[12065] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Fwd: Short substantive EFF policy question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanton McCandlish)
Wed May 4 01:02:04 1994
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 21:09:37 -0400 (EDT)
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
In-Reply-To: <m0pyCJc-000oCyC@venus.mcs.com> from "Karl Denninger" at May 2, 94 11:42:40 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!
Note I said queries. This means "questions that I have to answer", not
"emails". Counting the mailing lists I receive, I get ~2000 per day.
Needless to say, I do a lot of filtering. Really, it's immaterial. I
don't care if you get 50000000 messages per day, and somehow manage to
deal with it all. *I* am at a saturation point, and if the buck stops
here because I am swamped then, well, sorry, but it's stopped, and it will
get dealt with when I can deal with it. Don't know what else to tell you.
> > ....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.
Sure we have. Read Open Platform. If you mean we have not written the
regulations line by line, of course we haven't. We are working for
general principles. Again, we aren't much concerned about what the
platform is, as long as it adheres to the Open Platform principles.
That's what we support. It would be a consummate waste of our time to try
to draft up regulation for Congress. That's their job. We'll be happy to
suggest specific points, and will be happy to speak up when we think
something isn't going the way it should. Finally, we don't intend to
implement anything. We are not a legislative or regulatory body, nor are
we a manufacturer or service provider. Implement what? As for why it is
appropriate, I have been over this and over it and over it so many times I
will not repeat it here. I'll simply send you what I've saved from the
back-n-forth on this issue, and let you read 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.
More conspiracy theory? Why not try actually reading what we've put out.
See *.testimony and *.eff in our ftp/gopher/web site
> What does that smell like to you? I see smoke. I suspect fire.
You imagine smoke, you imagine 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."
Try "I don't have time to do this right now, and you'd please look over
here it's already there for you anyway. We have a specific constituency
that we represent, and have specific ideas about what makes a good NII.
You can trust us if you like, or review our material on the subject and
make an informed choice."
> Pardon me if I say "no thanks; please show me instead."
Looks to me more like "I don't like EFF, I disagree with everything about
EFF and everything you say about EFF no matter what, and my mind will
never change on this matter. Please show me more things I refuse to look
at, and give me more clear answers I refuse to acknowledge, so I can argue
with you some more to kill some time."
> > 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.
Don't confuse cross-subsidization with govt. subsidy. And don't confuse
new unheard of govt. subsidy (e.g. the fantasy of "data stamps") with
govt. subsidy that has always been there and will always be there in all
likelihood (e.g. subsidization of schools and libraries.)
> 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.
Hmm that's pretty amusing. This is precisely the "data stamp" program
that most of the people on ALL sides of the debate would hate to see.
Ever read any Korzybsky? What do you mean byt "the CORRECT response"?
Can you prove scientifically that your idea of "CORRECT" is in some
objective sense actually, demonstrably, correct?
> Then let the free market go to it and guard against predatory tactics and
> anticompetitive moves (like monopolists) with the eyes of the Eagle.
>
Guess what? That's called....
REGULATION.
"Guard[ing] against predatory tactics and anticompetitive moves" is
precisely what the regulation that EFF is interested in would do.
> 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.
Not sure what you mean by "inure only to".
> There is something like 100 years of public policy that makes this
> <blisteringly> clear -- if you look into the light with honest eyes.
60 actually. And what shows clearly is that govt-propped monopoly is
lousy policy (which is why EFF strongly supports opening the market to
competition), not that cross-subsidy is lousy policy. If you start an
internet access provision company, with 50 dialup lines, and plenty of
horsepower to support telnet logins, and use a portion of the revenues
generated by the dialup customers to add another Sun to handle an increase
in the number of telnet-in customers, guess what? You've just cross
subsidized. Do you think that was a bad business move? If you own a
sandwich shop, and use some of the profits to order the equipment to make
pizza so you can get more customers, since not everyone likes sandwiches,
guess what? You've just cross subsidized. Cross subsidy is not a Bad
Thing, it's often a sensible business practice. The weakest argument I've
heard yet is "why should our data line expenses go to cross-subsidize
laying infrastructure in rural or inner-city areas?" What concern is it
of yours? If a company charges x amount for data service, and you elect
to accept their service, that company is not obligate to spend the profits
on what you want them too, any more than Mr. Sandwich is obligated to
spend his profits on what the fat guy in the corner wants. Welcome to
capitalist democracy. Cable and telephone and other information service
companies will cross subsidize, and they will build infrastructure where
it's needed, because to fail to do so will cut them off from potential
customers, and if they don't do it, someone else will.
