KWALDMAN@WASH-VAX.BBN.COM (11/12/88)
\ \Now many are saying networks are to computers what roads are to cars \(including the need to invest in infrastructure at a societal scale.) \ \ -Barry Shein, ||Encore|| I tend to agree with the above. But as long as we are here in the beginning of things lets use some of our wisdom generated from "cars and roads" Let's NOT burden the taxpayers (i.e. you and me ) with another special interest group, that lobbies for Uncle Sam to pay for networks, as happened with roads, etc. I would like to see something much more entrepreneurial and more fiscally sound, maybe a "network" company or coop etc.. ( I'm sure you all could come up with some good ideas) I say that if new networks are setup with free market principles, we will be able to bypass some of the problems that cars and roads have now. Yes, I know right now we don's have a "traffic" problem and technologies giving us bigger bandwiths every day. However, soon technology will go on to bigger and better things and leave networks to the mundane the way it did cars. The point is I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT IF I DON'T USE IT, AND AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO IF I DO. Remember TNSTAAFL. Thanks Karl /*** Well now I quess, the socialists will flame me, but let's do it privately, you know my mail address ***/ The opinion expressed is mine, not my companies.
bzs@PINOCCHIO.BERKELEY.EDU (Barry Shein) (11/12/88)
>\ >\Now many are saying networks are to computers what roads are to cars >\(including the need to invest in infrastructure at a societal scale.) >\ >\ -Barry Shein, ||Encore|| > I tend to agree with the above. But as long as we are here in the >beginning of things lets use some of our wisdom generated from "cars and roads" >Let's NOT burden the taxpayers (i.e. you and me ) with another special >interest group, that lobbies for Uncle Sam to pay for networks, as happened >with roads, etc. > I would like to see something much more entrepreneurial and more >fiscally sound, maybe a "network" company or coop etc.. ( I'm sure you all >could come up with some good ideas) This sort of thing always sounds reasonable, but (and this is can be kept focused as a "futures" issue) how does one build large societal infra-structures where the profits and investments might be prohibitive? Usually due to the long horizons involved. I think the important point we (should have) learned from cars and the roads is that until we invested in the highway infrastructure there was no auto and trucking industry. There are other, similar examples. It's a chicken and egg problem, why would a private concern want to invest (say) 10 years and 10 billion dollars in building a highway system? There are far easier ways to make a living over that same 10 year period. And until the industry appears it's often hard to feel confident it will ever exist. Would you draw up a business plan right now to spend a few billion dollars and the next 10 years building computer networks because someday you think it will pay off? Do you think you'd get approval on such a thing from a corporate management or a bank? Infrastructure has always been a problematic area for libertarian economic theory. The best I've seen are proposals for "voluntary" taxes to fund high-risk, high-cost, long-term ventures like space programs, computer networks, public water and sewer systems, harbor dredging, super-conducting super-colliders, basic research in general etc. I suppose we could always choose to stand still on these things. >/*** Well now I quess, the socialists will flame me, but let's do I don't think it's fair to call anyone who believes that taxes can be used effectively and for the common good a "socialist", socialism is generally used to denote who owns the means of production so I assume you're only using it to taunt. Paying of some amount of taxes for certain governmental services appears to remain a predominant view in America (we just mostly want to pay less and get more, particularly more for *our* favorite programs.) Let's leave the cheap-shots out of the discussion. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
bowles@millar.UUCP (11/14/88)
From: lll-crg!wash-vax.bbn.com!KWALDMAN Subject: Networks, who pays I tend to agree with the above. But as long as we are here in the beginning of things lets use some of our wisdom generated from "cars and roads." Let's NOT burden the taxpayers (i.e. you and me ) with another special interest group, that lobbies for Uncle Sam to pay for networks, as happened with roads, etc. Forgive the tone, but this sounds like something Reagan might have written. Notice how the "free market" system has improved telephone service :-( and ultimately, airline pricing :-( :-( I say that if new networks are setup with free market principles, we will be able to bypass some of the problems that cars and roads have now. Yes, I know right now we don's have a "traffic" problem and technologies giving us bigger bandwiths every day. What if you approached "network access" as a utility, like electricity or telephone service? The government doesn't DIRECTLY provide utilities, but it does arrange for them to be available to everyone who asks for them. Utilities don't have to be based on the free market system, nor government- sponsored. Look at the electricity or phone companies (don't flame me on technicalities, please). The free market system, that is, letting private companies decide what to provide based on profitability, isn't enough. The point is I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT IF I DON'T USE IT, AND AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO IF I DO. Remember TNSTAAFL. That has nothing to do with the free market system, it has to do with government subsidies. Jeff Bowles
