From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Tue Dec 1 07:35:45 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00D014BGSN@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:35:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00D014BBSD@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTY00E01Q8SHF@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.82]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTY00E30Q8S9Q@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FB5AADAE for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:32:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.86]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A66EAADAD for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:32:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77357A89C5 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:32:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C110EA68CF for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:28:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP01.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.196]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D32A68CE for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:28:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB17S7qt018215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:28:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:28:06 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] The Web Ad Wars Continue: Will the Real Darth Vader, Please Stand Up? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <56413502-6C84-4428-AD62-B32F172800BA@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=from :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=DfaqsDV/ozCSxMQeZ 1TLy49GVGs=; b=KBD6Yr8mWHVSKUzhy0BB5Ad36xPN4riddPLWTVmV3RSDtvDAt 7SP/lapT5ai/K0Zto06tXAMRwp6qtzYQvZpqQ== X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.196 X-Listbox-UUID: 13CC647A-DE4B-11DE-AAAD-9FC47577C2AA X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <20091201024739.GA989@vortex.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Lauren Weinstein Date: November 30, 2009 9:47:39 PM EST To: dave@farber.net Subject: The Web Ad Wars Continue: Will the Real Darth Vader, Please = Stand Up? The Web Ad Wars Continue: Will the Real Darth Vader, Please Stand = Up? http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000644.html Greetings. In our previous two installments of what I had originally intended to be a one-shot blog posting ("How to Sink a Major Web Site with a Single Ad" - http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000642.html -- and "The Hard-Core Web Ad Haters Strike Back!" - http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000643.html ) we explored my annoyance with "auto-play" audio ads and the responses I received fro= m readers who hate *all* Web advertising. Subsequently my inbox has been filling with comments covering a broader range of views on this subject, and I felt it appropriate to devote one more posting to the topic right now to illuminate some of those opinions. As noted in my original entries, there appears to be universal disgus= t for ads that start playing audio as soon as you navigate to a page -- especially when audio material isn't expected on those pages. This i= s the type of Web ad that I despise the most, though as I've said I don't use ad blockers as a matter of principle=20 ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000281.html ). But lots of folks do use ad blockers, and they weren't shy about telling me why. Most commonly cited were blocking tools that targeted flash-based ads= . While some persons simply were annoyed by all of the visual activity that such ads often represent -- even if silent until un-muted -- other correspondents had more technical complaints that are especiall= y difficult to ignore. I received a large number of notes complaining about ad problems for users on relatively slow Internet connections, and how loading of "heavy" ads (flash, significant amounts of JavaScript or other "rich" content, etc.) dragged down to a crawl everything that these users were doing. This brings up another pertinent point. How often have you had a Web page freeze up completely during loading, and when you looked down at the activity bar you could see that everything was hanging waiting fo= r a third-party ad server like "wowsupergreatdealsserver.com" to connect? Slow or badly configured ad servers just rub salt into the wound for people who aren't kindly disposed toward Web ads in the first place. Coincidentally, Google's Steve Souders commented on exactly this issu= e during a newly published interview -- definitely worth reading=20 ( http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/11/steve-souders-making-web-sites.htm= l ). Some users are less interested in the content of ads per se when it comes to blocking, and are mainly blocking due to perceived privacy-related tracking concerns. There were also a number of folks who noted the increasingly seen phenomenon of pages that refuse to load if common ad blocking mechanisms are active (of course there are ways around this, in a continuing ad-related "arms race"). There were also actually a few people who professed -- apparently in light of my arguments -- to feeling a bit guilty about their broad us= e of ad blockers, and who pledged to at least experiment with not blocking ads on those sites that they felt were deserving of support. But overall the sense I get from all of this is something just short of bedlam. There is no Dark Lord pulling the strings of the situation. Given th= e wide spectrum of opinions pervading all aspects of Web ad controversies, it's likely to be impossible to attain any general agreement about who are really the bad guys -- or the good guys -- in the Web advertising universe. More likely it's usually going to be a complex shade of gray. I want the largely ad-supported Web to survive. I don't want the Internet to become the 21st century equivalent of New York's old Automat -- and having to "insert coins" in profuse numbers to access conventional Web sites. Yet a range of factors suggest that we're on the cusp of big, perhaps radical changes. The EU is embracing broad restrictions on Web site cookies that may have collateral effects way beyond the privacy issue= s