🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CpHsws.Ar5@roscom.com>, Monty Solomon writes:

} TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE
} May 7, 1994

 [...]

} The letter will be sent to Steve Wolff, the Director of
} Networking and Communications for NSF.  The purpose of the letter
} is to express a number of user concerns about the future of
} Internet pricing.
} ... The letter expresses
} the view that metered pricing of Internet usage should be
} avoided, and that NSF should ensure that the free flow of
} information through Internet listserves and file server sites is
} preserved and enhanced.

Feh --- what a load of hogwash.  I think that the *SOONER* they
_stop_ having the taxpayers subsidize this grand toy NSF has
bestowed upon their chosen few and have folks start to PAY
for the bandwidth they so rapaciously chew up, the _better_ the
internet will be.

If you want a taxpayer funded toy, why not petition to have 'em buy you
a SEGA.

On the other hand, if you're SO sure that the taxpayers are well served
by providing you-all with free communications services, maybe you should
broaden the petition to give you-all free telephone service, too,
so you can call, modem and fax everywhere, for hours at a time, all for
free [at taxpayer expense, of course].

}      PRICING.
} 
} We are concerned about the future pricing systems for Internet
} access and usage.  Many users pay fixed rates for Internet
} connections, often based upon the bandwidth of the connection,
} and do not pay for network usage, such as the transfer of data
} using email, ftp, Gopher or Mosaic.

Right, and what nonsense THAT is!!

} ...  It has been widely reported
} on certain Internet discussion groups, such as com-priv, that the
} operators of the NAPs are contemplating a system of usage based
} pricing.

Indeed.  Since the usage *COSTS*, why not have the bandwidth-gobblers
_pay_?


} We are very concerned about any movement toward usage based
} pricing on the Internet, and we are particularly concerned about
} the future of the Internet Listserves, which allow broad
} democratic discourse on a wide range of issues.

Translation: don't take away _our_ free ride.

} ...   We believe that
} the continued existence and enhancement of the Internet
} discussion groups and distribution lists is so important that any
} pricing scheme for the NAPs that would endanger or restrict their
} use should be rejected by the NSF.

Feh.  99% of the stuff that floods the 'discussion groups' is crap
poured out by folk who don't have to give a thought to how much
bandwidth they chew up to say nothing.   In addition to the general
fairness of a 'pay for play' setup, putting something in the loop
to give folk [or their sysadmins] some reason to think twice before
broadcasting their stuff might be a welcome boost to the s/n ratio.

} It is important for NSF to recognize that the Internet is more
} than a network for scientific researchers or commercial
} transactions.  It represents the most important new effort to
} expand democracy into a wide range of human endeavors.  The open
} communication and the free flow of information have make
} government and private organizations more accountable, and
} allowed citizens to organize and debate the widest range of
} matters.

This is amusing self-serving stuff.  Like having the gov't provide
free Windows-developers kits to anyone who asks for one, realizing
that "the public' largely won't want or care about it and so it'll
be a nicely target benny for the in-guys, just like providing 'free'
T3 services to flood with GIFs and IRC noise and thousands of stupid
newsgroups and ...

} ...  Federal policy should be directed at expanding public
} access to the Internet,

And I think the best way to do that is to get the feds *OUT* of the
networking business.  They belong there no more than I think that the
feds should be running a national newspaper given free to the chosen-few
or providing free phone service or free air travel or free anything-else
that can be easily provided by the market [as it is for an awful lot
of us] and for which the bennys will be so skewed toward a select clique.

} ... and it should reject efforts to introduce
} pricing schemes for Internet usage that would mimic commercial
} telephone networks or expensive private network services such as
} MCI mail.

How touching: of course you didn't want to mention the pricing that
already *exists* for those of us not fortunate enough to suck at the
taxpayer's teat.


} To put this into perspective, NSF officials must consider how any
} pricing mechanisms will change the economics of hosting an
} Internet electronic mail discussion groups and distribution
} lists.

Indeed, and they can call world, netcom, alternet, etc, etc and find out
that it would be *dirt* cheap.

NSF could also start asking whether it is a productive use of their
budget to be spending taxpayer dollars on these things.

} ...   Many of these discussion groups and lists are very large,
} such as Humanist, GIS-L, CNI-Copyright, PACS-L, CPSR-Announce or
} Com-Priv.

Are these within NSF's charter?  Why should taxpayers pay for CPSR-Announce,
for example?

} ...   It is not unusual for a popular Internet discussion
} group to have several thousand members, and send out more than
} 100,000 email messages per day.

Yeah, and have 99,995 of those be near content-free nonsense.  Make 'em
pay and maybe the flood would subside some and there'd actually be
some *substance* to the discussion group traffic.

} ...   These discussion groups and
} distribution lists are the backbones of democratic discourse on
} the Internet, and it is doubtful that they would survive if
} metered pricing of electronic mail is introduced on the Internet.

"doubtful"?   You haven't offered even a tiny scrap of information to
indicate that that might be the case.  first off, metered or not if NSF
thought that the activity were worthwhile they could pick up the bill
[isn't that what happens now whne you go to an approved conference: or
does NSF run its own fleet of airplanes, run its own chain of hotels
and restaurants, "NSF rent a car", etc]?  Second off, you imply [with *NO*
support whatever] that the cost would be high, when the facts seem to
be quite the contrary.  Third, you seem to think that providing _some_
kind of motivation-for-restraint would be a bad thing, but that isn't
at all clear [it'd be hard to find *ANY* newsgroup that wouldn't be
improved by cutting its traffic in half].