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/15/88)
In article <8811112252.AA25888@pinocchio.UUCP>, bzs@PINOCCHIO.BERKELEY.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > > >\ > > This sort of thing [provision of goods or services by the legitimate sector of the economy, as opposed to the governmental sector] always sounds reasonable, but ... how does one build large societal > infra-structures where the profits and investments might be > prohibitive? Usually due to the long horizons involved. Why do the pro-government types always claim that such goods or services - such as a computer network - would only be provided by a megafirm? Obviously, no one firm could provide all we need in this field, just as none could provide all we need in the way of roads. But a multitude of firms, competing and cooperating as their interests dictate, could. > > I think the important point we (should have) learned from cars and the > roads is that until we invested in the highway infrastructure there > was no auto and trucking industry. There was also less pollution, and there were other means of transport. Government, at various levels, subsidized the auto and trucking industry and victimized these other modes. > Infrastructure has always been a problematic area for libertarian > economic theory. The best I've seen are proposals for "voluntary" > taxes to fund high-risk, high-cost, long-term ventures like space > programs, computer networks, public water and sewer systems, harbor > dredging, super-conducting super-colliders, basic research in general > etc. Read THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY or THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM, among others. > > I suppose we could always choose to stand still on these things. The best way to stand still on any thing is to turn it over to the politicians and bureaucrats. Do we want something as vital as computerdom's future monopolized by the folks who gave us Korea, Viet-Nam, Watergate, Lebanon, Grenada, etc.? Jeff Daiell (opinions my own!) -- If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of Progress?
mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, I'll think of something yet) (11/15/88)
>> The point is I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT IF I DON'T USE IT, >> AND AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO IF I DO. Remember TNSTAAFL. >> >> That has nothing to do with the free market system, it has to do with >> government subsidies. Government subsidies come from taxation, which means that all the taxpayers get to fund this thing. This is silly, since the people who actually want, and can use, a real community network are also the ones who have money to fund it anyway. Those who can't use it are largly the disadvantaged who don't have a lot of spare cash anyway. You want to get the government involved? How about adding regulation to an existing regulated industry instead of creating a new one. Local cable companies are required (in some areas, anyway) to reserve one or more channels for "community broadcasting." I.e. - the "loccal" shows produced by people in the area they serve. Just require them to reserve one or more channels for data transmission, including rental of RS232<->coax boxes, or something similar. I've tried things like this. It didn't fly. Because most of the community didn't care about the "techno-freaks" and saw no reason to give up channels so that some trivial minority (which describes us) can have new toys. <mike
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/16/88)
In article <8811141443.AA06499@lll-crg.llnl.gov>, bowles@millar.UUCP writes: > > From: lll-crg!wash-vax.bbn.com!KWALDMAN > Subject: Networks, who pays > > Let's NOT burden the taxpayers (i.e. you and me ) with another > special interest group, that lobbies for Uncle Sam to pay for > networks, as happened with roads, etc. > > Forgive the tone, but this sounds like something Reagan might have written. Guilt by association! What a wonderful way to debate! Hitler liked chocolate, sir; does that make every chocolate lover a socialist? > Notice how the "free market" system has improved telephone service :-( and > ultimately, airline pricing :-( :-( Long-distance rates down from pre-deregulation (local service still a government-sponsored monopoly!); air fares down from pre-regulation. Or does it bother you that us common folk can afford to fly now? > > What if you approached "network access" as a utility, like electricity or > telephone service? The government doesn't DIRECTLY provide utilities, but > it does arrange for them to be available to everyone who asks for them. Utilities should be free-market, too; franchised monopolies are anti-consumer. Nor does government arrange from everyone to have utilities; those who cannot afford monopolistic prices do without. Note that these monopolies were the result of a massive PR campaign by the major utilities, who preferred dealing with bureaucrats to competing. > > Utilities don't have to be based on the free market system, nor government- > sponsored. Look at the electricity or phone companies (don't flame me on > technicalities, please). The free market system, that is, letting private > companies decide what to provide based on profitability, isn't enough. Why not? > > > That has nothing to do with the free market system, it has to do with > government subsidies. Where do those subsidies *come from*, Mr. Bowles? From money stolen from me! I resent it. "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all." -- Nathaniel Branden Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) (11/16/88)
