So what do you think...

about this letter? Would you sign it?

-lile


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lile Elam	    |  "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are."
lile@netcom.com     |		
Un*x Admin / Artist |			 Buckaroo Banzai
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 12:37:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Ward <mike@Essential.ORG>
To: niiregional-l@rain.org
Subject: Letter to NSF re: Internet Pricing


Distributed to TAP-INFO, a free Internet Distribution List
(subscription requests to listserver@essential.org) 

TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE
May 7, 1994

-    Request for signatures for a letter to NSF opposing metered
     pricing of Internet usage

-    Please repost this request freely

The letter will be sent to Steve Wolff, the Director of
Networking and Communications for NSF.  The purpose of the letter
is to express a number of user concerns about the future of
Internet pricing.  NSF recently announced that is awarding five
key contracts to telephone companies to operate four Internet
"Network Access Points" (NAPs), and an NSF funded very high speed
backbone (vBNS).  There have been a number of indications that
the telephone companies operating the NAPs will seek permission
from NSF to price NAPs services according to some measure of
Internet usage.  The vBNS is expected to act as a testbed for new
Internet pricing and accounting schemes.  The letter expresses
the view that metered pricing of Internet usage should be
avoided, and that NSF should ensure that the free flow of
information through Internet listserves and file server sites is
preserved and enhanced.

jamie love, Taxpayer Assets Project (love@essential.org; but
     unable to answer mail until May 15).  Until then, direct
     inquires to Michael Ward.

If you are willing to sign the letter, send the following
     information to Mike Ward of the Taxpayer Assets Project
     (mike@essential.org, fax: 202/234-5176; voice: 202/387-8030;
     P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036):

Names:    ___________________________
Title:    ___________________________   (Optional)
Affiliation:   ____________________________________
(for purposes of identification only)
Address:       ______________________________________
City; St, Zip  ________________________________
Email Address: _____________________________________
Voice:         __________________________________ 
for verification)

                            the letter follows:

Steve Wolff
Director
Division of Networking and Communications
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street
Washington, DC  20550

Dear Steve:

It is our understanding that the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and other federal agencies are developing a new
architecture for the Internet that will utilize four new Network
Access Points (NAPs), which have been described as the new
"cloverleaves" for the Internet.  You have indicated that NSF is
awarding contracts for four NAPs, which will be operated by
telephone companies (Pac Bell, S.F.; Ameritech, Chicago; Sprint,
NY; and MFS, Washington, DC).  We further understand that NSF has
selected MCI to operate its new very high speed backbone (vBNS)
facility.

There is broad public interest in the outcome of the negotiations
between NSF and the companies that will operate the NAPs and
vBNS.  We are writing to ask that NSF consider the following
objectives in its negotiations with these five firms:

     PRICING.

We are concerned about the future pricing systems for Internet
access and usage.  Many users pay fixed rates for Internet
connections, often based upon the bandwidth of the connection,
and do not pay for network usage, such as the transfer of data
using email, ftp, Gopher or Mosaic.  It has been widely reported
on certain Internet discussion groups, such as com-priv, that the
operators of the NAPs are contemplating a system of usage based
pricing.

We are very concerned about any movement toward usage based
pricing on the Internet, and we are particularly concerned about
the future of the Internet Listserves, which allow broad
democratic discourse on a wide range of issues.  We believe that
the continued existence and enhancement of the Internet
discussion groups and distribution lists is so important that any
pricing scheme for the NAPs that would endanger or restrict their
use should be rejected by the NSF.

It is important for NSF to recognize that the Internet is more
than a network for scientific researchers or commercial
transactions.  It represents the most important new effort to
expand democracy into a wide range of human endeavors.  The open
communication and the free flow of information have made
government and private organizations more accountable, and
allowed citizens to organize and debate the widest range of
matters.  Federal policy should be directed at expanding public
access to the Internet, and it should reject efforts to introduce
pricing schemes for Internet usage that would mimic commercial
telephone networks or expensive private network services such as
MCI mail.

