[10557] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Gordon Cook's Ideal (mythical) Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis Fazio)
Sun Feb 27 00:21:46 1994
From: dfazio@mr.net (Dennis Fazio)
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 02:36:57 -0600 (CST)
>The commercialization gold rush is on. Major money is at stake. I am not
>anti-commercial, but I am very much anti a process where there is any
>possibility that *this* or the preceeding administration was getting in bed
>with some key players in corporate America to behind the scenes and off the
>record deliver a playing field tilted on their behalf.
>
>I am going to dig and probe and try to shine light into every nook and
>cranny of what goes on. What the NSF is doing is too important to the
>future of the internet to be accepted without question. Who is setting
>policy where, why and for what ends is too important to the preservation of
>the current network and to critical aspects of its culture to be ignored.
These are mighty fine words and in a different world, perhaps an admirable
mission. But I hope that one wouldn't spin too many wheels in a quest based
on some popular myths.
Myth #1: There are level playing fields.
There is no such thing as a level playing field, or if there is, it is
rather rare. Somebody always has an inside track that they either created
themselves through a variety of means, honest or not, or that just appeared
through no special efforts on anybody's part. If you want to play the game,
to continue with this well-worn metaphor, you have to figure out a way to
tilt the playing field in your own direction, or lacking that, figure out
how to minimize the adverse tilt or bribe the officials to get some of the
rules changed, or even lacking that, figure out how to run fast up hill. If
you look around today, you will see that the vast majority of those who have
excelled are actually those most adept at running fast up hill.
Myth #2: The best decisions on important issues are made in the open with
opportunity for participation.
Most of the really important stuff that has the most profound long-term
effects is done "behind the scenes and off the record". This includes the
construction of the US Constitution, the core part of most major
legislation, the most critical executive decisions of government, and some
of the early design work on our present Internet of which we are so proud;
the list is quite extensive if you think about it. Almost every key decision
has some major component made up of a few people getting together informally
away from others and charting the course. If they aren't able to set everything
outright, they at least usually succeed in creating another example to
debunk myth #1 by creating the tilted playing field.
Myth #3: The best place to monitor the future development of the Internet or
the National Information Infrastructure is by keeping a close eye on
activities at the National Science Foundation.
The NSF is already playing less of a role in the definition of the future of
the Internet. The NII, whatever that is, is completely out of its control.
To return to the equally well-worn highway metaphor, NSF's activities will
slap down a small trunk highway, a few interchanges and some rudimentary
directional signs. The rest will be built by others in places and directions
of their choosing. The NSF financial concrete chute will pour a narrow strip
compared to those at other Federal agencies. All of that put together won't
come close to the number of cement trucks roaring in from private industry.
You'll be watching the action in the coffee shop at a truck stop while all
the heavy 18-wheeler convoys zoom by chatting it up on their CB radios
with IP addresses.
As you say, major money is at stake. That's why myth #1 and myth #2 are
myths. We're all "anti a process" that would "tilt the playing field". We
can argue, lobby, join together, write and vote, but in the end we can only
hope that after all that, the right people do the right thing at the right
time more frequently than not. Of course, you could become one of the
"right people" yourself, and that would be the most effective thing to do,
but then all the rest of us would have to complain about you when you
closed the door for the next decision ;-).
--
Dennis Fazio, Minnesota Regional Network --|||-- Gabnet: (612) 342-2570
