December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Internet telephony report
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While they _probably_ aren't going to start trying to charge for Internet phone service, the FCC still thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet - with the egalitarian excuse of equal access as among the reasons. Hmph... bureaucracy. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 03:21:47.24 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj(a)tdrs.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list cyber-rights(a)cpsr.org" <errors(a)snyside.sunnyside.com> Subject: cr> Regulating the Internet It is highly recommended that those who are concerned about the coming communications regulatory regime read the FCC's recent NPRMs on "universal service" and "interconnection." --caj @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ANALYSIS: FREE NET TELEPHONY + by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent Washington 4/29/96 net-regulation 1023/$10.23 THE REGULATORS MEET THE INTERNET by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent WASHINGTON -- Fears of Rambo-like regulation have spawned a sort of spring fever in the online world, with presumptive alarms and bulletins ricocheting all over the Net. Will the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) choke the Internet's wide-open pathways with regulatory underbrush? Will the petition filed by the Americas' Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA) on March 4 be granted, stopping Internet telephony or mandating access charges? (AR, No. 245 ) Or, even more catastrophically, will the Net somehow be swept under the FCC regime for telecommunications carriers? The answers, according to sources both inside and outside of the FCC, for the time being, are a qualified no. On April 19, the FCC gave its tentative response on the Net telephony problem, partially assuaging worries that new regulations will require access charges and tariffing for long distance voice over the Internet. Although the soft no from the FCC was reassuring, the wall protecting Internet voice as an "information service" has scores of cracks and may still crumble under the blows of a regulatory hammer. The issue was addressed in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on "interconnection," or more formally, "implementation of the local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996." The NPRM is as interesting for what it does not say as for what it does. Generally, it poses a lot of questions, on which parties will file comments, and on the basis of which the FCC will finalize rules in August. The agency sees the proceeding and the consequent rules as establishing "the 'new regulatory paradigm' that is essential to achieving Congress' policy goals." The visible fractures in the old regulatory regime stood out prominently in the interconnection notice. Two aspects of the proceeding, in particular, directly relate to Internet access and pricing regimes. First, the FCC made it clear that current access charges and interconnection regulations are "enforceable until they are superseded." The FCC said, in regulatory-ese, that it wanted comments on "any aspect of this Notice that may affect existing 'equal access and nondiscriminatory interconnection restrictions and obligations (including receipt of compensation).'" Translated, this means that Net telephone providers and users can breathe a little more easily for the time being. But, the call for comments on the existing "restrictions and guidelines" should not be taken for granted. It is precisely these regulations -- which exempt "enhanced service" providers, like Internet and online service providers from paying access charges for their usage of the facilities and network components of local exchange carriers (LECs) -- which are on the table in this proceeding and related ones. A second aspect of the interconnection proceeding relates directly to definitions. The Commission asks for comment "on which carriers are included under" the definition of "telecommunications carriers" offered in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Critically, the agency asks: "How does the provision of an information service [as conventionally defined in the law and prior regulations], in addition to an unrelated telecommunications service, affect the status of a carrier as a 'telecommunications carrier?'" This is a call for commenters to address the issue of whether "information service providers," such as ISPs, who also provide "telecommunications services," should be treated as "telecommunications carriers" and therefore be subject to all, some, or none of the requirements of common carriers, including the payment of access charges and the filing of tariffs. In practical terms the FCC is asking the online community to persuade them that ISPs who permit Internet audio streaming applications, such as long distance voice, should not be considered under the same rules applying to "telecommunications providers." The FCC emphasizes that the interconnection rulemaking "is one of a number of interrelated proceedings," and explains that the answer to how, in which ways, and to what extent the Internet will be regulated will be a product of "the interrelationship between this proceeding, our recently initiated proceeding to implement the comprehensive universal service provisions of the 1996 Act and our upcoming proceeding to reform our Part 69 access charge rules." This should be seen as a warning flag that issues concerning access charges for the Internet have yet to be even taken up by the Commission, and will be one of the outcomes of several complex proceedings, with public comments invited from all consumer and business interests. The FCC NPRM and order establishing the joint federal-state universal service board, issued on March 8, for example, emphasizes the provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which stipulates that "[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the country." The FCC says that "commenters may wish to discuss Internet access availability, data transmission capability, ... enhanced services, and broadband services." In both this and the interconnection notices, the agency emphasizes its statutory authority to regulate the Internet. The news so far is relatively positive. The FCC claims it doesn't want to prematurely slap regulations on the Net which may stunt its remarkable growth and vitality. But the handwriting is on the wall -- in several different hands and scrawled over cracks. Arguments for Internet volume-based or per-packet pricing will be surely surface in comments in the FCC proceedings. The old argument for the "modem tax," which says that data bits should be priced differently than voice bits, will likely rear its scarred head. Internet access is on the charts and in the dockets at the Commission. It should have the same pride of place for all Internet activists and user group communities. The FCC is asking the Internet and computer user and business communities to wake up to an emergent regulatory regime in which the old comfortable dualities such as "information services" and "telecommunications services" -- which in the past have insulated the Internet from regulation -- may not be easily parsed. In short, the agency is begging for help in drafting the cyber-roadmaps for the future. (Note: Both the universal service NPRM and order and the interconnection NPRM can be accessed via the FCC's Web page -- http://www.fcc.gov. Many of the comments for the universal service proceedings are also now available at the site.) -30- (Craig Johnson writes on cyber rights issues for WIRED.) The American Reporter "The Internet Daily Newspaper" Copyright 1995 Joe Shea, The American Reporter All Rights Reserved The American Reporter is published daily at 1812 Ivar Ave., No. 5, Hollywood, CA 90028 Tel. (213)467-0616, by members of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Internet discussion list. It has no affiliation with the SPJ. Articles may be submitted by email to joeshea(a)netcom.com. Subscriptions: Reader: $10.00 per month ($100 per year) and $.01 per word to republish stories, or Professional: $125.00 per week for the re-use of all American Reporter stories. We are reporter-owned. URL: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html Archives: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/archives/ For more info on AR: http://oz.net/~susanh/arbook.html @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Visit The Cyber-Rights Library, accessible via FTP or WWW at: ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic, pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: PICS & CyberAngels
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 4-MAY-1996 11:59:26.15 >this seems to suggest a misunderstanding of PICS either by you or >the "CyberAngels". PICS does not require any particular action by page owners >and is entirely based on that principle (there is a pretty good >argument it would be unconstitutional, impractical, idiotic, etc. if >it didn't). it defines a standard by >which ratings servers and queries are constructed and formatted. >anyone can rate any information. if the CyberAngels want to rate >all kinds of pages in cyberspace and set up their own rating service, >more power to them. the ratings do not restrict those who do not >choose the restrictions. The instructions in question, at http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/#look, are for their "volunteers" to report - including to both the page's ISP and to government - any page with sexual content that doesn't have a PICS such that it can be censored. In other words, they want to try to kick off systems - including potentially via legal action such as nonsense like "corrupting a minor" or whatever - any pages that don't set themselves up to be censored. That would include by government such as China, as well as by fundamentalist parents. Given their approval of Detweiler, you're making it more and more likely that you're him.... -Allen

