[12291] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: NII and Reality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail))
Sat May 14 10:42:28 1994
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 14:34:29 PDT
From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <stahlman@radiomail.net>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
To: hes@unity.ncsu.edu
>Mark,
> Do I understand you as saying that if the Federal Government had
>totally refrained from providing any funding/encouragement for the
>ARPAnet, CSnet, NSFnet and ESnet - that we would be *much* further
>along with respect to having a productive world-wide information
>network?
>
>--henry schaffer
No, Henry that isn't what I said at all. The Internet was designed with
military (DOD) funds as a bombproof communications fabric to be used in
case of Armageddon. Federal research has been crucial for many of the
fundamental technologies we now take for granted. I'm very happy to pay my
taxes to support this valuable work.
What I said is that the long arduous process of constructing an industry to
take advantage of this technology is most likely to done by startup
companies -- not federally funded labs. And, therefore, efforts to extend
federal control over the relevant markets would be very unwise at this
time.
What I also said is that the Clinton administration is trying to implement
a digital industrial policy -- without losing California in 1996. This
industrial policy extends well beyond the net and even beyond
telecommunications into virtually every digital technology driven market.
This policy has both carrot and stick components. The stick consists of
things like the Microsoft anti-trust case and Clipper/Digital Telephony.
The carrot consists of things like the NIIAC Mega-Projects and EFF
testimony. These two realms are woven together and cannot be separated.
The intent of this digital industrial policy is to dramatically increase
federal control over digital markets. I think that, if it is actually
implemented,this policy initiative is likely to dangerous to our (everyone
I know on the net's) well being -- particularly those I know in California.
I'm interested, moreover, in anything you might know about shifts in
research funding as a result of the NII efforts. I've been told that some
outstanding NSF grants in medicine have been reclassified NII research.
Has the "dual use" framework at ARPA been used to fund significant NII
efforts beyond outstanding Internet projects? Does anyone know about these
matters?
Mark Stahlman
New Media Associates
New York
stahlman@radiomail.net