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) > Why do the pro-government types always claim that such goods or > services - such as a computer network - would only be provided > by a megafirm? Obviously, no one firm could provide all we need > in this field, just as none could provide all we need in the way > of roads. But a multitude of firms, competing and cooperating > as their interests dictate, could. Perhaps one reason is that as of this writing the major wide area networks in this country are all completely dependent on "megafirms" (such as AT&T for the lines), and even they can't seem to get the infrastructure going very well, at least there's a chance (and if you don't think even huge companies like AT&T required the concentration of funding via the govt think again, a lot of the wide area technology was the result of military needs.) Your last sentence remains total hypothesis, however. > The best way to stand still on any thing is to turn it over to > the politicians and bureaucrats. Do we want something as vital > as computerdom's future monopolized by the folks who gave us > Korea, Viet-Nam, Watergate, Lebanon, Grenada, etc.? How about the folks who gave us highways, bridges, men on the moon, the Center for Disease Control, the ARPAnet, the Library of Congress? Namely, us, we gave it to us, when we act in concert. There is no doubt great need for reform, but don't confuse a need for reform with a need for destruction, at least not until you're sure you have something better to replace it. Libertarianism has a long way to go to prove itself as viable, it defies 10,000 years of civilization (usually consciously, claiming itself to be "The New Order".) Unfortunately the mere mention of lower taxes mesmerizes many people. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/17/88)
In article <4203@encore.UUCP>, bzs@encore.com (Barry Shein) writes: > From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) > > The best way to stand still on any thing is to turn it over to > > the politicians and bureaucrats. Do we want something as vital > > as computerdom's future monopolized by the folks who gave us > > Korea, Viet-Nam, Watergate, Lebanon, Grenada, etc.? > > How about the folks who gave us highways, bridges, men on the moon, > the Center for Disease Control, the ARPAnet, the Library of Congress? Ah, yes, the CDC! Remember the Great Swine Flu Debacle of 1976? > > Namely, us, we gave it to us, when we act in concert. In concert -- or BOUND together, like the bundle of sticks from which Fascism derives its name? What if I don't *want* to act in concert, Drill Sergeant? > There is no > doubt great need for reform, but don't confuse a need for reform with > a need for destruction, at least not until you're sure you have > something better to replace it. Destruction, Drill Sergeant? Freedom = Destruction? Wow! I bet you were one of those who were *happy* when Winston Smith fell in line (in "1984"). > Libertarianism has a long way to go to > prove itself as viable And the status quo (statist quo?) doesn't? You call monopolies, the roller-coaster of inflation and recession, rapacious taxes, and frequent wars "viable"?. Sigh! > Unfortunately the mere mention of lower taxes mesmerizes many people. Unfortunately? You think lower taxes are unfortunate? How sad that you think so little of yourself you feel the need for others to spend your money for you. Yes, the idea of lower taxes appeals to me. The idea of none at all appeals to me even more. KYFHO, as F. Paul Wilson might put it. Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
fox@garfield (David Fox) (11/17/88)
In article <2231@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > Utilities should be free-market, too... Here is my understanding of the functioning of a libertarian society: Suppose I and others decide we want a sewer system, but you decide you don't. We spend a great deal of extra money to build this sewer system, due to the fact that you won't let us install pipes under your lawn so we have to take a long detour around. Years later, you come over to one of our houses, receive a demonstration of a toilet, and come to the decision that you would now like a sewer system. The marginal cost of hooking into our sewer system is now very low. However, you have wasted a great deal of *our* money by your lack of foresight. So we decide to charge you, in addition to the marginal cost, a fee of $1,000,000. You find yourself unable to pay this, so you forgo the sewer system. But soon we find ourselves unable to tolerate the smell coming from your house. What now? There is no law against the smell; we are unwilling to pay the price of putting a dome with a catalytic converter over your home; and you are unable to repay your debt to our sewage project. Clearly we no choice but to force you to leave. So how do we do that? (Donning my asbestos suit) David Fox fox@cs.columbia.edu
jwm@STDC.JHUAPL.EDU (Jim Meritt) (11/17/88)
Ref the "Sounds like Ronnie" Nah. Sounds more like the democratic party - collect from everyone, especially those who have the cash, and give the product to a small minority while excluding those who paid the most. See? It sounds bad when the shoe is on your foot, doesn't it?
