>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 18 22:18:26 2000
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0842AF004
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:18:25 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from panix6.panix.com (panix6.panix.com [166.84.0.231])
> by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
> id E29C731151; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (from ronda@localhost) by panix6.panix.com (8.8.8/8.7.1/PanixN1.0) id
>WAA02427; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: asking question about role for govt in development of Internet
>
>
>This is a response to a post on Dave Farber's IP list
>
>Farber raises the question of what role does government need to play
>in the development of the Internet and of software development and
>related research and development of these new computer and computer
>communications technologies.
>
>In 1972 there was a meeting in Washington of the International
>Computer Communications Conference on the social impact of the
>new computer communications technical developments.
>
>At that meeting people spoke about how the new technical and scientific
>developments that came from the merger of communications and computer
>science would be significant developments but that there would *not*
>be government officials or others who understood them to be able to
>take the appropriate measures to support their development and the
>needed social responsibility with regard to their development.
>
>I refer to this in a draft paper. The draft is at
>http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/computer-communications.txt
>
>It is indeed that what was predicted in 1972 has come to pass.
>
>It would be good to see some discussion of this issue on this mailing
>list and online in general.
>
>In "IP: Washington Diary #3 -- The Facts of Life in DC", Dave Farber
>wrote:
>
>>This is the first in a set of diary entries addressed to the
>>important issues facing the government, public and industry in cyberspace
>>and what I have a learned about the Government in general and the
>>regulatory bodies in specific.
>
>>While I promised not to keep disclaiming, in this report I must emphasize
>>that this certainly is not the FCC speaking nor any of the Commissioners --
>>just Dave Farber.
>
>>First the FCC, The attitude at the FCC is very much to loosen regulation on
>>traditional services; to encourage the exploration of new services on
>>established systems and to count on market forces to control competition
>>and drive prices down. Sounds great and works rather well in a competitive
>>market place -- like cellular and long distance,
>
>
>Dave,
>
>What this leaves out is that we have lost the long term basic research
>that has brought us to our current situation.
>
>There is no longer a "Bell Labs" in the US that is required by government
>obligation to support and protect researchers of the quality of
>those who produced the transistor, or the theories that have
>helped bring us into this period like Shannon's "A Mathematical
>Theory of Communication".
>
>Those arguing for "market forces to control competition and drive
>prices down" have no understanding of the development of science
>and technology as a process that depends on basic research and
>the support of science and scientists.
>
>The economic theories have failed to keep up with the realities
>of large scale production and the creation of new theories and
>new concepts as the crucial link in keeping prices down, because
>they bring into the world something new.
>
>The economic theories governing the FCC activities are theories
>that perhaps serve certain investment interests, but they don't
>serve the public or the citizens who depend on an up to date
>and future looking infrastructure.
>
>>In the Internet space, the attitude of Washington outside the Congress is
>>"we don't understand it and lets leave it alone" [ at least till they
>>understand it better :-) ]. Again it is very much , "let market forces do
>>the regulation".
>
>In the past, for example in the 1950s, there were scientists like
>von Neumann and spokespeople like James Killian who spoke up against
>the bogus theories of "market forces" to do "regulation".
>
>They made clear the need for government to support scientific
>development in the field of basic research.
>
>>I have a big problem with this strategy. not that I like the other obvious
>>one any better -- namely regulate, My concern is centered around the
>>question of whether in a dynamic field such as the Internet where
>>technology drives it fast -- can the reliance on market forces work to
>>avoid damaging our citizens.
>
>Good to hear that you have recognized the problem that has already
>been allowed to go on for too long.
>
>There are those who spoke up against relying on so called "market
>forces" to do what is needed to get access to all to the Internet
>in 1994 at the NTIA's online conference held by the US department
>of Commerce. In "Netizen: On the History and Impact of Usenet
>and the Internet" we have two chapters on the conference and the
>concerns raised at the time. (Chapters 11 and 14).
>
>There is a need for a very different process to develop the Internet
>and to get access to all than relying on so called "market forces".
