Re: Is Clipper Almost Dead? (was: Clipper and Tipper on Route 666)

tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes:

>I say we increase our attention on the Data Superhighway and try
>to kill it as well.

Does anyone wish to second the notion?

I do.  

I think it would be very important if we could attempt to
sway the Christian right into this; it is certain we
probably don't agree on many issues, and the "700 Club"
anti-Clipper piece was very effective, good video.

If you don't believe me, watch it.  They almost seem
to agree with us entirely on the issue of cryptography.
Perhaps it's time for a _new_ group; the cyphermonks.

I nominate St. John the Divine as a patron saint.

----
Robert W. F. Clark                 PGP Key Available Upon Request
rclark@nyx.cs.du.edu
clark@metal.psu.edu

Robert Clark writes:
 
> tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes:
> 
> >I say we increase our attention on the Data Superhighway and try
> >to kill it as well.
> 
> Does anyone wish to second the notion?
> 
> I do.  

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.


--Mike

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.

Tim May writes:

> 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.

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.

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?

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
give communications conduit providers (who also will be content providers)
incentives to keep the channels as open as the public highways are.
This doesn't involve big, expensive government projects; what it requires
is policies with a vision of an open market, built on an open
infrastructure, in the 21st century.

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.



--Mike

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.

Timothy May writes (in part of his posting),

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that a very
basic net connection, with minimal services (access to government records,
public domain postings, and similar information) should be provided either free
or at a very minimal cost.  It is not difficult for me to envision a day when
paper based sources of info (newspapers, magazines, etc.) may be impossible
to recieve in paper format, and when participation in our political system
will depend on having access just as much as it depends, for all practical
purposes, on having a stable residence.  Groups which cannot afford net
connection in the future may very likely become a politically excluded group.
Its important that we set the precedent now that these basic services not be
dependant on a certain minimum economic standing.  This is what I understand
"fair access" to mean.

-john.

John Blair (I think) writes:

> I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that a very
> basic net connection, with minimal services (access to government records,
> public domain postings, and similar information) should be provided either free
> or at a very minimal cost.  It is not difficult for me to envision a day when
> paper based sources of info (newspapers, magazines, etc.) may be impossible
> to recieve in paper format, and when participation in our political system
> will depend on having access just as much as it depends, for all practical
> purposes, on having a stable residence.  Groups which cannot afford net
> connection in the future may very likely become a politically excluded group.
> Its important that we set the precedent now that these basic services not be
> dependant on a certain minimum economic standing.  This is what I understand
> "fair access" to mean.

But how is this any different from providing subsidized or free
newspapers or news channels to the population?

How is a Net connection any more usable than a free CNN channel? Or
C-SPAN, which is in fact subsidized by the cable companies?

If we decide that the government needs a subsidized channel or network
to make avaiable its laws, its debate, its position, then we have just
created a publically-funded propaganda channel for them.

(Earlier, I took a position that making government docs available by
ftp, gopher, WWW, etc., would be a good thing. I still do, but I worry
that the channels would just be platforms for government bureaucrats
to pitch their policies and plans. I have no doubt that when the
commercial networks are reluctant to carry speeches and press
conferences by Clinton, that he'd really like to have subsidized
channels that _had_ to carry him. Of course, few would watch, but
that's another topic.)

So, if we need a National Information Infractructure, why not the same
thing for newspapers, television, radio, etc.? Why not guarantee
everyone a daily newspaper? After all, they need to be informed.

(I don't want to drift into sarcasm about this, as I think Mike Godwin
and others are making serious points. But bear in mind that the
purported needs for communicating with the public are often the
justification for "State Radio" and for the UNESCO-sponsored proposals
to restrict the "private press" in many countries. Put it this way, do
you really want President Robertson or President Perot to have his won
subsidized channels of communication? Perot can of course _buy_ a
couple of networks, but that's not the same as an official network.)

CNN, the Clinton News Network.

--Tim May

P.S. I cancelled my entire cable t.v. subscription several weeks back.
Too much shit, too little quality, too confusing a monthly bill. I
have a sneaking feeling we're going to have about 500 channels soon,
with a couple of hundred of them available cheaply enough. 


-- 
..........................................................................
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:

> How is a Net connection any more usable than a free CNN channel?

For one thing, I get cypherpunks here.

> So, if we need a National Information Infractructure, why not the same
> thing for newspapers, television, radio, etc.? Why not guarantee
> everyone a daily newspaper? After all, they need to be informed.
 
I note that those who produce newspapers, television, radio, etc., also
use the same highways and the same phone system. Good infrastructure
design unleashes free markets.