bzs@ENCORE.COM (Barry Shein) (11/17/88)
As experienced readers of INFO-FUTURES are by now painfully aware of every time some conversation occurs which seems to spark the slightest interest by the membership of this list the Libertarians spring up to exploit the audience as a soapbox for their mostly crackpot ideas. This has now happened several times. Their method is simple, everything needs to be paid for somehow, so start an argument about who pays by claiming that some new devpt described seems to imply, oh, govt sponsored research or whatever. Then go into a tirade about taxes etc., call everyone who disagrees a socialist (or worse, a liberal!) and don't forget to delve into crackpot theories like Hitler's main problem was that he was a socialist (you see, Nazi stands for National Socialist, see, the word is right there! That *proves* it! Forget that Hitler killed all the Marxists, or may have had some other serious flaws, etc.) The issue is not free speech, they are free to set up their own list, discuss their own issues and I encourage them. They of course have no such interest and have made no such attempt since they know damn well that few are VOLUNTARILY interested in their looney-tunes, it has to be graffitti foisted on people. These are the self-proclaimed saviors of freedom, clowns. The issue is whether or not the rest of us can discuss the future of computing etc without having to be subjected to these mindless tirades by "the one true way". Their purpose is not to discuss the topic at hand, their only purpose is to shout their slogans over and over again and the public be damned. It as much involved with free speech as standing up in the middle of a concert hall during the show and shouting their slogans with a megaphone would be, it's just rude and individuals engaging in this should be shown the electronic door. If this doesn't stop IMMEDIATELY I will begin moderating the whole list and promise to toss such drivel in the can (again, they are free to publish elsewhere, freedom of speech does not guarantee you a front page column in the New York Times etc.) Congratulations Jeff Daiell and Karl Waldmann, so young yet already so unknown... -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/18/88)
In article <8811170304.AA10215@stdc.jhuapl.edu>, jwm@STDC.JHUAPL.EDU (Jim Meritt) writes: > Ref the "Sounds like Ronnie" > > Nah. Sounds more like the democratic party - collect from everyone, especially > those who have the cash, and give the product to a small minority while > excluding those who paid the most. Actually, it sounds like *both* of the tax-subsidized political parties! Both work diligently to take money out of the pockets of the lower and middle classes, and those wealthy who came by their money on the market, and put it into the pockets of their friends -- those who can pay $10,000 to have breakfast with Lloyd Bentsen, who can buy a truckload of Jim Wright's autobiography, who cozy up to a fast-and-loose attorney general like Ed Meese. Neither of these government-sponsored parties want an level economic playing field. Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/18/88)
In article <8811171559.AA11040@multimax.encore.com>, bzs@ENCORE.COM (Barry Shein) writes: > > As experienced readers of INFO-FUTURES are by now painfully aware of > every time some conversation occurs which seems to spark the slightest > interest by the membership of this list the Libertarians spring up to > exploit the audience as a soapbox for their mostly crackpot ideas. > This has now happened several times. When advocates of freedom do this, he calls it exploiting the audience. When advocates of coercion do it .... > > Then go into a tirade about taxes etc., call everyone who disagrees a > socialist (or worse, a liberal!) and don't forget to delve into > crackpot theories like Hitler's main problem was that he was a > socialist Hmm. I didn't use either term in reference to those advocating state control of the network -- nor did I call anyone a crackpot, as he is doing. And if ye dinna think Hitler was a socialist, read his platform, study his economic policies, and ask yourself why the National Socialist flag had red in it. Or read HITLER'S SOCIAL REVOLUTION, or THE PSYCHOPATHIC GOD. Or Hitler's condemnations of capitalism. > > The issue is not free speech, they are free to set up their own list, > discuss their own issues and I encourage them. They of course have no > such interest and have made no such attempt since they know damn well > that few are VOLUNTARILY interested in their looney-tunes, it has to > be graffitti foisted on people. These are the self-proclaimed saviors > of freedom, clowns. And this from a man who criticizes name-calling? Sigh. > > > It as much involved with free speech as standing up in the middle of a > concert hall during the show So now he's comparing his entries with a symphony. Interesting! > > I'm reminded of the bad old days of the "New Left" when the campus authoritarians demanded free speech for themselves and shouted down anyone else. Why is it OK for him to use the net to advocate coercion and monopoly and not OK for others to advocate freedom and competition? And also reminded of the Falwell types who want to preach the Gospel and censor The Catcher In The Rye. Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/18/88)
