[2775] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
The fate of INternet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JIM DOWNEY)
Sun May 31 01:12:34 1992
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 01:10 EST
From: JIM DOWNEY <JDOWNEY@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
To: com-priv@psi.com
X-Vms-To: in%"com-priv@psi.com"
Date sent: 31-MAY-1992
In a previous article, drw@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU wrote:
>Message sent: Sat, 30 May 92 17:22:49 EDT.
>1. The Internet will become truly world-wide: The United States (even
>if you include Canada and Mexico) accounts for only about 1/3 of the
>population and economy of the industrialized world. Thus, North
>America will account for only about 1/3 of the Internet hosts and
>traffic once the Internet has reached its full potential.
At this point in time the picture you paint does not seem likely to
begin for at least another 5 years... There are too many international
controlling/regulating bodies and not enough treaties supporting internet
activities... The cost of European access is sometimes 200% what is paid for
CompuServe... which is quite expensive... part of the cost is related to
the commercialization (i.e. France) or the underdeveloped network infra-
structures (i.e. Eastern Block countries).
>2. The bulk of the Internet will be in support of commercial
>activities: Only a small portion of the information transmission needs
>of the industrialized world are "research" or "educational"
>activities.
I advocate against commercialization... strongly and without question of
my reasoning... The way that the commercialization is being approached is
through a complete conversion... I watch the planning and realize it is
scheming in guise... My critics contend I'm paranoid on this point, but I
recall the poster that said, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
they are not out to get you."
Upon examining the lobbying and influence peddling re: networks on the
Hill, I see clear indication to worry.
>3. The Internet will be sold as a service for a fee, rather than being
>delivered by a club-like consortium effort between a small number of
>widely scattered users.
A huge mistake...
>Taken from this point of view, we can examine certain issues in a very
>different way:
>
>A. The NREN cannot possibly form the backbone for the US Internet,
>much less the Internet as a whole. This is because the National
>Research and Education Network is parocial on points 1 and 2; NREN as
>a concept automatically excludes 95% of potential Internet traffic.
>
>Thus, NREN should be looked at as simply a government-funded
>experiment in high-speed networking technology, not as an operational
>part of the Internet.
This will be the case only if we accept your assessment... I can see many
other problems with the NREN proposals, but we first must decide the fate of
the existing networks... I refer back to the words that exemplify the networks
and what they ahve traditionally been about: "Because It's Time Network"
We should be asking many questions, not the least of which are we straying to
far away from the spirit and traditions of the networks in our efforts...
Commercialization is, IMHO, a major abandonment of these principles and
traditions... NREN seems to ignore them as well...
>B. Serious thought ought to be given to the development, interaction,
>and economics of commercial Internet providers. Should they be
>regulated as public utilities? What happens when the density of users
>starts becoming comparable to that of telephones? What sort of
>charging schemes are possible, and how do they affect the competitive
>interaction between providers?
Open the nets to commercial traffic and we have these types of problems...
Keep it focused on original intent and we won't...
>C. Should ubiquitous service be a goal? When the merchant sends a
>credit card number to be verified, why not do it by Internet?
Unsecured network resources... Fraud potential... etc.
>D. How would a ubiquitous Internet compete with ISDN? Should Internet
>service be provided by telephone companies (which leads to certain
>efficiencies of organization)?
Aren't the telephone companies controlling enough of our lives? Business,
home, etc. are permeated with telephone company influences... Leave unto
Caesar...
*****************************************************************
| James M. Downey (INTERNET) JDOWNEY@ECN.MASS.EDU |
| Salem State College (FIDONET) Jim Downey 1:324/0 SHAKERS |
| 352 Lafayette St. (VOICE) (617) 592-8257 Ans. Machine |
| Salem, MA 01970 Executive Technical Director **NETTI** |
*****************************************************************
