Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?

Mike writes:
> Doug writes:
>> Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org> said:
>> >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.
>> 
>> Ah...do you mean "should not build", or do you really mean that it contains
>> a discussion outlining the logic behind predicting that they *won't*
>> build?
> 
> Nobody seriously thinks the government's going to build a Data
> Superhighway. EFF's interested in seeing the private sector do it.

I thought we already had a data superhighway and what congress (et Al) is
really talking about is a national system of on-ramps and off-ramps?

Jon

-- 
                     ,,,
                    (o o)
Jon Boede    ----ooO-(_)-Ooo----         jon@dell.com           +1 512 728-4802
Engineering, Dell Computer Corp.    Server OS Development          Austin, TX
 "When I was 10, mean old man Miller's house burned down.  We put home plate
  where his toilet once stood -- his garden became our center field... and in
  these ways, the laws of karma were revealed."

Jon writes:

> I thought we already had a data superhighway and what congress (et Al) is
> really talking about is a national system of on-ramps and off-ramps?

Not exactly. Not everyone recognizes the need and value of on and off
ramps.

More importantly, the NII is not about building more trunk lines so much
as it is about ensuring that the resulting infrastructure allows everyone
to be an information provider as well as consumer. There's money to be
made here, and lots of entrepreneurial opportunities, if the thing is 
done right.

You know, I was just thinking of Tim's comment about how he punted his
cable service. One of the reasons that cable is just "a vaster wasteland"
is that it follows the old cable/broadcaster paradigm--get a
government-supported, government-regulated monopoly in place, and let a
single provider (or a small set of providers) funnel their product into
the home.

But cable service would be far more valuable to me (and I'd pay more for
it) if I could, say, upload a video of my little girl taking her first
steps and send it to Tim. (Not that he'd necessarily pay for that
privilege, but you get the idea.)


--Mike

Now that I have your attention...

(Warning: This post discusses hard-core XXX-rated material of no
socially redeeming value. Transmission on the National Information
Infratructure is thus forbidden. Do so at the risk of asset forfeiture.)

Mike Godwin writes:

> You know, I was just thinking of Tim's comment about how he punted his
> cable service. One of the reasons that cable is just "a vaster wasteland"
> is that it follows the old cable/broadcaster paradigm--get a
> government-supported, government-regulated monopoly in place, and let a
> single provider (or a small set of providers) funnel their product into
> the home.
> 
> But cable service would be far more valuable to me (and I'd pay more for
> it) if I could, say, upload a video of my little girl taking her first
> steps and send it to Tim. (Not that he'd necessarily pay for that
> privilege, but you get the idea.)

I might, if there was a market in alt.binaries.pictures.....

Just kidding, Mike!

Seriously, Mike's comments about cable being a "vaster wasteland" (a
nice EFF paraphrase of the famous FCC Commissioner's comments in the
60s), is important.

I dropped my cable because paying $55 a month for a bunch of crap was
getting to be too much. 

Let me be very blunt: I would certainly resume my cable if certain
"interesting" channels could be provided. X-rated, as just one
example. 

A telling situation: Why are X-rated movies (I mean X-rated, as you
find in video rental places, not the soft-core stuff that "Playboy"
and "Spice" offer) not offered? A combination of FCC rules (for
broadcast throught the air and--maybe--for cablecast, but I'm not sure
what sway the FCC has over cable) and various lawsuits.

A couple of years ago the _satellite_ channel, "American XXXcstacy,"
or somesuch (I never got it and only read about the cases), was knocked
off the air by prosecutions or threats of prosecutions in certain
Bible Belt areas. (There are many issues we could discuss here: "forum
shopping," selective prosecution, RICO laws, etc.)

Does anyone expect the NII will offer hard-core porn on its networks? 

Just one example.

I don't know what the solution is, except that I'm naturally skeptical
about the government having _anything_ to do with it. (I've read the
CPSR pitch on NII and it scares the crap out of me. I've read the NII
articles in "Whole Earth Review" and elsewhere and I have the same
reaction. I've read the Open Platform proposal from EFF and find it
better, but still overly oriented toward government solutions.
Finally, I'm still trying to dig out the NII docs themselves, the ones
Tom Kalil has pointed us to.)

The link to Cypherpunks is clear: most of us are opposed to Big Mother
choosing what we read, watch, or talk about. Strong crypto makes this
bypassing of Big Mother and Big Brother possible.

Strong crypto fundamentally collides with many of the stated public
policy goals surrounding the National Information Infrastructure.

Which do we want to win?

--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.

Tim May writes:

> Seriously, Mike's comments about cable being a "vaster wasteland" (a
> nice EFF paraphrase of the famous FCC Commissioner's comments in the
> 60s), is important.
 
I proudly take credit for "a vaster wasteland"--a phrase that occurred to
me in a flash of insight as I was doing a revision of the Open Platform
paper. I hope that if I repeat it a lot, it will become a
self-perpetuating meme.

> Does anyone expect the NII will offer hard-core porn on its networks? 
 
In the long run, I expect it will, yes. On a properly designed NII, it
would be impossible to prevent, although of course anyone could bar it at
his or her home.

> I don't know what the solution is, except that I'm naturally skeptical
> about the government having _anything_ to do with it. (I've read the
> CPSR pitch on NII and it scares the crap out of me. I've read the NII
> articles in "Whole Earth Review" and elsewhere and I have the same
> reaction. I've read the Open Platform proposal from EFF and find it
> better, but still overly oriented toward government solutions.

Well, we knew we weren't going to please the purest Libertarians, but we
did try to make it palatable to them--after all, we have genuine
entrepreneurs on our Board of Directors, and they *do* believe in free
markets. Open Platform is our way of getting there from here.

> Finally, I'm still trying to dig out the NII docs themselves, the ones
> Tom Kalil has pointed us to.)
 
Did he say they were online? If this has been discussed before, I missed
it.

> Strong crypto fundamentally collides with many of the stated public
> policy goals surrounding the National Information Infrastructure.

I don't think it collides with EFF's public policy goals, although it may
collide with Tom Kalil's.


--Mike