[9646] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: bill summary: Telecommunications Act
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Hughes)
Sat Jan 15 11:04:22 1994
From: dave@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes)
To: adamfast@u.washington.edu (adam fast)
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 08:55:07 -0700 (MST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com (compriv)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9401142328.H23938-0100000@goren1.u.washington.edu> from "adam fast" at Jan 14, 94 11:31:03 pm
I don't want to question the proposed Washington law until I
understand it better - but would you answer Bruce Gingery's
question/observation - does it de facto freeze out of the
'net' all the semi-publicand private systems like Fidonet,
Mac's First Class networks, and even the individual 'Point'
softwares that are spreading?
Or are we missing something?
There is a little irony here, because I spent all day yesterday
driving to the Northeast corner of Colorado where the North East
Regional Development (economic) organization covering 6 counties
(they call themselves the NERDS) in response to the consultants
recommendation they set up a 'BBS' to start linking their
scattered communities, with econ development, health care services,
and public education involved. And a Fido network at the most
grass root core (but, using our clever integration of that with
internal - inside the box, but not outside, UUCP to link the
fido with the usenet protocols, then going outside via SLIP
and TCP/IP) with a further extension to inividuals who face
long distance charges, of Point, Offline Reader, software -
all of course using, not only Fido protocols, but QWK packets,
UUCP and TCP/IP. All in order to support 'economic development'
by *really* low, or no cost access to anyone with a micro or
terminal, a modem or wire (or spread spectrum no licence, no
cost wireless link) to (1) each other (2) the rest of the world.
A solution which, until an awful lot of people start using it,
both ways (yes, outsiders on the Internet will be capable of
'logging in' to the Fido BBS through the net) will cost under
$500 a month communications and network access cost for the
*entire* 6 counties (with 63,000 pop).
Now this is only possible because we use any protocol 'which
works' - and which can be scaled upward from store-and-forward,
to IP connectivity at any individual, any point, any level,
any time, over time.
Now does Bruce's analysis that this would be legally prohibited
in Washington state hold up?
Of course, since the 6 counties County Governments Econ Dev offices
are the core of NERD, and the basic sponsor, the whole scheme is
being developed with the 'public interest' as the primary goal,
and public access for all, as the 1st criteria.
And I am not sure what the implications are in the Washington
'Commercial Points of Presence) scheme. In ours, the end user
may pay nothing but the phone cost to access. If in three
of the 6 counties, no added cost at all because they are
'local dial' in the other ones, using Fidonet store-and
forward, Point and Offline Reader <--> NERD Host the costs
will be limted to perhaps a once-nightly 2 minute intra-lata
automatic phone call with 14.4 ($180) modems. While the
6 counties, each paying maybe $100 a month each, would sponsor
the traffic flow to/from Colorado Supernet at their $250 a
month max 19.2 Slip connection rate, being reached through
the Wiggins Telephone Company which makes it a local call
to Greely, about 30 miles away where there is a CSN Cisco
router POP. Thus making the phone cost to link all this
to the Internet $46 a month.
i.e. not by looking at 'population' numbers or distribution,
but at exisiting toll-cost, or local dialing area maps,
finding the lowest possible cost - to individuals, organizations.
and then to the 'network' as a whole, and protocol interconnections
as the way to scale up and down, *changing* the protocols depending
on the 'level' being reached.
Now would this all be impossible under your law in Washington,
if you had a comprable rural area?
Why do I have the feeling that the Washington law resembles the
Japanese PTT/NTT 'centralized' control model which now - with
their rather rigid X25, high cost national network - has put
them in a terrible fix in trying to add a 'public' Internet?
And why should I care what Washington does? Because State
governments have a habit of copying each others 'solutions'
when public pressure says 'Do something.' Colorado's legislators
and Governor's office are feeling that pressure to 'Do something'
about a state information infrastructure. And they are still
thinking a 'top down' solution.
