From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 93 14:08:41 PST
To: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
In-Reply-To: <199311092123.AA02417@eff.org>
Message-ID: <199311092206.OAA14884@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.