that are purportedly its focus. Here in the U.S., Congress seems poised to possibly pass legislation that would put major new limitations on Web site tracking. And of course we have Web users who routinely block some or all Web ads. Imagine the ramifications (and the boost to that ads blocking arms race) if one or more major Web browsers came pre-configured to block most existing Web ads. We end up pretty close to where we started. I am not convinced that sufficient thought and analysis have been given to either short or long-term funding models for the vast majority of Web sites if the current ad-based paradigm becomes untenable for any of a number of reasons. If individuals (via ad blocking) and/or legislators (via laws) sufficiently "devalue" the ad-based Web model and that model cannot adapt sufficiently, then we either need to resign ourselves to a fee-based model (like Murdoch's pay-through-the-nose concept, which I don't believe is practical nor desirable), or some other funding mechanism entirely. But if none of these alternatives turns out to be workable and acceptable, the most likely outcome is a major contraction in the number of Web sites available to the Internet-using public at large. That, I believe, would not only be a waste, but could potentially be quite dangerous as well -- especially if key sources of Web-based information are unable to survive in the resulting funding vacuum. We really need to be getting ahead of the game on this one, gang. Or else we risk having a large percentage of the Web -- including perhap= s many of its most useful sites -- being abandoned to figuratively swin= g uselessly in the wind. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition=20 for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Tue Dec 1 07:35:46 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00D014BGSN@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:35:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00D014BBSD@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTY00E01QH0U1@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTY00E7XQH09Q@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8232EABEB0 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCBEABEAE for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A281453E for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:35:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F979DFE6 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:26:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP01.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.196]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB239DFE5 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:26:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB17Q7bZ018125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:26:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:26:07 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_1QxCT8H6qFtLv/jyWNak+Q)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=from :content-type:subject:date:references:to:message-id:mime-version :reply-to:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s= launch; bh=3D7DMsz4Mhh7QRnu0/g7ScSI9eQ=; b=khY8S+SQfeWD5OBpCuHAQ Mp5oA8AYC3HhNxyi4rS71KwwmtgrDqvH9MEz4PjlEhIpJyxTEkcn/jvZMFd/J2SN g== X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.196 X-Listbox-UUID: CD5D59C2-DE4A-11DE-994F-DA56A5D0D0AE X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <7d19cc9a0911302031u3e9702f2l26665ed6d6021af9@mail.gmail.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 --Boundary_(ID_1QxCT8H6qFtLv/jyWNak+Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Rahul Tongia Date: November 30, 2009 11:31:30 PM EST To: dave@farber.net Subject: Re: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world Reply-To: tongia@cmu.edu Dave, I write as an "outsider" not selling any products, but with some indu= stry knowledge and, some years back, extensive dealings with N. Ameri= can industry. =20 If Huawei is now so big/dominant, then why is that, a priori, someth= ing "to worry about"? Is it not creative destruction, and something t= hat benefits consumers? The SingleRAN appears to be technologically = advanced, or at least meeting consumer needs. Why it might be an issue would be (and I would like to know more on): 1) Are they inappropriately reverse engineering or otherwise using te= chnology they shouldn't? 2) Are the govt. ties to the level that it is unfair business practic= es? Many European companies have strong govt. ties - one has to reme= mber the Air France first class bugging to remember how bad things ha= ve been. =20 3) Are there hidden costs (lifecycle) that are unknown? The article c= laims the operating costs are lower, as opposed to just winning on up= front (bid) costs. 4) Are they selling at a loss to create market share? If they are private, and not public (needing "regular dividends") the= n that is a financing option available to any company. OK, maybe not = without some high-level "support" but that in and of itself is highly= unlikely to account for 40-50% discounts. I get asked by a lot of developing country professionals/govt. offici= als about Huawei - "how come they are so cheap"? I don't have a good = answer, and would like to understand better. The two answer (private= ownership and cheap labor) don't seem to be enough. If it is "commo= dity" products, then the SingleRAN doesn't fit the bill. =20 Rahul p.s. I won't bore folks with details, but I spent almost 3 years a "l= ong" while back (10 yrs ago) during the boom designing a national-sca= le backbone - US entities didn't behave any "better" than what they w= ould complain newbies behave like. The periods of non-disclosure are= over, but it's all academic at this point... On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Dave Farber wrote: Begin forwarded message: > From: Richard Shockey > Date: November 30, 2009 2:47:18 PM EST > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world > Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet >=20 > Well here is something else to worry about.=20 >=20 > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/business/global/30telecom.html?re= f=3Dbusines > s Archives =09=20 ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_1QxCT8H6qFtLv/jyWNak+Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