In article <8811171559.AA11040@multimax.encore.com>, bzs@ENCORE.COM (Barry Shein) writes: > > > I will begin moderating the whole > list and promise to toss such drivel in the can Doesn't this remind you of Morton Downey, Jr., who throws guests off his show when they disagree with him? ... Or of the little, little boy in the playground who says, "Play my way or I'll take my football home!"? The irony, of course, is that, after castigating human rights advocates for defending proprietarianism, he now wants to exercise the ultimate proprietary perogative. However, he does us a favor by proving the preferability of the pro- freedom approach. There *are* alternative ways for human rights advocates to make their points, because computer networks are still largely private. But if Uncle Sam were to become heavily involved, and wanted to exclude pro-choice comments from the net, that would be that (just as anti-apartheid advocates can't get time on South Africa's state-owned TV). So: personalities aside, would computing's future be better if allowed to develop freely, or if controlled by the likes of Ed Meese, Bert Lance, and Dan Quayle? Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
webb@leadsv.UUCP (J.J. Webb) (11/19/88)
you know, as someone who subscribed to this group thinking that i'd
find some interesting discussions on the future of computers and
computing, i must say that all i see are the dogma armies battling
for the high ground (and not finding any).
now, as a stranger here, i ask, "does anyone have any serious
proposals for funding a `public' network?" i mean serious, you know,
like we should do A and then B and a little bit of C to accomplish D.
or should the 'u' key be depressed? cause if comp.soc.futures is just
alt.politics, i got better things to do.
yeah, yeah, i know, "Who the hell are you? And how'd you get in
here?" well i stumbled thru the door and thought i might learn
something ... i hope i wasn't wrong.
.....jjwebb.....brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (11/19/88)
Computer networks are going to become more than just the roads and phones and TVs of the future. They will be the very foundation of society and commerce. The most fundamental realization we can make today is that no single entity can be allowed to control the networks. Particularly the government. If the government controls the networks, we will be *literally* one keystroke away from a police state. Not that the government may want that. But if all you have to do is load your programs into the network to control society, someday it will happen. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (11/20/88)
BT>From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
BT>Computer networks are going to become more than just the roads and phones
BT>and TVs of the future. They will be the very foundation of society
BT>and commerce.
Well one could say that roads and telephones are the very foundation of
society and commerce. Try to imagine either without roads and telephones
:-)
BT>
BT>The most fundamental realization we can make today is that no single
BT>entity can be allowed to control the networks. Particularly the government.
BT>
BT>If the government controls the networks, we will be *literally one
BT>keystroke away from a police state.
That's an important point. A concern I have is that we are getting more
and more into a world where power (of all kinds) is concentrated.
Watching big business and big government conspire in Canada recently to
drench the populace with mass media advertising saying nothing more
profound than "the leader of the opposition is lying" makes one wonder
if there is more than "one entity" in society?
Among what power groups would you suggest control be distributed? I'd
suggest that control be distributed democratically among all the people.
That probably equates with government control.
Government control is not so bad as long as the people can control the
government. If the people cannot control the government then you have a
police state no matter what the technology. Hitler and Stalin did not
need computer networks to establish police-states.