> 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.
Anyone that would wish a repeat of the foodstamp system on America
deserves one. >:)
> 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)
I'd agree with all of this except the idea that universal service is
somehow dependent on regulated monopoly. What makes you say that? We
don't have universal POTS service now, and probably would if the market
were not locked up by regulated monopolists. There are plenty of
entrepreneurs ready and willing to fill the niche when some more
deregulation comes. If this were not true, HR3636 would have died in
committee, if it even got that far.
> > If you are for capitalism, let's not
> > criticize others for being capitalists, eh?
>
> I am criticizing Mitch Kapor for, IMHO, being a hypocrite.
As I pointed out, that's a Catch-22. Had he been a non-capitalist
you'd've belted him the other way. I think what this boils down to is you
don't like what you think Mitch Kapor stands for. Just say it, there's no
need to call names.
> > > 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.
Right. I see. So:
a) market dominated by regulated monopolists,
b) remove all regulation =
c) viable market
What fantasy universe does this equation come from? The missing piece, as
I have pointed out over and over again, is b-2) market still dominated by
now un-regulated monopolists, yielding c) a torqued market in which
startups will either be crushed or bought up. Again: the simple and
painfully obvious solution to this is *gradual* deregulation, with enough
regulation, of the prevent-monopoly-support-competition variety, retained
to keep the market viable and open.
No one has to LIKE the idea that the infotainment markets are a wreck, but
one does need to recognize the incontrovertible fact that they ARE.
> > 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.
>
Don't know the details of the Ameritech case; ask djw@eff.org.
[...]
> 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.
Certainly. More choice is one of the major thrusts of OP.
> 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".
Of course it's supposed to happen. When you have an open market. Why it
is so difficult to get across the idea that the telco and cable markets,
which are what we are talking about when talking about current regulations
and bills like HR3636, etc., are a morass of regulated monopolists and
semi-monopolists? This is not a natural, free, open market. The rather
more grassrootsy Internet access provider market (not to mention the
commercial BBS and large online system [AOL, CIS, etc.] markets) are not
subject to such monopolistic crippling and work pretty much the way one
would expect them too.
> 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)
What "shananigans"? We're supposed to formulate policy on something as
vague as "abuse their monopoly"? Nope. Try being more specific. What
precisely do you see happening? Tell me that, and I or Danny can probably
tell you how EFF would respond.
> Prove me wrong.
Give me something that is testable then.
> > 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.
You don't seem to get it. You can't have competition with a lot of small
fish trying to compete, and a lot of large fish giving broad governmental
license to not compete. That would be a slaughter. You are getting
contradictory here. Either the previous monopolies have to learn to
compete in a real market, and let's have a real market, or we can have a
BS market with no real competition. You can have half of one and half of
the other. Oil and water. Also, what makes you think that no one else
will benefit from this, that no one else isn't waiting with bated breath
for the chance to compete fairly with these monstrosities? Talk to our
good buddies Frezza and Stahlman, they will happily disabuse you of that
notion.
> > 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.
Believe what you like. In almost every single message on this topic I
have seen in the last month or so, the pattern goes like this:
1) criticize, baselessly, EFF - without any hard evidence or data, only
opinion, fringe economic theory (if I may so bend the definition of the word
"theory"), and rhetoric
2) get a detailed (perhaps even longwinded) response from EFF
3) ignore every point that is made, because you can't adequately answer it
4) bring up some unrelated nitpick
5) repeat 1-4 indefinately, while waiting a while
6) after sufficient time has passed for most people observing the debate to
forget that the first criticisms were sufficiently answered once, and one
was unable to counter them, bring them up again, with full force and
spit-flying [metaphoric] volume, in hopes of perpetuating the "debate".
I think I detect this cycle arising again, and have lost patience with it.