<= div>Begin forwarded message:

From: Rahul Tongia <tongia@cmu.edu>
Date: November 30, 2009 11:= 31:30 PM EST
To:= dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Huawei= now #2 telecom supplier in the world
Reply-To: tongia@cmu.edu

Dave,

I write as an = "outsider" not selling any products, but with some industry knowledge= and, some years back, extensive dealings with N. American industry.&= nbsp;

If Huawei is now so big/dominant, then why is that, a p= riori,  something "to worry about"? Is it not creative destructi= on, and something that benefits consumers?  The SingleRAN appear= s to be technologically advanced, or at least meeting consumer needs.=

Why it might be an issue would be (and I would like to know more = on):

1) Are they inappropriately reverse engineering or otherw= ise using technology they shouldn't?
2) Are the govt. ties to the = level that it is unfair business practices?  Many European compa= nies have strong govt. ties - one has to remember the Air France firs= t class bugging to remember how bad things have been. 
3) Are there hidden costs (lifecycle) that are unknown? The article c= laims the operating costs are lower, as opposed to just winning on up= front (bid) costs.
4) Are they selling at a loss to create market = share?

If they are private, and not public (needing "regular dividends") the= n that is a financing option available to any company. OK, maybe not = without some high-level "support" but that in and of itself is highly= unlikely to account for 40-50% discounts.

I get asked by a lot of developing country professionals/govt. of= ficials about Huawei - "how come they are so cheap"? I don't have a g= ood answer, and would like to understand better.  The two answer= (private ownership and cheap labor) don't seem to be enough.  I= f it is "commodity" products, then the SingleRAN doesn't fit the bill= . 

Rahul

p.s. I won't bore folks with details, but I spent al= most 3 years a "long" while back (10 yrs ago) during the boom designi= ng a national-scale backbone - US entities didn't behave any "better"= than what they would complain newbies behave like.  The periods= of non-disclosure are over, but it's all academic at this point...
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Dave F= arber <dave@f= arber.net> wrote:




Begin forwar= ded message:

From:= Richard Shockey <richard@SHOCKEY.US>
Date: November 30, 2009 2:47:18 PM EST
To: CYB= ERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the worldReply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTE= LECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

