[12786] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean McLinden)
Sat May 28 23:51:11 1994
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 09:21:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean McLinden <sean@dsl.pitt.edu>
To: David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199405272013.QAA01428@linc.cis.upenn.edu>
On Fri, 27 May 1994, David Farber recounted:
> FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY
> NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
> NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
> NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
> INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
Excerpts:
> WASHINGTON -- Achieving the vision of the "information superhighway" will
> require that the federal government guide development of the technologies
> and services used to create it says a new report* from a committee of the
> National Research Council. The broad educational, scientific, and economic
> goals espoused for the superhighway are unlikely to be reached if its
> development is directed by the private sector alone, the report says.
Perhaps.
> "The Clinton Administration has elaborated an admirable vision of the
> national information infrastructure that emphasizes social and economic
> concerns ...
OK.
> The report also recommends that the government work with telephone and
> cable television companies, as well as other relevant interests
People, perhaps. I see business, I see government, I don't see "people".
> to find economic incentives for connecting homes, businesses, and public
> institutions to the superhighway in open and interactive ways.
Did McDonald's need the government to find economic incentives for people
to eat hamburgers?
> These features [interactive hookups] are unlikely to be rapidly
> incorporated without federal involvement because they may be more
> costly than single-application hookups and less attractive to
> companies seeking a short-term competitive advantage.
We have co-location. Seems to me a nice opportunity for a few new
businesses. Why should we pay to keep the dinosaurs from being extinct?
Open the airwaves and access to the media and let nature take its course.
> As envisioned by the committee, the open data network would build on the
> strengths of the worldwide Internet. It would be easy to change and expand
> and would be open to everyone who is linked into the system through their
> computer, interactive television, or other device. It would also be open to
> all providers of information, video, and other services. These services
> would be carried in a seamless fashion by all kinds of network service
> providers, such as America Online and CompuServe.
A nice vision, agreed.
> However, the committee emphasized that achieving such an open network is
> not automatic, but will require new approaches to networking and
> information-handling technologies and standards. Cooperative efforts
> between industry and government will be needed to fully develop and deploy
> the kind of architecture required for this open data network.
I'm still missing the "people" part. When does the government start
dealing with the electorate? "Industry" doesn't vote (last I looked, anyway).
> 1994 is a critical time in the evolution to a national information
> infrastructure, the committee noted. Federal funding arrangements and
> management responsibilities are being defined
Controversially, IMHO.
> commercial service providers -- who ultimately will be the major
> funders of the information infrastructure
Last I looked they already were THE major funders.
> The federal government should be an advocate for the public interest
John Sculley gets my vote...he "share's my pain" I'm all for this "public
interest" stuff but why don't we ask the public, for a change. The
committee reads like a Who's Who of Internetworking. No offense but while
I think the vision of an open, interactive network which is universally
accessible is a good one the concepts get a little fuzzy, very quickly.
The report seems to be totally out of touch with what are real users'
needs as though technology people had talked with other technology people
about what would be good for non-technologists.
> and for standards that will help establish a truly open and flexible
> infrastructure, the report says.
Does the report consider nationalizing the telecommunications
infrastructure? After all, that is what the Interstate Highway is and we
keep comparing this network to the Interstate Highway. Or do we still
believe that a couple of billion thrown at industry will achieve the same
effect?
> "The government cannot build the information superhighway or dictate the
> architecture for the national information infrastructure, but it can guide
> the development of a framework and of standards that will foster common
> interests and approaches among the many companies and institutions that
> will build the superhighway," Kleinrock said.
I hate that metaphor. The "superhighway" has driven to extinction many of
the small businesses that once made up America. Is that what we want to
do, here? I suggest that the NRC members rush out and buy a copy of
"Route 66: The Mother Road" and read it cover to cover before they use
the term "data superhighway" again.
> The committee recommended that the U.S. Department of Education develop
> technical competence in the role of information networking in K-12
> education so that the department can take a leadership role in making kids
> and teachers major beneficiaries of the information superhighway.
So far, the major beneficiaries seem to be the service providers.
> The Education Department should continue, and if possible expand, federal
> matching grants for local community, state, and industrial funds, to
> stimulate grass-roots deployment of networks in the schools, the committee
> said.
Why "grass-roots" only in schools? Why not "grass-roots" in every community?
Again, my experience only, but I spend a lot of time out in the fields
trying to promote this technology and what I see lacking is a focus on
people. I talk with many bright people who have no doubt that this
technology will someday replace what they use, now, but is it in their
immediate future? No! Why? Because it doesn't have anything to do with them.
Industry is already spending billions of dollars per year to get into
this business. Underrepresented in the process are the people,
themselves. I *know* what is in my library and if it were important
enough to me I could drive over there. But my library doesn't know what
is in *my* head and this technology makes it possible that it, someday, will.
What the typical professional needs is not to get to the library, but to
get to the desktop of their collaborating professionals. What they
typical small business person needs is to get to the desktop of their
suppliers and their customers. This is the grass roots stuff that
will, eventually, determine whether the "data superhighway" is anything
more than a 946-CHAT. But don't talk to Bell Atlantic about what these
people need 'cause Bell is only interested in the big players (I don't
mean to pick on Bell except for the fact that 1) they were represented on
your committee and 2) my colleages and I have spent nearly a decade
trying to drag them into the 21st century and they have the vision of a
flounder).
Are you aware that hundreds of small BBS's are now registering with the
NIC and many are planning a point of presence on the Internet? Where was
the small BBS representative in your planning? These people build a
network on a shoestring with sweat and technology picked up at hamfests
and they wouldn't know who to send a grant application to if they even
knew or cared about the Federal grants process. Who talked to them?
Who talked to the packet radio groups who put together "grass-roots"
wireless data networks *a decade before the phone companies* but who
could not use these for commerce due to FCC restrictions and who didn't
have the money to bid against the McCaws and the Motorolas at the great
Federal government technology giveaway? These guys (I use the term,
generically, and not in the gender sense), are using salvaged PDP-11s and
Microvaxen picked up for $200 (perhaps that is why DEC was represented),
and repeaters funded by Ham radio clubs stuck on broadcast TV towers
because the local TV station was happy to help out these pioneers. When
was the last time you tried to get the local LEC to let you offer a
service to the community over the phone lines, instead?
Did you talk to Wall Drug in South Dakota which, 15 years ago, joined up
with USENET? For over a half century their "1673 miles to Wall Drugs"
signs were a part of Americana until the "you-know-what" came along and
bypassed all the routes and signs. What about the thousands of other
users who scrapped together a few bucks to get an 8086, a Z-80 or PDP-11,
a cheap modem and a copy of BSD 1.1 so that they could participate in the
exchange of news and mail over UUCP and who began giving away services to
their friends because it was important to building a sense of community.
Did these people need big Federal dollars and a lot of Federal interest
to "entice" them to be a service provider? I think not! Why don't you
talk to them, instead. They did it because they believed in the idea, not
because they saw an opportunity to tap into the Federal pocketbook.
I'm all for the grand vision...but that has been the grand vision of a
lot of people for a decade before Sculley left Pepsi and Malone started
with TCI and if I were you I'd be listening to those people because on
some small scale they built what you want to build for the people you
want to build it...and it didn't take millions to get it done. It just
took a love of the idea.
Sean
