION YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE, HOW
OR WHY IT IS APPROPRIATE, OR HOW YOU INTEND TO IMPLEMENT IT.
Those were the VERY questions you ducked in the letter which started this
debate yesterday. They are the very ones which have been ducked before.
Your NII statements have CLEARLY indicated that you have an articulable set
of regulation and implementation for it, but you refuse to disclose it.
What does that smell like to you? I see smoke. I suspect fire.
> The more times I have to deal with mail like this,
> the longer this project will take.
Ie: "Go away; we'll talk to you soon enough -- besides, we know what's good
for the NII and the nation anyway -- trust us."
Pardon me if I say "no thanks; please show me instead."
> 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.
Then get the hell off the high horse that there ought to be subsidies,
which smell like a tax, or that people shouldn't pay for what they wish to
use.
If you want to start a public policy issue debate on the merits of
empowering the "have nots" in our society with information, you'll get lots
of play. Particularly if you recognize that the CORRECT response to this
is something like a chit system funded by the government and redeemable by
providers (phone companies, cable companies, and Internet providers) provided
DIRECTLY to those who cannot afford to fund their own NII interconnection.
Then let the free market go to it and guard against predatory tactics and
anticompetitive moves (like monopolists) with the eyes of the Eagle.
Any attempt to "cost shift" to provide the same benefit will inure only to
the benefit of the huge company and regulated monopolies, and you know it.
There is something like 100 years of public policy that makes this
<blisteringly> clear -- if you look into the light with honest eyes.
The problem with a direct-funded entitlement (ie: a chit system or similar)
is that the cost is ON THE BOOKS where the taxpayers can see it. I believe
that ALL such entitlement systems should be handled much as food stamps are
-- that way you can at least find the budget numbers when you need to.
Regulated monopoly tactics (ie: Universal service coupled with
rate-of-return guarantees -- which it has to be in order to get anyone to
go for it) ALWAYS end up with one or two huge monster companies and all the
little guys dead along side the road -- oh, and higher average costs for
the users as well (since there is no competition)
> If you are for capitalism, let's not
> criticize others for being capitalists, eh?
I am criticizing Mitch Kapor for, IMHO, being a hypocrite.
> > 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.
There ALREADY IS a viable market.
> 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.
Oh, like the recent AADS (Ameritech) announcement? Fade away? I'd say
more like blown away -- where it is convenient for the RBOC. With your help?
Or strong disapproval? I've seen no statements in either direction from the
EFF. Why not?
Where are my alternative carriers for my data and POTS circuits in
Chicagoland? To the places I need them to go? Hmmmmmmm? Yet Ameritech
can "compete" in a market where right now those very same circuits are a
business necessity to operate. The incentive to leverage this opportunity
is enormous. By the way, I believe that it is only reasonable that I ask
for more than <two> choices. Let's say that you really ought to have, in a
city like Chicagoland, oh, five to eight? That's about the number of
serious Internet providers here -- seems about right. Funny that I can get
from any one of them to any of the others, even though that's not supposed
to happen without "regulation".
You want to know what <I> think about this? I think they're going to
subsidize the service portion of this, I think they are going to abuse
their monopoly, and I think they will (eventually) get caught at it. I
also think the EFF is going to sit quietly by and let all of this happen,
not raising a whisper of protest (not to mention filing lawsuits to stop
these shenanigans)
Prove me wrong.
> 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.
So give competitive license to people who already HAVE a monopoly, like the
RBOCs? Uh, right. Pardon me, sir, but I have a bridge to sell you in
Manhatten. Only $500.00.
> 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?
I believe you have a large sand-hole right about where your head was before
you removed it to type these words.
> > 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?
How much do you know about the settlement process which the RBOCs BIND the
long distance carriers to? Oh, I believe that process is enforced by law.
How much do you know about the FACT that a few carriers on the current
Internet were very interested not all that long ago in implementing that
SAME process on the current Internet, and that the CIX (and other factors)
killed it -- at least for now. That is, in no small part, why I can keyboard
with people from <the world over> in real-time and pay only a nickel for it
no matter how long I'm online. Try THAT with the "voice" phone system.
How would you like to FTP somewhere and get a "VISA:" prompt. Think it
won't happen? Uh huh. I think that lots of people would LOVE to see it
happen, because they think they will end up with most of the money. I'm
not blind, folks.
> 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.
Oh really? Just what long distance company can I buy flat-rate
long-distance from in the United States today? While you're out there
looking for one which is not a scam, please read the appropriate parts of
the AT&T break-up decision and the regulation which <followed>, that
insured that such pricing is not possible.
> Huh?
>
> 1) again, the net is not the NII
It is a part of the NII, and in fact is probably a critical part of it --
or at least should be.
> 2) the voice telephone system is not the Internet
The voice telephone system does not exist. The <TELEPHONE SYSTEM> is
indeed the Internet, unless you think that all this data runs over real
ether instead of copper and glass "wires" -- most owned by telcos.
> 3) the NII is not the voice telephone system.
See above.
> 4) telco tariffs have nothing at all to do with whether you can get
> online in Harlem or Washingboard, Oklahoma.
Telco SETTLEMENTS make it economically unfeasible for all but the
top 10% of American wage-earners to be able to afford to get online in
Washingboard, OK. Oh, those top 10% are damn hard to find in Washingboard,
too, which means that perhaps 50% of the country is not readily accessible
to these services AT ALL.
> 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.
Uh, check the settlements provisions again.
> 6) they aren't "damn telco" tariffs, they are "damn PUC" tariffs. Telcos
> don't really get to pick and choose, you know.
See above.
> 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.
Uh, you're missing a few things.