=20 =20
Archives a>


--Boundary_(ID_1QxCT8H6qFtLv/jyWNak+Q)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Tue Dec 1 07:35:47 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00D014BGSN@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:35:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00D014BBSD@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00D0144ICE@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:31:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTZ00A6M44HX4@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:31:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF15ABCB2 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EEBDABCB1 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8172AC950 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2489F27D for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP02.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.197]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBB59F27A for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB1CTHT8013104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:29:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:29:17 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] The Web Ad Wars Continue: Will the Real Darth Vader, Please Stand Up? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <8023A228-F2BE-4C9F-BBD0-4D9B3FA8CF2C@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=from :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=wD1hR/t+PHohkwldt ++35mBxBPc=; b=k0b6lEcofLdXEVxQvEXEjltx8m5lak/XzHNwvKClf+do/KiPA bQ09q4evamJjc0plZTGsPHg4HSJDI15VCavAw== X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.197 X-Listbox-UUID: 2698F062-DE75-11DE-92C8-90E1C1B27C9B X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <4B14CE41.7060301@cavebear.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Karl Auerbach Date: December 1, 2009 3:05:21 AM EST To: dave@farber.net Cc: ip Subject: Re: [IP] The Web Ad Wars Continue: Will the Real Darth Vader= , Please Stand Up? Reply-To: karl@cavebear.com On 11/30/2009 11:28 PM, David Farber wrote: > From: Lauren Weinstein > Date: November 30, 2009 9:47:39 PM EST > Subject: The Web Ad Wars Continue: Will the Real Darth Vader, Pleas= e Stand Up? > The Web Ad Wars Continue: Will the Real Darth Vader, Please Stan= d Up? > This brings up another pertinent point. How often have you had a W= eb > page freeze up completely during loading I have found the following useful (in addition to the usual things su= ch as Adblock Plus): I modify my machines' hosts file so that it does the following name m= appings: 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com 127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com This has the effect of causing my browser to do a loopback connect (w= hich fails instantly) for all of those Google urchin tracking 1x1 inv= isible images and the associated javascript, you know the script that= sends information about your machine back to Google, gives 'em a coo= kie hook, and let's 'em build cross-page and cross-site tracking data= about me (and you.) In addition to the privacy enhancement it also tends to make web surf= ing faster because my browser doesn't have to wait for Google. Yes, = Google is usually very fast, but not always. But I am always impatie= nt, especially when the reason why I'm forced to wait is to allow som= eone to data mine me. The wikipedia has an article that shows where to find the hosts file = on various operating systems. =09=09--karl-- -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Tue Dec 1 16:41:31 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00E01TL3SF@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:41:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00E01TKXS8@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:41:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00N01A5LXF@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:42:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.83]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTZ00MF6A5R1E@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFE8AA7DD for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.87]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBA4AA7DC for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2441AAA2E0 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326979CAC4 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:37:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1669CAC2 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:37:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so1562454vws.28 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:37:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.122.78 with SMTP id k14mr6968517vcr.97.1259678254674; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:37:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.86.105.166? (mobile-166-137-134-171.mycingular.net [166.137.134.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm296747vws.1.2009.12.01.06.37.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:37:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:36:28 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Traffic Pumping To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <4061EE92-BBC1-49FF-AA61-F74B7CA0D781@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_vJWvPYp+zuJwubshJq0m6w)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=P+PhJ4NVaCf0blRMa 0PbloOfLYY=; b=Mi0sS0TpstpiM+QkxtEcGNCmmB+h1Ft5nNb3Hz8xWfZ1Y3lD0 Xb1cO9H/mEKJdtwTwk2d2yth6ECCJ++6VFwqQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=VzKrTyGO/5WFZ9q13VKim+lwqiuOT7jG1ZDpKaUOCwI=; b=FPBykycgRe35rNFTqp88Y6Vdlsy2bnq2ROECAtsPO0C9bvj019qeRcoa3rNJ/850BO JQc8fzkii6YbMN/kEpGNjjfz6OM1ZM+6PPwFnCoyJKGu2kh+3ckJj+2Y4IGo7DC1v90a UxZ4HcAkrwlhMBmn94cpd79DTkCmO+NSM6Pv0= X-Listbox-UUID: 11D990D4-DE87-11DE-9535-9448A52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <51263FC817FFE0498378E15A05922CFD016819AE@WDCEX01.DWT.COM> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=XAsgOI3tzxlshGRhwDr89AuZKgrUVp54ghAgvxLoA1u5Fflj0elZLNkal29uZWx7xA sZ0wHRgAx9LZ4MRaTbapWRbUAkNlBzSeFD/7MmvcwCh94PR0yjQmtVcRZSOXdj/elZ7a udtVo7NAAOcxs5WtHhMe9I459UTdEfSztUNqU= --Boundary_(ID_vJWvPYp+zuJwubshJq0m6w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: "Savage, Christopher" > Date: November 30, 2009 10:27:21 AM EST > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: Traffic Pumping > Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > > This is one of the fundamental problems with regulating prices. > Prices > send signals to profit-motivated players. If regulators allow me to > charge [x] for some activity and my cost to do it is [x-k] the only > rational business response is to do everything I can to encourage the > activity to occur. > > It follows that any activity on the part of a regulated company to > encourage an activity for which there is a regulated rate, is > near-conclusive evidence that the rate is too high. > > Back in the day, we at Bell Atlantic solved this problem for > intrastate > access fees in a simple way. It would work as follows: > > 1. The RLEC has to state its costs of providing access service. > Let's > say it is $1,000,000. > > 2. Look at last year's access business for the RLEC. Let's say that > 40% of the minutes came from AT&T, 40% from Verizon, 8% from Sprint, > and > 2% from everybody else. Then AT&T and Verizon each cut the RLEC a > check > for $400,000, Sprint coughs up $80,000, and everyone else comes up > with > $20,000. > > In other words, the number of (today) chargeable access minutes don't > get charged on a per-minute basis; instead they simply are counters to > determine what proportion of the RLEC's cost each user of access > services has to pay. > > Any reason why this wouldn't work to end traffic pumping? > > Chris S. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > [mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Charles Jackson > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:04 AM > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: [CYBERTEL] Traffic Pumping > > Traffic pumping has come up from time to time on this list. A recent > FCC > Order (24 Nov) sheds some light on these practices. > > See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.pdf > > Here's an interesting quote: > > In 2005 and 2006, Farmers entered into a number of commercial > arrangements > with conference calling companies for the purpose of increasing its > interstate switched access > traffic and revenues. Under the agreements, conference calling > companies > sent their traffic to > numbers located in Farmers' exchange and, in return, Farmers paid the > companies money or other > consideration. The agreements resulted in a substantial increase in > the > number of calls bound > for Farmers' exchange. As a result, the amounts of Farmers' monthly > bills to > Qwest for > terminating access charges rose precipitously. > > > > Chuck ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_vJWvPYp+zuJwubshJq0m6w) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: "Savage, Christopher" <ChrisSavage@DWT.COM>
Date: November 30, 2009 10:= 27:21 AM EST
To: CYBERTELE= COM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Traffic Pump= ing
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <= ;CYBERTELECOM-L@LI= STSERV.AOL.COM>

