[2616] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: world.std.com
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Mon Mar 23 01:26:47 1992
From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
To: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 22:25:37 PST
Cc: com-priv@psi.com (com-priv list)
In-Reply-To: <9203230606.AA14489@world.std.com>; from "Barry Shein" at Mar 23, 92 1:06 am
>> Until politics and greed prevailed over technics and sharing, this was
>> considered a major design feature. How absolutely baroque and sad that
>> folk should think that they want or need to know.
> I'll disagree somewhat. I don't believe the problem is anything evil
> per se (which seems to be your message.)
Didn't say evil. Just commercialization (which in the US is purely mostly
driven, which has both good and bad points), and privatization, the process
of which has become both commercial and political.
> I think it's more like the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
More like the primrose path. The process went along, seeming reasonable
step by step, until folk are suddenly realizing that this isn't Kansas any
more. Heck, some of us can't even ping Kansas!
> Look at the phone system.
Do we wish that kind of regulation? Some of the analogies we use are too
glib, too scary, or both.
Is it reasonably possible in our society to evolve a publicly funded
cooperative scientific endeavor into a privatized and commercial industry
while fostering fair and open competition and maintaining a high level of
service? Without massive government regulation?
If not, then which criteria will accept compromise? Or is it which can be
compromised with the least [public] repercussion?
randy