>
>The Internet is something new that has grown up through a new process
>of development, and abandoning it to old worn out theories for its
>development was recognized as a disastrous strategy in 1994 and
>has proved to be even more disastrous than was predicted.
>
>There are many people who are very frustrated today with what is
>happening in Internet development.
>
>But more importantly, there is no longer a vision among the scientific
>community to help light the path forward for the development of the
>Internet. Licklider's vision of the importance of access for all
>to a participatory process where all would help to develop the
>Internet has been ignored. Any serious discussion of what this
>vision suggests is needed for Internet development is absent in
>both the technical community and the major press in the US.
>
>>The center of the issue is whether by the time you determine that there
>>has been a failure of market forces, will it be too late to correct things.
>
>To the contrary, the center of the issue is that the kind of Internet
>that so called "market forces" would develop even if they could is
>not the general purpose and future oriented Internet.
>
>It is not the Internet that would reach all and that has researchers
>considering the problems that need to be solved to have the Internet
>reach all with a broad form of participatory access.
>
>The so called "market forces" see the Internet user as a passive
>coach potato who they want to lure into buying this or that new
>form of entertainment.
>
>The notion of the Internet as an advanced communications infrastructure
>is totally absent in the vision of those pursuing the "market forces"
>dream.
>
>The essential nature of the Internet isn't explored or understood.
>
>That essential nature is as a general purpose human computer communications
>system.
>
>The notion of the Netizen has grown up on and as a part of the development
>of the Internet.
>
>The so called "market forces" leaves out that the Netizen is a participatory
>concept, where those online participate in development the future
>of the Internet, and in doing what is needed for the Internet to
>be able to grow and develop.
>
>"Netizen forces" not so called "market forces" are what are needed
>for the development of an Internet.
>
>>Counting on such slow acting forces such as regulation and anti-trust will
>>leave dead bodies and bankrupt companies and dominant players either
>>slowing innovation or controlling price/service.
>
>The goal of Netizen force is a vibrant and general purpose ever
>developing Internet, not of some successful company.
>
>The goal of so called "market forces" is to the development
>of "companies" or "players".
>
>These are very different goals and they produce a different future.
>
>Already we see what the infatuation with "market forces" as the
>means of developing the Internet has led to.
>
>We are seeing the development of big corporate entities, and
>of a media blitz about dot.coms but no support for the technical,
>scientific, educational, and other general purpose nature
>that the Internet promised for the future.
>
>>A case in point is Microsoft, IF the government contention is upheld, we
>>have a case where clearly market forces did not work, where many hopeful
>>competitors are dead and where even after the proposed breakup, the
>>established customer base and startup nature of real competition will still
>>give Microsoft a big edge.
>
>Not only did so called "market forces" not work with regard to
>the creation of other companies, more importantly, the kind
>of research that Bell Labs made possible, was not part of nor
>could it be part of a companies agenda.
>
>This is the bigger problem that Microsoft represents.
>
>The software they produce is not one to create a future oriented
>infrastructure but a software to give them permanent dominance
>of product from the past.
>
>>I should have said early on I am not a trained economist. I am a scientist
>>and a entrepreneur so my terms may be incorrect in economic theory but are
>>the ideas right?
>
>The sadder part is that the entrepreneurial economic theory is
>not scientific.
>
>That a scientific approach to economics is not something that
>those advocating "market forces" are able to apply.
>
>Otherwise they would realize that the kind of scientific foundation
>for the economy is routed in good government regulation like that
>which supported the development of Bell Labs, or the kind of
>government activity that led to the creation of the Information
>Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) inside of ARPA.
>
>See for example http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/arpa_ipto.txt
>
>>So what can be done. Real hard! I can give you a set of future scenarios
>>which would make the Robber Baron's envious.
>
>First there needs to be some public discussion to try to determine
>the public interest on this issue.
>
>That kind of public discussion is woefully absent in the US in
>the major media.
>
>And it isn't even allowed to happen on your list Dave, unfortunately,
>up to now. Opening your list up to such discussion, would be a sign
>of the fact that there are not yet any answers.
>
>In fact it isn't yet even understood what the problem is.