This is one of the fundamental problems w= ith regulating prices.  Prices
send signals to p= rofit-motivated players.  If regulators allow me to
charge [x] for some activity and my cost to do it is [x-k] the on= ly
rational business response is to do everything I c= an to encourage the
activity to occur.

It follows that any activity on the part of a regu= lated company to
encourage an activity for which ther= e is a regulated rate, is
near-conclusive evidence th= at the rate is too high.

Back in the= day, we at Bell Atlantic solved this problem for intrastateaccess fees in a simple way.  It would work as follows:<= /span>

1.  The RLEC has to state its c= osts of providing access service.  Let's
say it = is $1,000,000.

2.  Look at last= year's access business for the RLEC.  Let's say that
= 40% of the minutes came from AT&T, 40% from Verizon, 8% fro= m Sprint, and
2% from everybody else.  Then AT&a= mp;T and Verizon each cut the RLEC a check
for $400,0= 00, Sprint coughs up $80,000, and everyone else comes up with<= br>$20,000.

In other words, th= e number of (today) chargeable access minutes don't
g= et charged on a per-minute basis; instead they simply are counters to=
determine what proportion of the RLEC's cost each us= er of access
services has to pay.

Any reason why this wouldn't work to end traffic pumpin= g?

Chris S.
<= br>-----Original Message-----
From: Telecom Reg= ulation & the Internet
[mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@LIS= TSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Charles Jackson
Sent: Mon= day, November 30, 2009 10:04 AM
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: [CYBERTEL] Traffic Pumping

Traffic pumping has come up from time to time on this list.  = A recent
FCC
Order (24 Nov) sheds som= e light on these practices.