} Usage based pricing would also introduce a wide range of problems
} regarding the use of ftp, gopher and mosaic servers, since it
} conceivable that the persons who provide "free" information on
} servers would be asked to pay the costs of "sending" data to
} persons who request data.  This would vastly increase the costs
} of operating a server site, and would likely eliminate many
} sources of data now "published" for free.

I agree --- clearly this should be adddressed, and should have been long
ago.  If you are going to swallow up a gigabyte of bandwidth downloading
the latest JPL GIFs of saturn, why NOT have _you_ pay for the privilege
somehow?  Why _should_ it be free?


} We are also concerned about the types of  accounting mechanisms
} which may be developed or deployed to facilitate usage based
} pricing schemes., which raise a number of concerns about personal
} privacy.  Few Internet users are anxious to see a new system of
} "surveillance" that will allow the government or private data
} vendors to monitor and track individual usage of Information
} obtained from Internet listserves or fileserves.

Right.  Best way to keep the gov't out of the Internet is [ta
DAAAH] to keep the gov't OUT Of the internet.  Guess which parts of
the internet are subject to the gov'ts rules and regulations for
who can connect and what they can do?  _just_ the gov't parts.
The existing model seems straightforward enough, why not just
expand it by getting NSF [and the gov't and the taxpayers] OUT
of the business of unfairly-competing in the communications market?


}      We are also concerned about the potential for anti-
} competitive behavior by the firms that operate the NAPs.  Since
} 1991 there have been a number of criticisms of ANS pricing
} practices, and concerns about issues such as price discrimination
} or preferential treatment are likely to become more important as
} the firms operating the NAPs become competitors of firms that
} must connect to the NAPs.  We are particularly concerned about
} the announcements by PAC-Bell and Ameritech that they will enter
} the retail market for Internet services, since both firms were
} selected by NSF to operate NAPs.  It is essential that the
} contracts signed by NSF include the strongest possible measures
} to insure that the operators of the NAPs do not unfairly
} discriminate against unaffiliated companies.

Besides the random hyperbole, can you describe how the 'anti-competitive'
behavior would work?  How would they force alternet out of the market?
How would they prevent NEW alternets from joining the market?  As for
providing access, how would they squeeze out the worlds, WELLs, netcoms,
freenets, etc, etc?

Ah, but of course: the problem is sucking at the taxpayer's teat again.
Granted: if NSF [using *our* money] chooses to establish some kind of
monopoly and then grant non-competitive access to its chosen few, that
would 'discriminate against unaffiliated companies'.  The easiest way
to avoid this is to NOT have NSF throwning taxpayer money around
willy-nilly.


} As the Internet moves from the realm of the research community to
} a more vital part of the nation's information infrastructure, the
} NSF must ensure that its decisions reflect the needs and values
} of a much larger community.

WRONG.  Why not:

"As the Internet moves from the realm of the research communicty
to a more vital part of the nation's information infrastuructre, NSF
should acknowledge [as both ARPA and DCA have done before it] that that
is *beyond* its charter and *NOT* an appropriate activity, and so get
*stop* competing in, and distoring, the market that is _already_ serving
that 'larger community', and go back to spending its budgets funds on
its chartered activities."


} 1.   The NSF contracts with the NAPs operators will include
}      clauses that determine how the NAP services will be priced. 
}      It is important that NSF disclose and receive comment on all
}      pricing proposals before they become final.  NSF should
}      create an online discussion list to facilitate public dialog
}      on the pricing proposals, and NSF should identify its
}      criteria for selecting a particular pricing mechanism,
}      addressing the issue of how the pricing system will impact
}      the Internet's role in facilitating democratic debate.

WRONG again:

Within the proper scope of its charter [which is NOT providing
free/subsidized communications services, at taxpayer expense, to
its chosen beneficiaries], it should realize that the Internet
*has* matured and should now handle it like any other [money-costing]
resource that its grantees need to use.  This eliminates all the
bologna with 'discussion groups' [*MORE* wasted bandwidth] and
other similar things: let NSF handle providing its grantees with
network services JUST in the same way it provides them with long-distance
phone services, plane services, rent-a-car services, etc.


} 2.   NSF should create a consumer advisory board which would
}      include a broad cross section of consumer interests,
}      including independent network service providers (NSPs),
}      publishers of Internet discussion groups and distribution
}      lists, academic networks, librarians, citizen groups and
}      individual users.  This advisory board should review a
}      number of policy questions related to the operation of the
}      Internet, including questions such as the NAP pricing, NAP
}      operator disclosure of financial, technical and operational
}      data, systems of Internet accounting which are being tested
}      on the vBNS and other topics.

WRONG:

We are _just_ getting to a truly free internet.  It has taken over
25 years to get the shackles of gov't regulations and usage polices
*OUT* so some semblance of real freedom can blossom.  I realize this
TRULY irks many folk, who hate it that there are apparently "no rules"
and truly hate it that there is noone being "net.cop" any more.

Just what we need: an advisory board.  What would represing a
'broad cross section'?  Having 200,000 folk and business and
organizations on the board?  Or are we back to the chosen-few, taxpayer
picks up the bill *AND* [much to the delight of some] the return
of the net.cops.


} 3.   NSF should solicit public comment, though an online
}      discussion group, of the types of safeguards against
}      anticompetitive behavior by the NAPs which should be
}      addressed in the NSF/NAPs contracts, and on issues such as
}      NAPs pricing and Internet accounting systems.

Best safeguard: STAY OUT OF THE MARKET.  There are dozens [hundreds by
now?] of competing NSPs.  The alternatives are mindboggling and expanding
every day.  All _because_ the gov't, at last, loosened its grip on
the network.  NOTHING will mess it up quicker than having the gov't step
back in again.

My public comment: NSF should go back to make grants to fund research it
considers important and useful, and get OUT of the communications
business.

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                               bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA         (703) 921-2358