You can work in the public interest and still make a profit. In fact, YOU
DO THIS EVERY DAY. SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE -- including the "do gooders"
that you revere. That some take that "profit" in coin and some in other
things (including the satisfaction of shoving their program down the
populace's throat) is not relavent the discussion.
Perhaps you really do think that people work on this legislation and all to
be altruistic and help society. Perhaps there really is a Tooth Fairy too.
Personally, I prefer my deals denominated in cold, hard currency. At least
I know what I'm expending. The intangibles are always murder -- you never
know just what cobb was slipped in while you weren't paying full attention,
and you know damn well there has to be at least one. Historically, there
always has been.
> > 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.
Go ahead. Are we charging them? Sure. Are they getting <exactly> what
they want, at an excellent price? You bet. We weren't the only proposal
on the table. I know at least one of the others was from one of those
"subsidized" carriers. The funny thing is, we beat them out! Imaging
that! Capitalists manage to deliver the goods more closely adhering to
the requested specs and for less cost! What a concept!
> > 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?
I suppose you are going to argue next that the NII (and the present
Internet) are accessible without one? You must live in a dreamworld!
Computer technology is beyond the means of better than half of this nation!
You <must> address that aspect if you want to do something meaningful to
help the public gain access to this medium and those which follow.
Bringing this resource to the public through the library systems is an
IMMENSE empowerment move for the community. I'm willing to bet that there
will be hundreds -- or thousands -- of people who are materially helped by
that change within a year, and 100,000 people who now know at least
something about using the Internet by year-end 1996 as a direct result
of this program. Every one of them is sitting at home right now with
no idea what is in store for them.
Folks, one of the byproducts of this is going to be HUNDREDS of librarians
who are conversant in how to navigate this huge information base called the
Internet, and each one of those people is going to help <hundreds> of
patrons through the course of a year. That could easily be a couple of
hundred thousand people who are materially helped by this initiative!
I have nothing to hide. MCSNet is a for-profit, capitalist company, and I
am a capitalist. There. That's out in front and on the table. I hope
that we get some additional commercial business out of this work too. I'm
not going to pretend that we're not going to make money on the deal (I hope
we do :-) or that there's something wrong with that position. That doesn't
change the fact that I think we have the best combination of pricing and
service available anywhere in the US embodied in what we did for NSLS. We
wanted the business, we knew the parameters, and we sharpened our pencils.
Why?
Because <we knew we could lose>.
> > 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])?
Entitlement is the picture I get when you start talking about "universal
access" without spelling out how you're going to achieve this. Or have you
forgotten that we have, today, "universal access" to things like food,
shelter -- why, even telephones! It is true that some people don't like
the quality of these handouts (I certainly wouldn't like living in the
CHA!) it is a certainty that some folks actually <do> like the quality --
or at least aren't motivated enough to do better.
Again, I am not necessarily adverse to finding ways (like what we did here
in Chicagoland) to bring the NII (and the Internet) to people over wide
areas. But let's do it within the CURRENT framework or, if you must, advocate
a program where the costs are <ON THE TABLE AND IN THE OPEN>.
Cost-shifting advocacy makes me distrust your entire organization to the
bone. There has never been such a program in the US that has successfully
been eliminated, nor one which has grown at less than even 3x the CPI's rate.
Look at the Federal Income Tax, Social Security and Welfare for your examples.
Take the total amount spent (or taken in) as your parameter.
The CPI IS, by definition, your target for cost containment. Doing
better is a sign of good management; meeting is only average, and anything
significantly worse is downright cause for dismissal. Taken over a broad
base, of course.
> > 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.
Baloney. It IS the NII that is here today, and it IS a reasonable start
towards a higher-speed paradigm.
> 3) in the information infrastructure world, $half-a-mil is nothing.
It is when you started with $5,000 a year and a half ago and have
essentially built the entire thing from ground zero WITHOUT significant
outside help. Oh yes, there was some dealing to be done, and some smart
acquisition activity for hardware, and some luck. In most lines of work
this is considered to be a good thing.
We didn't get where we are now, nor will we get where we are headed, by
imposing a government mess on top of us, nor by allowing monopolists to
keep their old monopolies and "compete" in these markets while siphoning
off the seed capital to do so from their monopoly lines of business!
All at the government feed trough! Grrrr...
> 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.
Stahlman is right, and has the evidence of the past to support him. Leave
the market the hell alone, except for preventing monopoly, and you will
have a NII faster than you could EVER dream of building one on your
structured "plan"!
> > Its also available <right now>.
>
> What is? We aren't talking about modems, or even T3, here.
Pie in the sky? Sure is. 20 years out, you're right. But before you can
get <there> you will have to solve a number of key electronic-related
issues having to do with pesky things like power density and clock speed,
otherwise known as the laws of physics.
Oh, I'm sure that ways will be found to "cheat". But it won't happen in 2
years, or even five years, and probably not in 10. There isn't enough money
in the economy for that to happen.
> I think not. "Malevolent intent" indeed.
In your opinion. I see things differently.
> > 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.
Bicker? As an organization which is funded in no small part by donations I
think it is a little more than bickering. In fact, I believe it reaches
directly to the heart of the matter -- are you serving your alleged
constituents, which are supposed to be the people in general and civil
libertarians in particular.
I say <no>.
> 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
Uh, last time I checked that was exactly what I was doing and have every
intention of continuing to do.
Just watch. We're out here, we're not going away, and we have every
intention of doing this the hard way -- with 120-hour weeks, sweat on the
brow and innovation beyond belief.
There's a lot of folks just like me doing exactly the same thing.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
Fan Friendly Internet Here | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net