To put this into perspective, NSF officials must consider how any
pricing mechanisms will change the economics of hosting an
Internet electronic mail discussion groups and distribution
lists.  Many of these discussion groups and lists are very large,
such as Humanist, GIS-L, CNI-Copyright, PACS-L, CPSR-Announce or
Com-Priv.  It is not unusual for a popular Internet discussion
group to have several thousand members, and send out more than
100,000 email messages per day.  These discussion groups and
distribution lists are the backbones of democratic discourse on
the Internet, and it is doubtful that they would survive if
metered pricing of electronic mail is introduced on the Internet.

Usage based pricing would also introduce a wide range of problems
regarding the use of ftp, gopher and mosaic servers, since it
conceivable that the persons who provide "free" information on
servers would be asked to pay the costs of "sending" data to
persons who request data.  This would vastly increase the costs
of operating a server site, and would likely eliminate many
sources of data now "published" for free.

We are also concerned about the types of  accounting mechanisms
which may be developed or deployed to facilitate usage based
pricing schemes., which raise a number of concerns about personal
privacy.  Few Internet users are anxious to see a new system of
"surveillance" that will allow the government or private data
vendors to monitor and track individual usage of Information
obtained from Internet listserves or fileserves.

     ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES

     We are also concerned about the potential for anti-
competitive behavior by the firms that operate the NAPs.  Since
1991 there have been a number of criticisms of ANS pricing
practices, and concerns about issues such as price discrimination
or preferential treatment are likely to become more important as
the firms operating the NAPs become competitors of firms that
must connect to the NAPs.  We are particularly concerned about
the announcements by PAC-Bell and Ameritech that they will enter
the retail market for Internet services, since both firms were
selected by NSF to operate NAPs.  It is essential that the
contracts signed by NSF include the strongest possible measures
to insure that the operators of the NAPs do not unfairly
discriminate against unaffiliated companies.

Recommendations:

As the Internet moves from the realm of the research community to
a more vital part of the nation's information infrastructure, the
NSF must ensure that its decisions reflect the needs and values
of a much larger community.

1.   The NSF contracts with the NAPs operators will include
     clauses that determine how the NAP services will be priced. 
     It is important that NSF disclose and receive comment on all
     pricing proposals before they become final.  NSF should
     create an online discussion list to facilitate public dialog
     on the pricing proposals, and NSF should identify its
     criteria for selecting a particular pricing mechanism,
     addressing the issue of how the pricing system will impact
     the Internet's role in facilitating democratic debate.

2.   NSF should create a consumer advisory board which would
     include a broad cross section of consumer interests,
     including independent network service providers (NSPs),
     publishers of Internet discussion groups and distribution
     lists, academic networks, librarians, citizen groups and
     individual users.  This advisory board should review a
     number of policy questions related to the operation of the
     Internet, including questions such as the NAP pricing, NAP
     operator disclosure of financial, technical and operational
     data, systems of Internet accounting which are being tested
     on the vBNS and other topics.

3.   NSF should solicit public comment, though an online
     discussion group, of the types of safeguards against
     anticompetitive behavior by the NAPs which should be
     addressed in the NSF/NAPs contracts, and on issues such as
     NAPs pricing and Internet accounting systems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer
Assets Project (TAP).  TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the
management of government property, including information systems and
data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government
assets.  TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal
information policy.  tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org;
gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org

Subscription requests to tap-info to listserver@essential.org with
the message:  subscribe tap-info your name
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC  20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet:  tap@essential.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I signed it. I have in the past received from Michael Ward a copy of a
paper describing congestion-based pricing models, which seem to work
really well for the kinds of things that everybody wants.

This letter seems to take such models into consideration, and seems to
be more cautionary than reactionary. Obviously, a metered model (like
phones) would be inappropriate for Internet, but is probably what
phone/cable companies would like to charge, even though it would
stifle usage.

This letter, while reacting against all usage models, seems to me
to leave the door open to more intelligent pricing models, such
as the congestion model (e-mail me for details). Thus, it seems
to address my concerns, and my fright at the idea of a conventional
usage-based model was sufficient to get me to agree to sign the
letter, in spite of the fact it doesn't call out congestion-based
models explicitly as an alternative. I specifically agree with all
the recommendations.

