[770] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Access to the Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Jul 20 10:00:07 1992
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 08:55:28 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
4 Messages, 135 Lines
*-----
From: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741" <GRAHAM@ZODIAC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Access to the Internet
Lee Jaffe says:
>Internet access is managed
regionally by cooperatives, sometimes an agency under contract to the
cooperative. The coop is supported by the fees of the members. Why would
we dump or allow someone else to dump the coops in exchange for a
commercial provider?
>....Can anyone clarify what the threat is?
I'm not sure "threat" doesn't color the argument unnecessarily. The initial
quote I've given there begins to misstate the evolving case, which is of
private for-profit networks providing services to institutions. NYSERNET
has spun off PSI, and JvNCNet is about to go private on the eastern
seaboard. There are others. At Rutgers we have long used JvNCNet; to give
us protection and redundancy in our connection to the NSF backbone we have
just contracted with AlterNet, a private network IP service provider, for a
second connection.
Two evolutions begin to occur in this environment. First, competition can
have the effect of reducing costs or improving services (not necessarily,
of course, but it could and can). Second, it highlights that this is a
fee-for-service utility like many others: e.g. electricity, telephone,
steam-heat, cable video in dorms, etc. Thus it becomes subject to the
usual rational and irrational University decisions about what is chargeable
to end users and what is not. Most universities do not charge their
end users for electricity. Most do for telephone service.
When Lee says of desk, chair and toilets that "for the time-being, the universit
y puts these
resources in a different column" he is quite right. The qualifer "for the
time being" is an important one. (He might note that while his toilet is
very likely overhead, his desk and chair are very likely a departmental
budget item).'
I hope this helps. It's not a precise answer but I don't think there is
one. All this reflects discussions that are taking place at a national
level, doesn't it; there are different philosophies contending here, ranging
from full laissez-faire on the one end to social-good subsidization on the
other. It may be the case we don't agree, but it is the case we must
recognize that the poles exist.
(It should be noted that the privatization of the regional networks is some-
thing that NSF has foreseen, favored and assisted; and the privatization of
the NREN is fully anticipated in the initial legislation.)
--Peter Graham, Rutgers University
*-----
From: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741" <GRAHAM@ZODIAC.BITNET>
Subject: More on privatization of nets
I tried my last posting out on a friend and he added the following useful
points [all that follows is an excerpted quote]:
In addition to the above here are three of my favorite points in this area:
(1) Private, for-profit providers are free of "acceptable use" policies
because there is no chance of private gain being misappropriated from public
goods because there are no public goods (understood as government investments
in the infrastructure).
(2) Private, for-profit providers regard you to be their *customer* which is
not necessarily true for the "traditional" regionals and national backbone
provider who have tended to view the government as their customer.
(3) The expense "penalty" right now for doing business with private, for-
profit providers is perhaps 20%, if that. Meaning, that these providers
charge perhaps 20% more than the traditional regionals. That 20% is
regarded by many to be "not very much", especially given points #1 and #2
above, and to be something that traffic volume will effect favorably and
more rapidly than what has been the case so far.
I like your "two providers -> alternative local / regional and perhaps
national loops" argument.
... Some uncertain footing on the following path but let
me sketch that path all the same: Some think that the privatization of the
offcampus parts of the Network will let the Goverment investment to flow
to the institution (likely good) or to individual users such as principal
investigators (likely bad).
[end of quote]
Peter S. Graham / Computing Services (908) 932-2741
Rutgers -- The State University of New Jersey. Fax: (908) 932-5539
271 Hill Center / Piscataway, N. J. 08855 - 1179
*-----
Subject: Re: Access to the Internet
From: Joan Eslinger <wombat@kilimanjaro.key.amdahl.com>
* From: Bernie Sloan
* Subject: "Free" access
*
* If we believe in the potential
* benefits of networking, the NREN, etc., we should be as concerned about
* improving access for those who aren't as lucky as we are as we are con-
* cerned about losing the "free" access we have.
For those who are interested in that aspect, some working groups were
formed at a May conference (Directions and Implications of Advanced
Compututation '92). One group (Toward a Truly Global Network) is led by
a guy named Larry Press. You can write to lpress@dhvx20.csudh.edu for
more info. A second group is focused on Africa; contact Philip Machanick
at philip@pescadero.stanford.edu.
*-----
From: rich@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Rich Education)
Subject: Re: Access to the Internet
In answer to Lee's question about what the threat might be, I note from
the messages that this topic prompts in a variety of groups that there
is a certain uneasiness that budget cuts will sever one important part
of the nets -- everyone has their favourite candidate -- and the system
will start to fragment. For example, if all email users belonged to as
many groups and used as much university storage as some of us do, limits
might be necessary because of memory problems.
But there are no limits on the amount of use to which you put a public
facility such as a road. What does happen is that someone contructs a
toll road. There are no limits to the amount of time that you fly in a
private plane, but in some places the private traffic is diverted to a
minor airport to avoid burdening the system.
These analogies break down as far as the nets because technology seems
to be proviidng bigger roads and airports at diminishing cost. So
perhaps concern about any threat to what is becoming a remarkable media
are unfounded. I don't know.
-- Paul Rich, The University of Western Australia