See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-103A1.= pdf

Here's an interesting quote= :

In 2005 and 2006, Farmers entered = into a number of commercial
arrangements
with conference calling companies for the purpose of increasing i= ts
interstate switched access
traffic= and revenues. Under the agreements, conference calling companies
sent their traffic to
numbers located in= Farmers' exchange and, in return, Farmers paid the
c= ompanies money or other
consideration. The agreements= resulted in a substantial increase in the
number of = calls bound
for Farmers' exchange. As a result, the a= mounts of Farmers' monthly
bills to
Q= west for
terminating access charges rose precipitousl= y.



Chuck
--Boundary_(ID_vJWvPYp+zuJwubshJq0m6w)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:37 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00I01VHYES@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:22:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.83]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTZ00I2PVHY82@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA23AAA57 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.87]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88EECAAA56 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7983AAABD4 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AFEA68B3 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6F1A68B1 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so1755907vws.28 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:18:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.121.155 with SMTP id h27mr7683451vcr.80.1259705924827; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ([67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm966860vws.7.2009.12.01.14.18.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:18:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:17:42 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <0968EA8E-5622-4142-A4FC-E6EC03183275@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_eoM+EtaMN0K889Dv5N3dRA)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=edhfr40/fykUIeGPY 10kQhc7yxw=; b=PwU0xHUpvifiXdzkJLSWiErh5soQf3smZzAdqiCyYXrrtwLnj NPCJ6thDUuf1yO28Yi6DHhj6ZCNzkp/6M/8Xw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=WCiArdA3w+mDF82MAVogqQpI7ZXo0pVeRFzrLOl5Um0=; b=qbbgKg3KkPVzatmhh7lTNwtrNzsiS8VCGHMoF+8eDUgKULqeaYKcRW41QfUUV1ll98 j6a08YvGySnbBfA0+mpOnoaxVMkwRXpL0bNGfMHE3EqkbEqmPEsT/c/MKQWGbwdbbqU+ nH+4DQKP8Rsq2jlnsI7QMNQaG9PwggbCDEVoE= X-Listbox-UUID: 7E6D6122-DEC7-11DE-A662-D3F417451ADE X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <20091201203438.GA9691@vortex.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=Eeh2TjqSkPdByytt6Bx9euGmdz5U7D24438SWQKiswfMmvc+2Md1+vQArmdO7dRa27 4jfiAxgZrM+4ZU95BcO/tliEeVivSJXX6FncznEUzvAXDXxk6V6G56zaF0/WGGfuoMhk Hg6dV72e/oHc27Mqewo7oHnI6Zzm8Xab/rki0= --Boundary_(ID_eoM+EtaMN0K889Dv5N3dRA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT If this is accurate, it is outragious. djf Begin forwarded message: > From: Lauren Weinstein > Date: December 1, 2009 3:34:38 PM EST > To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? > > > Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? > > Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) change made yesterday to the > FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "post[ing] off-topic > information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking sites." > > Say what? Is this a case of a Verizon lawyer with too much time on > his or her hands? Or does Verizon now intend to police, prosecute, > terminate, or otherwise flog and punish users for "irrelevance" in > postings that users make on sites completely unaffiliated with > Verizon? > > Verizon appears to have elevated simple "off-topic" postings (whatever > that really means!) to the same level as DDoS attacks, Trojans, spam, > and libel. > > Exactly who is going to determine which "offenders" rise to a level > suitable for Verizon to slam down the AUP hammer? Or maybe it's > really an excuse to provide a new conduit for providing users' IP > address information to sites that are upset about particular postings? > > ISPs should be delivering bits, not playing "off-topic" content cop > enforcers. > > http://bit.ly/6LScLw (Slashdot) > > --Lauren-- > NNSquad Moderator ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_eoM+EtaMN0K889Dv5N3dRA) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
If this is accurate, it is outra= gious. djf



Begin forwarded message:

=
From: Lauren Weinstein &l= t;lauren@vortex.com>
<= b>Date: December 1, 2009 3:34:38 PM EST
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] = Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?


Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?
Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) change made yesterd= ay to the
FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "po= st[ing] off-topic
information on message boards, chat= rooms or social networking sites."

= Say what?  Is this a case of a Verizon lawyer with too much time= on
his or her hands?  Or does Verizon now inten= d to police, prosecute,
terminate, or otherwise flog = and punish users for "irrelevance" in
postings that u= sers make on sites completely unaffiliated with
Veriz= on?