> (I don't want to drift into sarcasm about this, as I think Mike Godwin
> and others are making serious points. But bear in mind that the
> purported needs for communicating with the public are often the
> justification for "State Radio" and for the UNESCO-sponsored proposals
> to restrict the "private press" in many countries.

Tim, I think one has to distinguish between "guaranteed access" along the
Local Access Cable model and access along the "universal service" model.
Local Access Cable is next to useless as a democratic medium, and EFF
would not support any guarantee of access along those lines. But
universal service, along the Theodore Vail model, is different.

Remember, we have universal service now, but people still have to pay
their phone bills. And when we get competition in the local loop (a
competition that will require changes in the infrastructure), people's
residential phone payments will, in general, pay for the cost of operation
of their service.

Ithiel de Sola Pool's discussions of how to get government-supported
and -regulated monopolies to move to free-market models are extremely
helpful here. Just sticking with the status quo is not enough.


--Mike




u 

 Put it this way, do
> you really want President Robertson or President Perot to have his won
> subsidized channels of communication? Perot can of course _buy_ a
> couple of networks, but that's not the same as an official network.)
> 
> CNN, the Clinton News Network.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> P.S. I cancelled my entire cable t.v. subscription several weeks back.
> Too much shit, too little quality, too confusing a monthly bill. I
> have a sneaking feeling we're going to have about 500 channels soon,
> with a couple of hundred of them available cheaply enough. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ..........................................................................
> 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 writes:
> 
> Tim May writes:
> 
> > How is a Net connection any more usable than a free CNN channel?
> 
> For one thing, I get cypherpunks here.

Good point.

> 
> > So, if we need a National Information Infractructure, why not the same
> > thing for newspapers, television, radio, etc.? Why not guarantee
> > everyone a daily newspaper? After all, they need to be informed.
>  
> I note that those who produce newspapers, television, radio, etc., also
> use the same highways and the same phone system. Good infrastructure
> design unleashes free markets.
>

Another good point to bear in mind is that networking technologies are
"empowering" people to voice their opinions in a fashion previously
unknown. Once the "empowerment" issue is _really_ discovered by "the
masses" (tm), the need and desire for networking services will virtually
be driven by this simple factor. The cart and the horse.

Cheers,

_____________________________________________________________________________
Paul Ferguson                                                               
Mindbank Consulting Group                                    fergp@sytex.com   
Fairfax, Virginia  USA                                       ferguson@icp.net

jdblair@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu says:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that
> a very basic net connection, with minimal services (access to
> government records, public domain postings, and similar information)
> should be provided either free or at a very minimal cost.

In New York City, the effective variable cost of an internet mail/news
connection is $27 a month -- less than you can panhandle in about
threen hours during rush hour, and I'm assuming you never use the
phone for anything else and call a couple times a day. The cost is
still dropping, and will doubtless be nearly invisible even without
any government intervention within a few years. My poorest unemployed
friend living in Hell's Kitchen in a fifth floor walkup apartment in
roach-infested tenement (no joke) has an internet connection via
Panix.

I therefore see no reason for government guarantees of net access --
it is obvious that anyone with even minimal initiative can get one
already, or will be able to within a few years. The cost of a net
connection is far less than the cost of, say, smoking, and there are
homeless people who still manage to smoke.

Perry

"Perry E. Metzger" says:
> 
> In New York City, the effective variable cost of an internet mail/news
> connection is $27 a month -- less than you can panhandle in about
> threen hours during rush hour,

Thats "three hours". My assumption is based on the panhandling rates
I've seen from homeless people on the subways.

Perry

On Tue, 9 Nov 1993, Clark Reynard wrote:

> I think it would be very important if we could attempt to
> sway the Christian right into this; it is certain we
> probably don't agree on many issues, and the "700 Club"
> anti-Clipper piece was very effective, good video.

For those that watch the 700 Club. Personally, I'm opposed to anything 
that gives the Christian Right more power or puts them in the public eye 
more given their past track record.

> If you don't believe me, watch it.  They almost seem
> to agree with us entirely on the issue of cryptography.
> Perhaps it's time for a _new_ group; the cyphermonks.
> 
> I nominate St. John the Divine as a patron saint.

I thought the Christian Right didn't like Catholics or Saints either. It 
is a Protestant movement.

Wassail,
Al Billings

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
| Al Billings aka Grendel Grettisson        | "You are, each one, a priest,  |
|                 mimir@u.washington.edu    |      Just for yourself."       |
| Sysop of The Sacred Grove (206)322-5450   |                                |
| Admin for Troth-L, The Asatru E-Mail List |             -Noble Drew Ali-   |
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)