3 2

Re: PICS required by laws
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"sjb(a)universe.digex.net" "Scott Brickner" 6-MAY-1996 14:23:50.08 >The problem is that it requires the cooperation of both of your ISPs. >You'll never receive packets to route from either of them unless you >have some sort of contract in place. In the scenario I outlined, the >"common carrier" status of the ISPs is contingent on their following >the censorship protocol, so their contract will require that you, too, >follow it. How difficult would it be to set up a router protocol to automatically select any from a series of other routers that announced itself willing (for a certain amount of ecash, perhaps)? I had thought that this was pretty close to the case in any event, for small networks anyway - and connections between small networks can interconnect into one large network. >Even in the face of a "digital silk road", this isn't likely to >change. The cost of operating a router is proportional to the number >of connections it has. The vast majority of traffic doesn't have >stringent enough delay requirements that it'll be willing to pay the >additional cost of going through a very highly connected router. >Therefore the hierarchical star configuration is near-optimal for >normal traffic (and pretty much all of the stuff that they claim they >want to censor). Directly proportional? I'd think there would have to be somewhat of a fixed cost involved. The question is whether the fixed cost (including the cost of a router to handle the ever-increasing bandwidth) is dropping faster than the cost of the number of connections. And your "normal traffic" doesn't seem to be including Internet Phone, which I can see being a major source of bandwidth in the future. -Allen