Computer communication networks strike me as no more easy to monopilize
than any other means of communication. What strikes me as scary is the
possibility of the computerization of all financial transactions. That
would genuinely enable the "network masters" to monitor and control any
financial relationship.
BT>Not that the government may want
BT>that. But if all you have to do is load your programs into the network
BT>to control society, someday it will happen.
I'm inlcined to agree, with qualifications. The question is, how can
this kind of danger be realistically guarded against?
=Doug
--
Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162
UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!doug
Internet: doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORGkwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (11/21/88)
What kind of national network do you want and need? Will uucp serve your needs? Good, then a grass-roots, user-funded national network is just the thing for you. Do you want: bulk-data transfer supercomputer access with "visualization" access to library information bases distributed directory services terminal access to remote systems? Then you need more than uucp. Do you think that maybe the NSFnet is going in the right direction? Then what you need is a coordinated effort to build a national network. I don't see how to succeed in this without the involvement of government agencies as well as user funding. We need a coordinator and the educational community has been slow to produce such an agent. Commercial firms, for the most part, are constrained from such an agency. The phone companies do not yet even understand what we are trying to do. The NSF is our one great hope at present. And if you think that somehow this leads to a totalitarian police state, then we aren't talking in the same universe and please don't post a follow-up to pursue that line of thinking. Note: Don't construe my comparison of uucp to NSFnet as in any way being a denigration of uucp. uucp is an enormous success and a perfect example of a network that serves a particular need. Kent England, Boston University
tom@TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Thomas Vietorisz) (11/21/88)
>From article by webb@lll-lcc.llnl.gov (J.J. Webb) <4778@leadsv.UUCP>: > you know, as someone who subscribed to this group thinking that i'd > find some interesting discussions on the future of computers and > computing, i must say that all i see are the dogma armies battling... > now, as a stranger here, i ask, "does anyone have any serious > proposals for funding a `public' network?" As another stranger, I second that. Too much sophomoric ideolo- gizing, a generally disappointing level of information content. I am for a public education and research network, but am willing to listen to serious reservations about letting large organizations, especially the government interfere with and control individual initiatives. The prob- lem is that most of the benefits to any communication network, beginning with the postal service way back, accrue to society as a whole. Even from the most conservative free-enterprise point of view, user fees are the wrong way to fund this kind of a service; economists deal with this under the heading of "external economies" or "spillover effects". If fund- ed by user fees, the system will be grossly underutilized. In the case of a national education and research network, a year's study of markets and economic impacts financed by NYSERNet leads to the conclusion that such a system can neither be self-generating nor self- financing; yet it constitutes the indispensable infrastructure that is required if the U.S. is to make the transition from the age of traditional mass production to the information age, and stay internationally competi- tive, especially vis-a-vis Asia. The cultural resistances are enormous, even apart fr apart from the issue of public funding. All of this requires thoughtful and informed discussion, which should not be drowned out by ideological din. T. Vietoriszz
bowles@millar.UUCP (11/22/88)
From: lll-crg!bu-cs.bu.edu!kwe (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) Will uucp serve your needs? Good, then a grass-roots, user-funded national network is just the thing for you. Do you want: ...bulk-data transfer ...supercomputer access with "visualization" ...access to library information bases ...distributed directory services ...terminal access to remote systems? Then you need more than uucp. This may be oversimplifying, but isn't the difference between uucp and most of those things above the difference between batch and non-batch processing? For example, library queries can be done batch, over a uucp-like mechanism. (AT&T has two methods of access to its corporate libraries: you either dial into the database machines or uucp specific requests. Yes, the batch mode is U-G-L-Y, but it works.) But uucp is point-to-point, though. I don't see how to succeed in this without the involvement of government agencies as well as user funding. We need a coordinator and the educational community has been slow to produce such an agent. Admit, though, that in the past 7-8 years the educational world has been largely what's produced "Usenet", such as it is. We'll all agree that 7-8 years is a LONG time, but the educational (grass-roots) world can get SOMETHING done. What the educational community can't do is get into consumer's homes, with new or modified services. Corporations can - look at what cable TV has done around the country; utilities can; the government can - but usually doesn't. And if you think that somehow this leads to a totalitarian police state, then we aren't talking in the same universe and please don't post a follow-up to pursue that line of thinking. I promise not to argue about who should pay, but I don't trust "the private sector" any further than I could throw it. (And I don't trust the U.S. Government either. What else is there? The phone company?) Jeff Bowles