If anyone doubts this, I'll be glad to sail you 200k of such saved messages.
> > > 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.
Tariffing schemes are *approved* (or disapproved) by PUCs. This is a
regulatory process, but what has it to do with the kind of regulation we
are discussing here (regulated monopoly, prevention of company of type A
from offering service B, etc.)? This is all peripheral anyway. The issue
was whether or not minimal regualation to ensure competition would result
in only measured service being available for internet access. I don't
think you've supported this notion. Even this matter is a side issue.
This is an example of step 4 of the "debate" cycle I outlined above.
> 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.
You should know better than that. Large portions of the net are
subsidized directly (NSFNet, university systems), while others are
cross-subsidized, are paid for by companies willing to help pass traffic
around because the net is useful to them for one reason or another, paid
for by good-hearted people willing to donate computing time for the hell of it
because they like the net, hobbyists ekeing out enought to keep their
Linux Web site online and little more, access providers from the small
and local the international and enormous, that charge by the time quite
frequently, but who are never free, etc. Some of these are big parts, and
some are small parts, but all in all they are most of the net. Surely you
are not so naive as to think that the net is free or nearly-free. You may
get that impression, because the cost is distributed, and the bulk of it
is soaked up by large entities, but it just ain't so. Also please keep in
mind that the net runs mostly on telco lines and telco wireless services.
In a very large number of countries what this means is govt. lines, and
govt. wireless. Internet is not separate from the telco systems, but
dependent on it, a feature of it. You are doing the equivalent of
comparing cable companies like TCI, and the programming they carry. Apples
and oranges.
> 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.
Of course it will happen. It already has. There are commercial gophers
in existence already. Ever heard of ClariNet? Ever used CompuServe?
Commerce has already hit the net. And nothing in this chain of events has
anything to do with regulation.
> > 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.
I said service providers, not LD phone companies. They are a pretty
special case, I'm sure you can see, being subject to a regulatory
nightmare. How does the regulated localized monopoly situation of baby Bells
relate in any way whatsoever to whether or not interent will cost you
money, or whether anti-trust, anti-monopoly regulation will be beneficial
to whatever NII develops over the next decade? "Regulation" is not some
homogenous category like "oxygen atoms".
> > 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.
THERE IS NO NII. This is like saying "Internet is part of Gibsonian
cyberspace". The NII is science fiction. Come back in 5 years, then
maybe we can talk about the NII as something in the present tense. The
Internet is something of an information infrastructure, but it is not "the
NII" as anyone, anywhere, to my knowledge, is using the term.
All that aside, I'm sure most of us would like to see whatever the NII is
be modelled on, even a superset of, the Internet. Part of what EFF is
striving for it to ensure that the priciples we depend upon here -
suffience upstream bandwidth, lack of censorship, privacy, use of
cryptographic, freedom to speak as you will, open access that is not
restricted on the base of race, sex, etc., and so forth - are part of the
NII, whether it be based on the net directly, on a 2-way coax system built
by cable companies, something devised by telcos, or something no one's
even thought of yet. In all likelihood it will be a mixture of all of
those and more, IMNERHO.
> > 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.
See what I said above. Not sure why you are nitpicking semantically
like this. You know very well I mean the same phone system you do. And
you know very well I mean "the phone system, which was originally devised
for voice communications", when I say "voice telephone system". Let's not
be silly. If I want to I can say "the '<TELEPHONE SYSTEM>' does not exist
<sneer sneer sneer>. The <WIRE AND WIRELESS SYSTEM WHICH IS SOMETIMES
CONNECTED TO TELEPHONES, AND SOMETIMES TO VOICEMAIL SYSTEMS AND SOMETIMES
TO MODEMS AND SOMETIMES TO ROUTERS...[ad nausem]...AND SOMETIMES TO RED
BOXES> is..." but this kind of escalation is pointless.
The fact of the matter is that the <X> system (whatever we want to call
what I choose to call the voice telephone system for simplicity) is NOT
the Internet. As already pointed out, the internet uses it as
infrastructure for the most part. The phone system than a marathon is an
asphalt road.
> > 3) the NII is not the voice telephone system.
>
> See above.