The congestion-based pricing model is essentially this (if I remember
it correctly): every packet includes how much it would be willing to
pay to be sent within a given time frame. The switch sends the packets
with the highest bids, but charging them each the amount of the
cheapest sent packet. Other packets either wait or get NACK'ed (I
forget what happens here). Note that zero is a fine amount to bid --
it just means you wait until the line frees up. Packets have an
incentive to actually bid the correct amount they would be willing to
pay, but don't get charged if they bid too high. People who care about
throughput pay enough to add enough capacity so there is always some
slack time. It really seems to me to work like a charm. I've got a
paper on this (with references to further papers) if anyone is
interested.


   Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 14:03:21 -0700
   From: lile@netcom.com (Lile Elam)

   about this letter? Would you sign it?

   -lile


   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Lile Elam	    |  "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are."
   lile@netcom.com     |		
   Un*x Admin / Artist |			 Buckaroo Banzai
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


   ---------- Forwarded message ----------
   Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 12:37:27 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Michael Ward <mike@Essential.ORG>
   To: niiregional-l@rain.org
   Subject: Letter to NSF re: Internet Pricing


   Distributed to TAP-INFO, a free Internet Distribution List
   (subscription requests to listserver@essential.org) 

   TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE
   May 7, 1994

   -    Request for signatures for a letter to NSF opposing metered
	pricing of Internet usage

   -    Please repost this request freely

   The letter will be sent to Steve Wolff, the Director of
   Networking and Communications for NSF.  The purpose of the letter
   is to express a number of user concerns about the future of
   Internet pricing.  NSF recently announced that is awarding five
   ...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> about this letter? Would you sign it?

In a word, no.  Here's why:

> We are very concerned about any movement toward usage based
> pricing on the Internet,

I am too.  It's going too slowly.  I wouldn't be here if the present
trend toward usage based pricing didn't exist.  To the extent that the
Internet is still funded through taxation (expropriating the fruits of
another's toil without his consent), I feel that I am receiving stolen
property by using the Internet.  Civility and decency demand that this
situation be ended as soon as possible.

> These discussion groups and
> distribution lists are the backbones of democratic discourse on
> the Internet, and it is doubtful that they would survive if
> metered pricing of electronic mail is introduced on the Internet.

Any more doubtful than that a newspaper or a magazine would survive?

> Usage based pricing would also introduce a wide range of problems
> regarding the use of ftp, gopher and mosaic servers, since it
> conceivable that the persons who provide "free" information on
> servers would be asked to pay the costs of "sending" data to
> persons who request data.

Conceivable, perhaps.  A much more likely model would appear to be that
the requester would have to pay the bill, just as when buying a book or
a journal.

> We are also concerned about the types of  accounting mechanisms
> which may be developed or deployed to facilitate usage based
> pricing schemes., which raise a number of concerns about personal
> privacy.  Few Internet users are anxious to see a new system of
> "surveillance" that will allow the government or private data
> vendors to monitor and track individual usage of Information
> obtained from Internet listserves or fileserves.

I certainly share with you this concern.  This underscores the
importance of anonymous digital cash and other technologies which enable
untraceable trading on the Internet.

			*	*	*

There's also the pragmatic consideration that he who pays the piper gets
to call the tune.  If you don't want your neighbor interfering with your
Internet use of cryptography, for example, then don't make him pay the
bill for that use by acting to perpetuating your use of his tax money.

	John E. Kreznar		| Relations among people to be by
	jkreznar@ininx.com	| mutual consent, or not at all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLdGKssDhz44ugybJAQHkBQQAszXkh31KU6yRVpV18/L9eLJ4f8ee0wKW
t3i1eHZe/iRqF8NYxdPbH69wq1GsPUySYi8mwBQLe27nDMAbZ9vyz/Eete1EKIua
slghqkDcEYeTkh+RgpxDNIYVDNSdj4DOCi7EDGm8ErpklWedtD2RhJB0gaqVb3Q8
xoRwtaGcqyo=
=sPWy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----