Lyo, industry proposals for a two-level NREN-NII, would have them take
complete control on a commercial basis of all operations except
experimental networks. That means you would have to pay for everything.
Prices would be governed by "market forces" in an environment tightly
controlled by RBOCs monopoly power. The question you raised should be
but forward to your representatives in Congress, and at all upcoming
meetings, such as the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee
Meeting, April 14, and the National Net93, April 14-16. Vigdor
On Wed, 7 Apr 1993, Lyonette Louis-Jacques wrote:
>
> Dear LAW-LIBers--
>
> I'm not up on all the computer lingo, but this posting on PACS-L seems to
> indicate that there is a move to privatize the Internet and if so, my
> question is--
>
> Does that mean we would have to pay to access e-mail lists, Usenet, FTP
> sites, etc. in the future instead of the free access we have now as
> academics? Can someone explain that impact on us financially of the NREN/NII
> proposals?
>
> Thanks!
> Lyo.
> ----
> ---------------
>
> Received: from by midway.uchicago.edu Mon, 5 Apr 93 11:38:48 CDT
> Message-Id: <9304051638.AB14366@midway.uchicago.edu>
> Received: from UCHIMVS1.BITNET by UCHIMVS1.UCHICAGO.EDU (IBM MVS SMTP V2R1)
> with BSMTP id 4825; Mon, 05 Apr 93 11:36:36 CDT
> Received: (from VMA.CC.ND.EDU for <@VMA.CC.ND.EDU:PACS-L@UHUPVM1.BITNET> via
> Received: (from MAILER@IRISHVMA for MAILER@UCHIMVS1 via NJE)
> (UCLA/Mail V1.500 M-RSCS7221-7221-149); Mon, 05 Apr 93 11:35:47 CST
> Received: from VMA.CC.ND.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@IRISHVMA) by VMA.CC.ND.EDU
> (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1726; Mon, 5 Apr 1993 11:36:01 -0500
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 11:16:39 CDT
> Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
> Sender: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
> From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@ACCESS.DIGEX.COM>
> Subject: FINS VOL. 1, ISSUE NO. 7
> To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> ----------------Original Message Posted in Multiple Lists-----------------
> -------------------Electronic Republication Authorized--------------------
>
>
>
> READ THIS ISSUE OF FINS TO CONSIDER:
>
> * Unified Industry Plans for the Proposed NII
>
> * "Third Sector" Paralysis on the Proposed NII
>
> =========================================================================
>
> FINS: Communicating the Emerging Philosophy of The Information Age
> FEDERAL INFORMATION NEWS SYNDICATE
> VOL I, ISSUE 7 (890 words) EMBARGOED UNTIL APRIL 5, 1993
>
>
> CLOSING THE "VALUES-GAP":
> Searching For a Valid Structure for the NII
> By Vigdor Schreibman
>
> Patricia Glass Schuman, past President of the American Library
> Association told FINS in a phone interview last week that she was going to
> try to "build a fire" to overcome the failure of libraries and the "third
> sector" to adequately inform Congress about the National Information
> Infrastructure now being planned. Responding to an inquiry made by FINS
> about the kind of institutional structure that is required to effectively
> address the fundamental social priorities of the Nation, Schuman recognized
> that "people are asleep on this issue . . . they are unaware of changes now
> taking place with regard to the NREN." She also expressed alarm at the
> powerful, joint actions taken by telcos, computer hardware giants, and
> information industry leaders to secure control over the NII, while
> abandoning the "third sector" to an atomized "all-against-all beggars
> market, without a viable institutional support system."
>
> Schuman's warning of the lack of "third sector" responsiveness to the
> Infrastructure issue followed a week of commentary on the "Com-Priv"
> conference of the Internet, ridiculing National Science Foundation plans
> for privatizing the NREN. A former consultant to the Office of Technology
> Assessment, who was hired to make an assessment of NREN, [Gordon Cook
> <cook@PATH.NET>], also posted a message admonishing networkers to read the
> fine print of the report to Congress issued Dec. 1992 by the White House
> Office of Science and Technology Policy. The OSTP report, Cook observes,
> spells out the fact that, as it is now evolving,
>
> end users of NREN must go through some network service provider,
> either under contract with an agency or as a commercial service.