Semantic needling does not a substantive response make. See steps 3 & 4 in
the predictable "debate" cycle as outlined above. Looking familiar?
> > 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.
We're failing to communicate in a big way here. I'll rephrase. Telco
tariffing does not directly prevent online access in Washingboard OK.
I.e., it is not illegal for you under PUC or any other regulations to
start a rural internet access provider. It may not be cheap, of course,
which brings us to your point here, which is actually closely related
to one I've been trying to make for some time.
What makes telco settlements result in lousy tariffs?
Monopolist-supporting regulation. What is this regulation? Regulation
that doesn't support competition (by definition; sorry to be so obvious
here, but better safe than sorry).
Why is EFF supportive of an open platform principle which provides for
stimulation of competition, through minimal and specifically
competition-stimulating regulation if necessary, and which is focussed on
ensuring affordable infrastructure as wide and far as possible rather than
an elitist wealthy-only system? Don't you think it might be because, in
your own words, "it [is] 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." This nicely brings us back through several
layers of subdebates back to what the real point was in the first place,
you might notice.
> > 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.
So you are telling me that prices illegalize services? That makes no
conceptual sense. Obviously, lousy regulations, which set such prices,
can also be used to prohibit company x from providing service y. Prices
(tariffs) don't do this. They don't do ANYTHING, they just exist.
Or are you disagreeing with the idea that they are lousy regulations?
Somehow I don't believe that you would.
> > 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.
See what? First you tell me that telcos don't get to set prices, that
regulations do, and aren't we oooo so bad for supporting ANY kind of
regulation, and now you want to tell me that regulations don't set prices,
telcos do. Let's get the story straight.
> > 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.
Sure it's relevant. I think there is a very wide gulf of difference
between doing [x] to make a personal monetary profit, and doing [x] to
help people. I'm shocked that you believe otherwise. Please show me
some for-profit charities. Please show me a non-profit organization
competing with Microsoft. Commercial entities exists to get as many
people as possible to buy a service for product for as much money as
possible, as often as possible. Non-profits, NGOs, charities, and other
non-commercial entities, exist for a number of reasons, which vary
from getting someone elected to saving the whales to spreading the word of
[x], to fomenting rebellion, to helping crippled children. The motivation
is different, the means are different, and legalities are very different.
Any non-profit that is in business to sell a product for service for
profit is probably not going to be in business very long, because the IRS
will clamp on their collective butt like a snapping turtle.
Let's get grounded in reality here. Sure one can speak metaphorically of
the "profit" of feeling good for helping people, or the "profit" of
banning naughty record lyrics that make you mad, or the "profit" of saving
lives by encouraging harsher penalties for drunk driving, in much the same
way that a Christian can speak of the "wages" of sin being death, but you
know and I know that we are not talking about the same kind of "profit" or
"wages" that an entrepreneur is concerned about. As probably all can see
this is just more semantic BS intended to throw everyone off the track of
what the issue is. I'm not falling for it, and I don't think anyone else is.
Let's move on, this is getting tiresome.
> 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.
That's rather uncharitable, but anyway. Of course some people work on
legislation "and all" to be altruistic. Some do it because they can work
an angle to increase profits in their industry, even in their specific
company to the detriment of competitors if they play it right. Some do it
because they can't stand to see themthere unChrisitian sinners doing this
or that, some do it because they are genuinely malicious. I think it
would be very naive to assume that EVERYONE involved in working on
legislation "and all" is in it for personal monetary profit. That's very
silly.
> 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
Ah, I see. And that's why you like measured service so much and really
hate the internet, what with it's nonexistent accounting system. Who's
fooling who here?
> 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.
You're trying to tell me the devil is in the details, but you tried before
to tell me how much you like internet's pricing scheme. Doesn't this seem
contradictory to you? Is it perhaps a double standard? "That which I
like, let it be paid for with cross-subsidy, direct subsidization, taxes,
donations, etc, so I only see a 5 cent cost, but let that which I don't
like be subject to detailed analysis for my convenience." Sorry, but that
sounds rather like a NIMBY argument.
> > > 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!
Considering that the net is not a mess dominated by regulated monopolies
propped up witht the full force of the goverment of the United States, I'm
not surprised you are doing well. More power to you.