1 0

PICS: cyberratings, not censorship
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

some more information on PICS for the interested. I am a strong advocate of this system because even though it involves ratings, I see it as expressly and vehemently anti-censorship. this will be difficult to understand for some people who equate ratings with censorship, and it will require some major education to help people see why this is not the case with PICS (platform independent content selection). why is PICS *not* censorship? because of its key design goals: 1) people are free to choose what ratings they use. whoever sets up the system decides. i.e. parents might pick a particular rating agency for their family. people might even use a combination of ratings. i.e. weigh the Christian Zealots 50%, and the People for the Improvement of Cyberspace 50%, etc 2) ratings are not merely for blacking out pages. they can be for finding "neat" pages (Point Communications 5%, etc), or "child friendly" or whatever 3) ratings can be created by anyone, including gov't agencies, individuals, foreign governments, religious fanatics, etc., and moreover they can be in any form whatsoever, they are merely seen as information-- the market will decide which ones are useful and which ones are worthless, and whether to create standards in various specific categories. regarding the CyberAngels, I think it would be an excellent project to have them while away their lifetimes going through the web and applying their official "cyberangel rating" to every page they encounter. it would be a valuable public service, and they'd probably get a real kick out of it (hmmm, perhaps "control-freak-ecstasy"?). it gives them a chance to put their brains and hands where their mouths are, so to speak. next time you hear someone rant about pornography in cyberspace, or censorship, or whatever, (whether it is Gore's wife or some nobody on an obscure mailing list), tell them to set up their own PICS rating service and shut up. if you hear someone whine that no one is listening to their rating service or using their ratings, tell them that it's an excellent existence proof that no one truly cares what they think, and for them to jam it down anyone's throat (via legislation or whatever) only proves how manipulative, desperate, and out-of-touch-with-reality they are. truly, I hope that some day the universal and accepted response to seeing something you don't like on the internet will be to start or join a rating service, and NOT to try to pass a bill in congress that attempts to regulate cyberspace (@#$%^&*). will there ever be a day in the future in which, e.g., the Iranian governments of the world decide to start a Moslem Cyberspace Blacklisting Service instead of the less-efficient and less-effective method of Lucrative Blasphemer Assassination Grants? help support this proposal and perhaps it will happen. <g> ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 10:54:56 -0400 To: pics-info@... From: Paul Resnick <presnick(a)research.att.com> Subject: vac-wg Announcing PICS 1.1! Version 1.1 of the PICS technical specifications are now available from the PICS web page (http://w3.org/PICS) The direct URLs for the two documents are: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/services.html http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/labels.html We plan to submit them as informational RFCs in the near future. These documents are now frozen. If significant new features are specified in the future, there will be a higher version number. Three cheers! - ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Resnick AT&T Research Public Policy Research Room 2C-430B 908-582-5370 (voice) 600 Mountain Avenue 908-582-4113 (fax) P.O. Box 636 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636

1 0

Re: misunderstandings of PICS
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 6-MAY-1996 15:47:46.22 >but you still don't understand what I stated. the above does not make >any sense relative to the PICS system. it would be like saying, "we >are going to report anyone who doesn't have a SMTP that bans dirty >email". SMTP does not ban dirty email by definition. PICS does not >censor material by definition. please read the PICS proposal (sorry the >URL is not handy, could someone post it?) See below; I had read this _before_ posting on the CyberAngels and PICS. >PICS *doesn't*involve*the*page*designer*. this is an absolutely >key component of its design. it exists indepedent of page creators. >if page creators are suddenly being pressured to format their >pages in some way, then PICS has failed in some of its key design >goals. there are some *optional* ways that page designers can invoke >PICS principles as I understand, but they make no sense to me. (it >would be equivalent to someone rating their own material, something >I think is going to be far from the main use of ratings in the future) From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 16-APR-1996 20:19:13.88 >From http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/iacwc.htm >... PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed >labels in HTML documents. This method will be helpful for those who wish to >label content they have created. > >The second method is for a client to ask an http server to send labels along >with the documents it requests. The server would most likely offer the >publishers' labels, but a server could also redistribute labels from third >parties that it cooperates with. [Client sends URL of label service to browser >which responds with that service's label. bf] > >The third way to distribute labels is through a label bureau that dispenses >only labels. A bureau could distribute labels created by one or more labeling >services. A client asks the bureau for certain services' labels of specific >resources. This is most likely to be used for third-party labels. In other words, the CyberAngels want to eliminate any pages that contain material they think minors shouldn't see that aren't self-rated with a PICS self-rating (the first of the three types) intended to block minors from seeing it. Yes, this is an abuse of the market oriented variety of PICS; they obviously don't know and/or don't care. If you want to convince them otherwise, start cc:ing your messages (and forwarding mine, on this I give you permission) on PICS and the CyberAngels to angels(a)wavenet.com. Incidentally, their pressure (especially the legal variety - acting as informants) could also include against an ISP that doesn't do the second for material the CyberAngels don't like. -Allen

