From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 22:37:58 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Internet: commercial or not?
Message-ID: <9308280535.AA14562@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


This is just a little blip on the screen of the increasing strains in
the commercialization of the internet, a message enclosed below for
your perusal. There is a huge amount of seismic fault-slipping on this
subject. What is `allowed' on the internet? For example, are people
allowed to send credit card numbers to businesses for purchase? this is
happening with e.g. Wired subscriptions and other situations, but most
places who advertise directly get flamed by someone in the NSF ranks,
and afterwards at least do it more discreetly.

The situation is that the `internet' is now such a patchwork of
different nets, all with different policies and oversight, is very
close to anarchy, but still with distinct `taboos' against commercial
activity, to put it lightly. But the day that everyone will be dialing
up the Online Shopping Program over their PCs is inevitable and rapidly
approaching. The only question is, what will become of the current
`internet'? Will future networks just be laid on top of it, or will it
whither up after all traffic moves to completely `unrestricted'
commercial networks? I was just telling someone in email: to the extent
that you like the Internet, it is unrepresentative of the typical
government program. To the extent that you dislike it, it is
representative. It has only flourished to the degree it has because of
relative *unregulation* and *unrestriction*.

A major problem is that there is no way to guarantee that a given
message traverses exclusively commercial networks in going from one
source to another. I propose that new mail protocols be developed that
enforce the distinction, such that the message can `request' it be
transmitted in a completely commercial `unrestricted' path or not at
all. In this way a new group of networks governed by agencies
explicitly commited to unrestricted commercial traffic (hehe, sounds
sort of ominous like Unrestricted Submaring Warfare).

In the current situation, all the government bureacrats fire off
messages that `even though your message can travel on commercial nets
only, there is no way of guaranteeing that it does not cross public
networks, therefore it must abide by NSF Internet Use Policies.'  In a
system where transmission paths are prescribed for email, a completely
commercial network can be achieved, an absolutely critical foundation
for all future electronic economics, and all our favorite ideas
(digital banks, services, etc.), with no whiney complaints from the
Backward Bureacrats.

If anyone is familar with the proliferation of online services over
commercial internet subnetworks, such as the `biz' distribution of
Usenet, please post more information on the progress of this.

Read my words! as beautiful and promising as the Internet is today, it
is just a small glimmer in the eye of future cyberspace, in which all
traffic is unrestricted except in volume and cost per bit (the former
prodigious and the latter piddly), so that commercial enterprise can
flourish. We have already waited long enough. The current taboos on the
internet will look quaintly archaic.

Look at the way this guy below is whining because the NIC service had a
`nice booth at InterOp' with enough cost to have funded `3-4 full time
employees typing whois entries' and asks for an `audit' because of the
possibility of (horrors) `advertising'. Yes, in the current dark ages I
concede he has a valid point (they are funded in part by NSF grants),
but this shows in crystalline clarity the absolutely chilling effect
that government funding has on a project (e.g., the internet) in
constraining its full commercial development. The greatest supporters
are the greatest detractors!  Where else would a company be criticized
& investigated for having a classy booth at a trade convention (uh,
Microsoft excepted)?  When the whole cyberspace in unrestricted,
though,  I suppose he'll pop up complaining about the big companies
with glossy booths that could have funded 20 children on Welfare.

BTW, Network Information Center, database & catalogue of all internet
services, while a thinly veiled approach likely to evolve into a
full-fledged charging & advertising Cyberspatial Yellow Pages, is
clearly a cornerstone of AT&T's new drive into the internet for the
masses. (What is this guy referring to in the `attempt to reduce
expected services as with Whois'?)

===cut=here===

Posted-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 12:09:31 EDT
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 12:09:31 EDT
Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
To: ietf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Cc: Stephen Wolff <steve@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Reply-To: bsimpson@morningstar.com
Subject: over funding of [InterNIC]

It has become apparent with the recent spate of disregard for internet
etiquette (posting job positions, posting "advertisements"), and the
simultaneous attempt to reduce expected services (whois), the providers
of the InterNIC are not suitable.

Did everyone see that they can afford a nice booth at InterOp?  When did
any previous NSF grantee get such a thing?

The cost could have funded 3-4 full-time employees typing whois entries.

Obviously, the grant was too large, since they have all of this extra
money for advertising.

And why would they need to advertise, except that they want to leverage
a monopoly grant position into some commercial market?

I call for an NSF audit to endure that NSF money was not spent for
advertising and lobbying.

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu





------- End of Forwarded Message