> **The network service vendor will charge a connectivity FEE
> **AND** a subscription FEE, **AND** possibly traffic dependent
> FEES [yep payment by the packet for what you receive and send],
> which will then be used to pay connectivity (NAP and backbone)
> and transport charges.
>
> The NSF plan for NREN, as characterized by another well informed
> networker, "is apparently going to leave most our educational institutions
> on the side of the road with their thumbs out looking for a ride or waiting
> for the Greyhound." [Greg Chartrand <Greg_Chartrand@qmail.ssc.gov>].
>
> The NII is all about the "trickle down" theory of information, which
> is designed to promote the narrow interests of a favored minority of
> "artificial aristocrats," defined by power alone (as Jefferson described
> this group). It is also about this Nation's fundamental priorities--
> human, social, ecological. What needs to be brought into the open is the
> choice of institutional structures, and whether these will support the
> "trickle down" theory of information, disregarding our real priorities.
>
> The telcos, computer hardware giants, and information industry leaders
> have presented Congress with their unified, unilateral demand for a 2-level
> structure to support the emerging NII: level-1, to provide for government
> subsidized technological experimentation; and level-2, to provide for
> commercial communications services controlled by private industry. The
> existing NREN program is now being privatized under this very scheme.
>
> Under the structure sought by these "artificial aristocrats," the whole
> domain of "third sector" non-profit computer-information-communications
> will have no instrumental framework. These organizations, which serve the
> fundamental human, social, and ecological priorities of the Nation will be
> left on the dole by industry's plan, in an atomized "all-against-all
> beggars market, without a viable institutional support system." The
> settled priorities of the Nation cannot be realize under such conditions.
>
> As if that were not bad enough we now learn that the "third sector"
> institutions in research, education, libraries, health, public interest law
> etc., have simply been "asleep on the issue"; particularly, in political
> terms. A model structure for the future of NREN, containing coordinated
> policy support for the "third sector," was prepared for discussion purposes
> by Fred W. Weingarten of Computing Research Association [copy available
> from FINS]. This was presented at a workshop devoted to policy options for
> NREN, held in Monterey, California last fall by eighteen organizations from
> government, education, and industry. However, that model was not even
> approved by CRA. Moreover, FINS has tracked all of the hearings held by
> Congress and all of the public testimony pertaining to this matter during
> recent months. It appears that not only is their no unified "third sector"
> plan for a viable structure for NREN and NII, but that no serious plans at
> all dealing with this crucial issue have been provided to Congress for
> legislative consideration.
>
> At the ALA mid-winter meeting last January, the NII issue did not even
> appear in their policy statement. Indeed, when FINS raised the issue in
> various library conferences on the Internet during recent months, our
> messages were illegitimately censored and acrimoniously denounced by
> librarians, purportedly for being outside of the desired "focus" of their
> interests. In short, as far as the "third sector" is concerned there is no
> structure in the proposed National Information Infrastructure.
>
> Perhaps, Pat Schuman together with other enlightened librarians and
> educators will be able to "light a fire" that will motivate people to
> recognize this appalling shortcoming and begin to correct it. Perhaps, a
> new grass-roots cyberspace movement is required, as some suggest. One way
> or another, "We the People" must bring to the attention of Congress, in
> the most compelling terms, our essential information infrastructure needs.
>
> ----------
> Federal Information News Syndicate, Vigdor Schreibman, Editor & Publisher,
> 18 - 9th Street NE #206, Washington, DC 20002-6042. Copyright 1993 FINS.
> Back issues of FINS may be retrieved by UCSF Gopher. Send for information.
> E-mail fins@access.digex.com; Fax/Voice (202)547-6106. Subscription rate:
> (omit from release to Internet).
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/07/00 PST