2 1

Edited Edupage, 5 May 1996
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 6-MAY-1996 14:32:36.01 >EU TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE INTERNET >European Union culture and telecommunications ministers met last week to >discuss ways of controlling access to the Internet to prevent criminal >activity and protect children. "Many member states perceive the need now >for some discipline, some kind of regulatory framework or code of ethics," >says the Italian telecommunications minister. Some European governments, >such as Germany and Great Britain, have already adopted Internet-related >laws and others are considering it. (Wall Street Journal 3 May 96 B5B) We've heard a lot on the German one. What's the Great Britain one look like? >CANADIAN SATELLITES TARGETED >The race into space with direct broadcast satellite TV has created a >regulatory black hole that the U.S. government is struggling to fill. A >plan by Telesat Canada to finance its $1.6-billion satellite program by >leasing capacity to American broadcasters has prompted the Federal >Communications Commission to hold special hearings in Washington to >investigate whether it can regulate the use of Canadian satellites. >(Toronto Financial Post 4 May 96 p1) Of course they're going to try to control it. -Allen >*************************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Smokey Robinson (if your name is Smokey Robinson; otherwise, substitute >your own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu >with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, >send mail to educom(a)educom.unc.edu.)

1 0

Re: A MODEST PROPOSAL (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com" "Bill Stewart" 5-MAY-1996 03:53:29.33 >I think that's user-settable, but there is no ideal approach. I certainly hope it's user-settable, and settable by each mailing list. >The big advantage is that replies go to the original sender by default >rather than to the list (which reduces the amount of personal mail going >to the list, winning both on noise-reduction and embarassment-reduction); That's what I suspected the reason was. Sort of like having mail instead of post as a default in USENET. >the disadvantage is that bouncemail goes to the original sender, rather >than the list or the list-manager (bouncemail to the sender is annoying, >but minor; bouncemail to the list is extremely annoying, as well as >potentially causing mail loops, which are an extreme lossage. Bouncemail >to the list-manager is ideal (not that the list-manager usually reads it), >but it's hard to get without reducing replies directly to originators, >as well as increasing replies accidentally going to the list-manager. I've been looking into procmail as a mail filtering mechanism for a list. It appears possible to handle at least some of the bouncemail via sending it to the list-manager (looking for things like priority: list/bulk/junk, for instance). Any further suggestions? Incidentally, I've been having problems locating the list-manager guides for majordomo; yes, I've tried Alta Vista. All I seem to be able to locate are A. the guides for users - not much use; and B. the FAQ. Sameer? -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:16 PM 5/5/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >C'punks, > >On Sun, 5 May 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote: > >> didn't the feudal vassels only pay 33% ? > >Actually, no. When I used to edit a magazine, I commissioned an >article about how much "tax" slaves, serfs, etc. paid. That is, >how much of what they produced, did they get to keep; how much >went to their masters. The surprising, cross-cultural answer my >researcher/writer found was that they got to keep everthing they >produced except 5-10%. That's a lot better, percentage-wise, >than for modern "tax slaves." In the early feudal period, ordinary knights did not live well. They were only moderately better off than peasants, and yet to support one knight, you needed a startlingly large number of peasants, a fact that kings were continually unhappy about and continually trying to fix. While it is difficult to assess the tax rate, because taxes were in kind, it was clearly very low by modern standards. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

More on spectrum allocation
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm not sure how much our emphasis on individuals will go along with Phil Agre's (and CPSR's, of which he's a prominent member) emphasis on communities. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 30-APR-1996 01:47:55.85 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> [The Apple proposal to the FCC is an important initiative for community networking, and may set a precedent for much more dramatic restructuring of telecommunications infrastructure in the future.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:24:44 -0400 From: Heather Boyles <heather(a)farnet.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <cni-announce(a)cni.org> Subject: FARNET's Washington Update FARNET's Washington Update --- April 26, 1996 IN THIS ISSUE: o 1996 Appropriations stalemate finally ends while FY97 appropriations round heats up o FCC proposes free spectrum for community networking ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1996 APPROPRIATIONS STALEMATE FINALLY ENDS WHILE FY97 APPROPRIATIONS ROUND HEATS UP After months of negotiations and two partial government shutdowns, the President and the Republican Congress finally came to agreement this week on an omnibus spending bill for the remaining five months of FY96. The bill includes appropriations for the NSF and Commerce among several other agencies. At the same time, authorization and appropriations bills are being worked through committees in the House for FY97 which begins on Oct. 1. The final FY96 budget for NSF came to $3.22B --- $40M above what the House and Senate had previously agreed upon this year. However, this week also saw the House Science Committee authorize NSF spending for FY97 at only $3.25B, a $75M cut from NSF's $3.325 request, which would give NSF less than a 1% raise over FY96. NSF has generally faired well amidst Republican (specifically House Science Committee Chair Robert Walker (PA)) efforts to cut science spending for all but what they define as "basic science." Democrats protested that the omnibus science authorization bill passed out of the committee this week was done too hastily, bypassing subcommittees for a one-day full committee session. Ranking Science Committee member George Brown (D-CA) complained that, among other things, "The Republican bill would eliminate the Social Science directorate....[and make] arbitrary personnel cuts at the National Science Foundation." The Commerce Department's TIIAP (Information Infrastructure Grants) program scraped by with an (anticipated) $21.5M for FY96. FCC PROPOSES FREE SPECTRUM FOR COMMUNITY NETWORKING Apple's NII Band petition which was filed almost a year ago at the FCC will finally see some action there. The FCC today released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to make 350 megahertz of spectrum available for use by unlicensed equipment termed "NII/SUPERNet" devices. The Commission voted 4-0 to release the proposal. The proposal comes after Apple Computer petitioned the FCC last year to create a "NII Band" that would permit high-speed data communications available to anyone without licensing or air-time charges. The FCC's NPRM would make spectrum from 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.725-5.875 GHz available to devices that would fall under Part 15 of FCC rules, mandating only minimum technical standards and a basic "listen-before-talk" protocol standard. The FCC would also place power and out-of-band emissions limits on the devices, thus allowing only short-range (probably indoor or within campus) networking. The Apple petition last year advocated allowing users to use the devices for long-range (community-based with particularly emphasis on rural areas) communications. A rival group called the WINForum (made up of a number of telecommunications companies) balked at the idea of long-range use of the spectrum (which might cut into their businesses). Apple's long-range proposal may not be dead yet though. Commissioner Ness, in a separate statement on the NPRM, said she was "intrigued by the Apple long-haul proposal, which contemplates low-cost broadband links from homes to schools and libraries," but pointed to a number of questions that would need to be resolved before the Commission could proceed with such a proposal. The FCC clearly sees this proposal as an effort to help fulfill the President's promise to connect every school in the country to the "information superhighway." The NII/SUPERNet proposal is aimed at helping schools and other institutions do that without having to go to the expense of wiring entire buildings. Furthermore, the proposal may help take the wind out of the sails of those who have recently been pressuring the FCC to include inside wiring of schools in the universal service mechanism for schools and libraries - the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerry provisions from the new telecom law. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update" is a service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers. We gratefully acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked Information for additional support. If you would like more information about the Update or would like to offer comments or suggestions, please contact Heather Boyles at heather(a)farnet.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Heather Boyles Director, Policy and Special Projects phone: (202) 331-5342 FARNET, Inc. fax: (202) 872-4318 1112 16th Street, NW Suite 600 email: heather(a)farnet.org Washington, DC 20036 web: http://www.farnet.org -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>

1 0

More on Internet connections
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 01:36:44.84 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Options for Internet and Broadband Access =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 10:05:08 EST From: Tim Leshan <LESHAN(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu> To: IIPLIST(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu Subject: Announcement and Call for Participation Freedom Forum Harvard Information Infrastructure Project National Economic Council U.S. Department of Energy "THE FIRST 100 FEET" OPTIONS FOR INTERNET AND BROADBAND ACCESS October 29-30, 1996 The Freedom Forum Arlington, Virginia Announcement and Call for Participation This conference looks at options for Internet and broadband access from the perspective of home owners, apartment complexes, and small businesses. It will evaluate opportunities and obstacles for "bottom-up" infrastructure development and the implications for traditional and alternative providers at the neighborhood, regional, and national levels. We are seeking original analysis, position papers, and background material for use in the conference program, on the project website, and in a book to be published in early 1997. The conference challenges business and policymakers to rethink fundamental issues in telecommunications policy by recasting the "problem of the last 100 feet" as "opportunities for the first 100 feet." This paradigm shift suggests consumer/property owner investment as an answer to the dilemma of whether there should be one or two wires into the home. The conference will survey alternative options for local connection to the Internet from the perspective of homeowners with high-end needs for data communications, apartment owners, small businesses, and others with an interest in investing in end-user equipment and real estate. It will consider prospects for broadly distributed infrastructure investment and potential roles for utility companies, special assessment districts, municipalities, PCS providers, CAPs, IXCs, LMDS operators, and Internet access providers, as well as telcos and cable companies. It will consider strategies and policies for local interconnection and interoperability among Internet access providers. The conference will investigate constraints on and incentives for user infrastructure investment at federal, state, and local levels; whether and how trenching, conduit, and right- of-ways should be unbundled to promote consumer/property owner investment and competition among heterogeneous providers; and the need for and feasibility of interconnection at third-party or publicly maintained neighborhood access points. It will look at synergy with other policy goals and economic interests, such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and energy demand management. Finally, in assessing user investment as a driver for two-way broadband, it asks how scenarios for Internet access will affect broadband scenarios by stimulating demand for high-bandwidth connectivity. Rationale The growth of the Internet has been propelled in significant part by user investments in infrastructure: computers, internal wiring, and the connection (dial-up line, leased line, microwave link) to the Internet service provider. This "bottom-up" investment minimizes the investment burden facing service providers, since customers share the cost of the infrastructure and providers have no obligation to develop the infrastructure out to all potential users. Barriers to entry for service providers are low, and users retain flexibility in choosing among providers. The rapidly growing mass of Internet users, applications, and resources is now shaping demand for underlying infrastructure, so that plans for new infrastructure are driven increasingly by data rather than voice and video. There are opportunities to attract new customers instead of competing head- on for old ones. Unlike voice and video, there are incremental upgrade paths for data users and demand for upgraded access is readily stimulated by experience. Higher bandwidth connections are desired by a wide spectrum of users, from those who work at home to recreational users of the World Wide Web. The value of continuous, rather than dial-up connection to the Internet, is less widely appreciated because it is a qualitative improvement. Continuous connectivity (which can be provided by unswitched technologies) obviates tying up a telephone line, enables instant delivery of email and other time-sensitive information, and allows small businesses to advertise and publish directly to the net. Most importantly, it can enable real-time energy management with attendant cost savings that can support major infrastructure investment, which the advent of residential "wheeling" may induce consumers to make on their own. A personal computer or an inexpensive router could serve as a gateway extending Internet functions to other computers in the home, manage utility demand, operate security systems, and control any lights, sound equipment, and other household appliances. As telecommunications and electric utilities are deregulated, investment decisions will devolve into the hands of consumers, where they can be made with greater knowledge of particular benefits and tradeoffs. At the same time, new technologies, such as wireless and data transmission over power lines, will increase consumer options. There may be a variety of options for configuring "the last mile," with different balances between user-provided and centrally provided facilities. Homeowners and small businesses may have opportunities to connect to different suppliers at the curb, on the roof, on the side of the house, or somewhere in between. The early government role and subsequent commercial practices have facilitated interconnection of Internet service providers, but the limited choices at the local level -- the "last mile" as well as the "last 100 feet" -- may make interconnection an issue. At present, many local Internet access providers do not interconnect directly and traffic is sometimes routed to one of the few national exchange points hundreds of miles away. Opportunities for interconnection, along with policies on access, may determine whether intermediary transport providers, such as utility companies, emerge to link homeowner facilities at the curb with high-bandwidth Internet service providers. This analysis of "the first hundred feet" recognizes that need and demand will naturally vary greatly from home to home and from neighborhood to neighborhood. Much depends on whether there are business or telecommuting needs that can be met by individual investments in upgraded access. While this analysis looks to the Internet, it raises the issue of how the bottom-up model will affect the traditional model of a centrally provided universal service. Given basic technology that is non- proprietary and virtually commoditized, some argue that Internet service is becoming the common denominator platform on which all other services can be carried. The absence of service class priority has hampered use of real-time voice and video on the Internet, but this will soon change with the implementation of protocols that allow bandwidth reservation and packet-level service priority (RSVP and IPv6). **** We encourage submission of position papers as well independent analysis. It is expected that papers will be posted for review and revised promptly after the conference for non-exclusive publication. (The book will be part of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project series published by MIT Press.) To ensure consideration for the program, please submit abstracts or outlines by June 20, 1996. Please direct submissions and requests for future mailings to: Tim Leshan Coordinator, Information Infrastructure Project Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-496-1389; Fax: 617-495-5776 leshan(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu For additional information and updates see http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/first.html Tim Leshan IIP Project Coordinator http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/

1 0