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (11/22/88)
How to guard against it? Decentralization of political power. Individual freedom. These are just political ideals today, but with networks growing as they are, they will become necessary. The networks must be owned and controled by people. Small networks would be best. It will be up to the customers, but with hope, the customers, even big business, will not allow all their computer networking to be in the hands of one entity. Up to now we have allowed the government to control the phone company because even taking over the phone company and the post office would not be enough for a real police state. In a free society, you really have to work hard to set up a police state. I hate to say this, as I'm not a big gun fan, but it's harder still in an armed society. That's the reason the framers of the US constitution put in that controversial 2nd amendement. We need a modern 2nd amendment, for when computers get more powerful than guns: "As free communication is the basis of a free society, the right of the citizens to own and control computers and communications networks shall not be abridged." -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) (11/23/88)
>now, as a stranger here, i ask, "does anyone have any serious >proposals for funding a `public' network?" i mean serious, you know, >like we should do A and then B and a little bit of C to accomplish D. >or should the 'u' key be depressed? cause if comp.soc.futures is just >alt.politics, i got better things to do. Funding is always political. Anything which is government funded must be essentially open and nondiscrimatory. Private ventures are free to exclude that which they think is unprofitable. A public voice communication network is considerred necessary in California (Pa Bell must provide service to any potential customer). It is handled by a publicly regulated private company. -- -- s m ryan --------------------------------------- _ Then Guthrun crossed the wasted lands and combed her hair with sooty hands. Alone she watched the oceans churning, and sang of heroes, fame most yearning.
doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (11/30/88)
b>From: bowles@millar.UUCP
b>
b>Admit, though, that in the past 7-8 years the educational world
b>has been largely what's produced "Usenet", such as it is. We'll
b>all agree that 7-8 years is a LONG time, but the educational
b>(grass-roots) world can get SOMETHING done.
b>
b>What the educational community can't do is get into consumer's
b>homes, with new or modified services. Corporations can - look at
b>what cable TV has done around the country; utilities can; the
b>government can - but usually doesn't.
Well, the situation is not so bad. Right now anyone can buy an
account on a uucp machine for $10 a month and $6 per hour DATAPAC
charges in Canada. Similar facilities exist in the US for
comparable prices. This is usable.
Without any further technology (such as an automated uucp link to
your home computer which *is* being done, albeit only
experimentally) we have a continent-wide e-mail system that is
quite cheap.
A problem, of sorts, is that it is being done by PeaceNET and its
affiliates and is an explictly non-commercial service for
non-profit groups, and the "community-sector". Nevertheless, the
economic viability of it is pretty well demonstrated.
Anyone who can afford a 286 box and Xenix can put up his own uucp
site. Heck, you can even do it, though somewhat less elegantly on
an 8088 box with DOS and UFGATE and a lot of fiddling about.
A Xenix 286 or 386 uucp system can support quite a number of
users, in the hundreds, so the cost of creating a site locally
can be spread over many users, reducing the per-user cost to
something very modest.
So it's not a matter of whether it can be done economically, it's a
problem of simply doing what we already know how to do.
That's a problem of raising capital, assembling the
infrastructure, and then marketing the service.
Government rarely does things for which there is no substantial
demand. The non-business demand for e-mail will be small until
the non-business users of e-mail become numerous. They will not
become numerous until inexpensive e-mail options are available.
Government maybe *should* do something, and in France, with
Minitel, government actually got into the game quite early. I'm
pessimistic about convincing legislators who aren't really sure
what a computer is that there is a need for a public computer
network. <sigh>
Bankers are just as hard to convince, because the market demand
has to be developed, it's not visibly there. Getting a loan to
open a hamburger stand is easy, getting one to start an e-mail
service is much more tricky.
What I've chosen to do is simply do it. We operate a very small
public access e-mail system with links to uucp/internet/fidonet.
We charge, people pay. We're growing, Rome wasn't built in a day.
=Doug
--
Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162
UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!doug
Internet: doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG