Mike Godwin writes:

Before this goes much further, it would be nice if Tim and Robert could explain which project, precisely, they want to kill. I am very hazy as to what you're talking about.

Speaking for myself, natch, I object to nearly every aspect of the NII as I have seen it described in the EFF info, the "Whole Earth Review" article, the discussions with Kalil and Steele at Hackers, and the material that has appeared in the EFF newsgroups and the new group devoted to the Superhighway. My objections are philosophical and broad, not just targeted at specific proposals (e.g, the "equal access" provisions, the subsidizing of bandwidth, the support of various special interest groups). There is of course no real "Cypherpunks agenda," per se, so my comments that we should turn our attention toward killing the Clinton/Gore proposal are rhetorical. The various Nets, including "_the_ Net," should be further libertated from government control, not made part of a plan for a National Information Infrastructure. There are some parts of the proposal I could support, such as making it explicit that networks are common carriers and are not responsbile for content (Kalil mentioned this in passing, and Jim Warren enthusiastically agreed, as we all did). But this is more a matter of legal interpretation (court rulings), I would guess. Similarly, making government documents and such (laws, regulations, Congressional Record, etc.) available by ftp, gopher, WWW, etc., seems to be a Good Thing, and this could be done starting _today_. But most other parts I cannot support, especially the underpinning idea that the government needs to be involved in planning networks, and that various groups in society need "fair access" to such networks. And the idea that the government should set the specs for a network to tie in with the National Health Insurance Plan--a point repeatedly raised by Tom Kalil of the White House--is odious. Since many folks here on this List dislike political talk--Clipper was seen as an exception, I guess--perhaps this discussion should take place on the new group devoted to the "datahighway"? --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

Mike Godwin makes his usual cogent points, even if one disagrees with him:

First of all, EFF's Open Platform says outright that the government is not going to build the data superhighway. Check again if you don't believe me.

For sure. I have "OP2.0" and have read it. But it is important that we not think that EFF's plan is identical to that of the White House. I have not called for us to kill the EFF plan. Rather, the "data superhighway" as it is being discussed all over town, and as White House spokeswonks are representing it. (Just one example: the need, expressed by Kalil, to ensure that K-12 students have "free access" to the Net. I brought up the fact that when a "K-12" group ("k12.chat.senior") appeared at my site, I dipped into to see what it was about. When I made some anti-D.A.R.E. comments, debunking some of the brainwashing about drugs, I was contacted by a site administrator who announced to me that my presence, as an adult, in "their" forum was unwelcome (fine) and could be construed (by whom?) as some form of harassment (or worse) of children. I told him to fuck off. This trend is what has me worried.)

Second, I think it's possible that you may be conflating discussions of one kind of superhighway--a government-funded and -operated one--with discussions of what kind of superhighway we might ultimately have if private enterprise builds it. EFF does not the establishment of a big government operation--instead, it wants the government, since it's spending money on connectivity and bandwidth for its own purposes, to spend the money in a way that promotes an infrastructure that everyone can use.

Since the money is going to be spent by government no matter what, why not get them to spend it in the right way?

Why not work to change the first part of your statement, the "the money is going to be spent by government no matter what" part? I don't mean in the sense of completely eliminating government, but in the sense of just not spending significant amounts of money in the NII? In fact, the Net is already more privately subsidized than many of us realize (I don't have exact numbers). The NSF funding could vanish completely and I susepct the Net would become healthier.

Furthermore, EFF wants a world of less regulation of communications providers, not more. But since we live in a highly regulated world now (witness telephone service and cable), the issue is how to get to a world with the least possible regulation and the most competition among private-enterprise providers, and yet keep the benefits of Universal Service and an open communications system. For EFF, the way to do that is to

Well, I don't support the notion of "Universal Service." I don't expect Federal Express or Airborne to provide universal service, just ordinary for-profit service. (I won't belabor the point by listing a bunch of things people buy and sell--like cars, computers, stereos, food--and which could plausibly, using the NII reasoning, be provided as part of "universal service." These are the philosophical underpinnings of NII I cannot support. Others may support the NII or Open Platform in some way. I cannot.

But don't think that, in the absence of EFF-supported policy, you don't get data superhighways. Tim, you're going to get those no matter what. The only question is whether you get something like what the interactive cable companies promoted at Hackers--just an enhanced version of the Home Shopping Network--or whether you get something like the current public switched network, in which individuals can use a phone line for whatever they like.

On the specific point of cable franchises, I agree that the current situation of forcing all households in a given area to have whatever the "franchise winner" provides is a disaster. I can think of several solutions: - throw out the very idea of cable and telephone franchises; fiber optic cables are so small and cheap that entire neighborhoods could be wired with N lines, with auctioned access to the head-end fiber distribution point. Or, stringing a fiber directly to one's home from the next branch up on the distribution tree is becoming feasible. - satellite dishes are coming (from two companies) which will further increase the selection; UseNet feeds are already available, with feedback via dial-up lines (one generally needs much less bandwidth in the reverse direction, naturally). - ISDN is coming, giving high bandwidth to other services (not enough for video). Things seem to be moving rather well. I'm not overly worred about the TCI-Atlantic Bell types of mergers, as they won't have any effect so far as I can see in accessing the services I now have and expect to have. In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The OP2.0 stuff I fully support has to do with making sure there are no laws telling me I can't send encrypted files, can't receive them, etc. Beyond that, I don't want guaranteed access to other services, just as I would NOT want others to have guaranteed access to services (networks, bulletin boards, ftp sites, etc.) that I might provide. Freedom to associate, to pick one's friends and customers, and all that. Yes, I even support the radical idea that stores can refuse service to purple Martians, to Lesbian cats, to homeless bums, to blacks, whatever. We may not like it, but freedom to pick one's associates is as fundamental a right as one can imagine. Crypto anarchy will of course allow this in various ways. Though it may not be often used. As a a wonderful cartoon in "The New Yorker" so cogently put it: Two dogs. One dog says to the other, "The great thing about the Internet is that nobody knows you're a dog." --Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.