That wasn't related to my wry comment though. My wry comment had to do
with you saying "you don't need a computer", and "to see why, come see our
gopher site" (to paraphrase). Just an amusing irony.
> > > 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!
Sure it is. So were cars and telephones and TVs at one point. Of what
relevance is this?
> 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.
Sure. What do you think Big Dummy's Guide was for? What do you think
our encouraging use of the net is for? What do you think our
encouragement of educational institution net access is for? Why do you
think a major part of OP is ensuring access into rural and
poverty-stricken areas is for? You are getting contradictory again, it
looks like to me. If you are just saying that "computers need to be
cheaper", hey tell it to the market. EFF can't do a thing about that.
That's not our purpose. And what would you have us do? Call for
legislation to ensure a maximum price on PCs? Ha. The more people know
about the net and other "cool" things you can do with computers, the more
people will want them, and the more market there will be for them. Simple,
basic economics. Not sure how this relates to whether or not EFF is right
or wrong.
Also, what makes you think that the majority of NII services will require
a full-fledged computer? Much as I detest the prospect, it's very likely
that most of it will require nothing but fancy (but cheap) set top boxes
and slightly more elaborate TVs. Those of us who want the "real thing"
can pay for it, just like we do now, except it'll be cheaper.
Unless of course monopolists are allowed to continue controlling so many
of these markets, without any impetus toward competition.
> 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!
Certainly. It's very nice to be able to agree with you on something.
This is just the sort of thing we'd like to see too. See OP. Subsidy for
schools and libraries is part of that plan, and I hear no one but a vast
minority of extremists suggesting this is a bad idea.
> 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
[plug deleted]
Nothing wrong with that.
> > > 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
[irrelvant stuff delete; nothing to say about, no need to repeat it]
The libertarian philosophical sense then.
Again EFF isn't going to acheive this, and it's not our job to spell out
in technical detail how this will be acheived. The builders of the NII
(who sure as hell won't be the govt.) will acheive it, with the right
nudges and the right market. It's up to EFF, and you, and your neighbor
and everyone to see that the nudges and the demand are there.
> 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>.
That's what we're doing. What has EFF hidden from you? Everything we
have to say on the NII has been said openly.
> 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.
What on earth are you talking about? Eliminate what? If you cost shift
so that part <x> of your business pays for the generation of a new part
<y>, why would you eliminate it? I just don't follow you here.
> Look at the Federal Income Tax, Social Security and Welfare for your examples.
> Take the total amount spent (or taken in) as your parameter.
What on earth does that have to do with cross-subsidy? That's direct
taxation and governmental social programs (based on a "chit" scheme, like
the one you suggested was the "CORRECT" way to go about ensuring net
access to the poor, remember?)
> > > 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.
Please re-read what I said. I didn't say that Internet isn't an
information infrastructure, nor did I day it isn't a good starting point
for further development. I said it "is not the NII anyone is talking
about" (i.e. in this debate about the NII). I heartily agree that the
Internet is a better model. Go tell that to John Malone and Al Gore.
Malone will build something if he wants to, and it looks like he wants to.
He'll build what he thinks will make the most money the fastest with as
little difficulty as possible. Welcome to real world commerce, folks.
Al Gore will muck about with calls for govt. control as long as he's given
rein to do so. I think, with the Clipper element of the plan, he was
shown that the reins draw tight very quickly, and he sure backpedalled fast.
> > 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.
You don't get it. In the infrastructure world $500k is nothing, no matter
where you started, and no matter how (rightly) proud you are. TCI could
spend that much on Christmas bonuses next December. Money is power,
because money buys a lot of politicians. And the infotainment giants have
an awful lot of money. That's why organizations like EFF are something
you should be supporting rather than throwing verbal rocks at. Over the
last few years we've managed to build up a good deal of credibility.
We're all you have much of the time. The monopolists would like nothing
better than to see companies like yours fold, so they could push for more,
very selective, dereg (e.g. that which would give them your market, and
still protect them from having to be competitive in any meaningful sense),
and have the online services market all to themselves as well. They want
in that market badly, but the price is going to have to be an end to their
monopoly and semi-monopoly practices, don'tcha think?
> 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!
Just so. That's why we'd like to see them have to compete without a govt.
skirt to hide behind. It WILL happen. What remains to be seen is whether
some regulation will remain which prevents them from buying you out or
otherwise burying you. This also, incidentally, shows me why you are
opposed to cross-subsidy. It looks like, anyway, that your opposition to
your potential competitors being allowed to do it.
I don't know all there is to know about this sort of stuff by any means
(remember, you're arguing with the sysop/activist guy, not the policywork
guy), but I can't imagine that these monopolists would simply be set loose
on your market without some busting up, and more than Ma Bell was allowed
to continue existing as one solid lump. (This is not to say the
post-breakup telco world is perfect. Ha. It's a mess, but the breakup made
it less of a mess. Without it you wouldn't have a handful of monopolistic
telco grannies fighting with a younger generation of upstarts, you'd have
Ma Bell. Period.) I think what you are missing here is that whenever "the"
NII develops, the changes in the regulatory structure must, and will
unless things go opposite to what we are working for, serve start up as
well as the spawn of the former monopolists.
> 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"!
Except for preventing monopoly. Stahlman is right - in theory. He is not
right in reality, because the only way to prevent monopoly (or in this
case, get rid of monopoly, since it's already here in a big way, requiring
the need to directly stimulate competition) is through (minimized) regulation.
This does not mean "all the same regulations we have now", which as anyone
could guess would be nightmare. I means specifically tailored regulation
that reflect the need to prevent monopoly.
Problem is, to people like Stahlman, from what I can gather anyway,
"regulation" and "monopoly" are synonymous. It just ain't so.
> > > 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'd advise you to review the history of modem development as an example.
It was believed for quite some time by most industry experts that 2400bps
what as fast as it could get. Then they hit 4800. Then 9600. Then 14.4k.
I personally remember, having been there, dire predictions that up around
19.2k was as fast as a modem could run on your standard telephone line.
I never saw any contradiction of this in the trade press until USR
announced that it had a prototype HST modem that would peak, occasionally,
at 28.8. They demo'd it in 92. By 93, the ex-CCITT was working on a 28.8
standard. USR already says it has plans for an even faster modem.
When will people learn that saying "you can't do that" in most cases means
"it will be hard, but very profitable, for you to do that." I have no
faith whatsoever in the notion that technology will not advance to support
not only the NII applications we all have in mind now, but much better
things, much the same way Internet in 1988 metamorphosed into the Intenet
of 1994, with multimedia WWW action, [atmittedly choppy] realtime audio
and [even more choppy but improving] video, vastly more users, 5000+
newsgroups, etc. The best is yet to come.
> > I think not. "Malevolent intent" indeed.
>
> In your opinion. I see things differently.
As you wish. I say again that is sounds like feverish conspiracy theory.
> > > 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.
Why don't you ask them? With the exeption of flames from fewer people than
the number of fingers I have, all the feedback I've gotten in 6 months has be
universally positive or neutral. It think it is also interesting that ALL
of the flamers are indentifiably libertarian/objectivist/free-market-
extremist in character, with 2 exceptions (a socialist, and someone I
believe to be genuinely insane.)
> I say <no>.
You are vastly outnumbered. By thousands of paying members. By tens of
thousands (at least) of supporters. As I'm sure you are aware, "money talks,
bullshit walks". If our members suddenly start failing to renew, then we
have a problem. Right now our membership is going up. This tells me we
are doing something right, whatever the naysayers have to say.
As stated clearly before: it's physically impossible to satisfy everyone
all the time. I'm sorry you don't agree with us, but I don't find your
arguments suffiently convincing.
> > 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.
> >
> Uh, last time I checked that was exactly what I was doing and have every
> intention of continuing to do.
Good then, keep it up.
> 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.
I know the feeling.
> There's a lot of folks just like me doing exactly the same thing.
That's good too. I'd rather have a 1000 cantankerous net access providers
around than one monopolist owning what used to be your companies. That's
why we support Open Platform principles, and that's why we support
regulation that induces competition and blocks monopoly. I just hope I
don't have read flames from all 1000 cantankerous net access providers. Heh.
--
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