>
>(This is another situation like the creation of ICANN. The problem
>isn't yet understood. But already the vested interests are campaigning
>for their side to make out like bandits. And so the so called
>"solution" only makes the problem worse, rather than providing
>any means for a solution.)
>
>
>>The only way I can see out of this is for the Government to establish a set
>>of trip wires that define the boundaries of acceptable behavior. The
>>purpose of the trip wires is not to just constrain behavior but to help
>>companies not to trespass on dangerous ground. Without such understood trip
>>wires no one knows when they go to far.
>
>The problem is that this doesn't deal with the fact that the installed
>operating systems software creates a form of infrastructure of sorts,
>and as such needs to be treated as an infrastructure. That means having
>a way of supporting the future research for its development, as
>well as considering what form is needed to sell and distribute
>that software.
>
>>How are these trip wires articulated, not in private negotiations but in
>>very public speeches by , in the FCC case , the Commissioners and senior staff.
>
>Your "trip wire" suggestion sounds an awful lot like "market forces"
>
>It doesn't get to the essence of the problem.
>
>That essence is that we need a good form of infrastructure for
>software development.
>
>It isn't that public infrastructure and the interests of different
>corporate entities are the same.
>
>Infrastructure needs government support and protection.
>
>That is the opposite of the corporate goal of its bottom line.
>
>Those two goals are not synomous.
>
>>In many ways this reminds me of Herman Kahn at the RAND Corp in his books
>>on Thinking the Unthinkable -- on Thermonuclear war. Herman was endlessly
>>criticized for daring to think of thermonuclear war. His comment was it was
>>the highest form of irresponsibility not to understand the steps involved
>>so you had an understanding of what actions would result in -- hundreds of
>>millions of dead. I believe Herman helped to stop nuclear Armageddon.
>
>But the need was to figure out a way to make communication possible
>that would stop any thoughts of nuclear war.
>
>
>>The analogy in this case is there is no Herman Kahn (I am just a learner)
>>who has articulated future scenarios and established based on the analysis
>>of these scenarios, where the trip wires are and what are reasonable
>>directions.
>
>If you are still a learner, hopefully you will not only go to
>the vested interests to learn. The importance of government is
>that it needs to determine what is the public interest, not
>what are the commercial self interests.
>
>The voices of those who don't have a commercial interest have
>to be encouraged and they need to be considered and understood.
>
>
>>Example, would a duopoly that controls data access to homes control path
>>and content be acceptable? Would an equivalent of the ALLEGED behavior of
>>MS mapped over to the communications field be acceptable? What are the
>>scenarios that would allow this to happen and how realistic are they and
>>where to be put the tripwire such that we can detect problems before it is
>>too late and what do we then do.
>
>No a duopoly wouldn't be acceptable.
>
>But more important the fact that how to get access to a participatory
>communications medium for all is the question, not access to a new
>form of tv.
>
>I suggest you read the NTIA online conference discussion from Nov 1994,
>which we not only write about in Netizens, but which should also
>still be available online at the NTIA.
>
>The kind of access that is important is not the kind of access
>that either "market forces" or "trip wires" will bring to citizens.
>
>>Boy, it was easy in the old days when progress was slow and you had time to
>>react and patch prior to a rip in the economic fabric -- not now people!!
>
>No it has never been easy. The anti trust laws didn't come from
>a time when it was easy, for sure.
>
>But there was a vigorous press in the past so there was a public
>debate that had a broad range of views.
>
>That is what is missing now with the corporate control of the major
>media.
>
>The NTIA online conference in 1994 showed the Internet makes
>some of the needed public discussion possible when government
>recognizes the need for that discussion.
>
>However, as in 1994 the discussion was then ignored and 6 years
>later the problems that were predicted are even harder now to deal
>with than they would have been then.
>
>It is good to hear that you are raising these questions.
>
>But will you welcome a broad discussion of them?
>
>That will be a sign of whether or not the problems can be
>successfully solved.
>
>>In the next Diary entry -- will security issues sink the internet into
>>regulation (hint my call is yes).
>
>>Dave
>
>
>Ronda
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Netizens: On the History and Impact
> of Usenet and the Internet
> http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
> in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719
It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