Verizon appears to have elevated= simple "off-topic" postings (whatever
that really me= ans!) to the same level as DDoS attacks, Trojans, spam,
and libel.

Exactly who is going t= o determine which "offenders" rise to a level
suitabl= e for Verizon to slam down the AUP hammer?  Or maybe it's=
really an excuse to provide a new conduit for providing use= rs' IP
address information to sites that are upset ab= out particular postings?

ISPs should= be delivering bits, not playing "off-topic" content cop
enforcers.

http://bit.ly/6LScLw  (Slashdot)

--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator=
--Boundary_(ID_eoM+EtaMN0K889Dv5N3dRA)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:38 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00L01XNG50@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:09:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.82]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTZ00K4MXNGR8@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:09:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0523BAB9BE for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:10:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.86]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0026EAB9BD for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:10:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBBEA9D71 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD49CA6AAE for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:03:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC91A6AAD for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:03:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so1771511vws.28 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.126.165 with SMTP id c37mr7853005vcs.16.1259708627232; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ([67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm1034571vws.8.2009.12.01.15.03.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5) ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:03:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:02:47 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <50C04455-CD9F-47F3-8547-074121468FE8@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_6z4/unaUL5oZdftVNh7tfQ)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=hKYj7EAmyO0p1iej3 dBXE4ynoHs=; b=hdWA6fILAevoZ45RLVWhtC2zwgtu5otyn37KJojKfhJaqUO9V Qxr0ksT+MXVK/5/WdfOo2OSCs40QmIGzOWIvg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=trUxoh1H5Bb+ZqGLjwCMS/6jjCqMwuB7o0r4+wST8Us=; b=Ky800rO8rd4qb9eLiVa4+PkVvWtWRy60o+G1+DnL+R3FW1oFF7+JFhTZLD4NqeZPfb 2EeloAsAEzz4XSN08ChVb705Wej2EaaciMtwno2bfLuhMDY5caVBHK5LboJzxGcFKo5u E5bB7wm4WQPrzYY2rmMsny9NQ4nt+y1/7bjYA= X-Listbox-UUID: C950910E-DECD-11DE-8522-FA8869449542 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <343d89550912011450q47f817b4y8a7f2918127aa1a7@mail.gmail.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=UefDWHGf8B1Gb4BSiEXmlvHteqfBfBz5jTzSHUnX5apA2z8WQBr0Gzxe/B8yr7hbPs UbfANBx3mhkOF8UlCSB1vPZbLnnU4/7ApXxQiS5er4QoGQQ0raTI+U1ydysZfbEki3Sg k9rtvEUWAwIX+66yDR6I7Be6qYQr97X9qxLPw= --Boundary_(ID_6z4/unaUL5oZdftVNh7tfQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Edward Vielmetti > Date: December 1, 2009 5:50:26 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? > > Dave - > > If it's possible for this to make sense, it could make sense in > the context of Verizon's own message boards; > > http://forums.verizon.com/ > > which has terms of service > > http://forums.verizon.com/t5/Terms-of-Service-and-User/Verizon-Community-Terms-of-Service/td-p/2 > > which at a glance look > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Dave Farber wrote: > If this is accurate, it is outragious. djf > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Lauren Weinstein >> Date: December 1, 2009 3:34:38 PM EST >> To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org >> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? >> > >> >> Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? >> >> Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) change made yesterday to >> the >> FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "post[ing] off-topic >> information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking >> sites." >> >> Say what? Is this a case of a Verizon lawyer with too much time on >> his or her hands? Or does Verizon now intend to police, prosecute, >> terminate, or otherwise flog and punish users for "irrelevance" in >> postings that users make on sites completely unaffiliated with >> Verizon? >> >> Verizon appears to have elevated simple "off-topic" postings >> (whatever >> that really means!) to the same level as DDoS attacks, Trojans, spam, >> and libel. >> >> Exactly who is going to determine which "offenders" rise to a level >> suitable for Verizon to slam down the AUP hammer? Or maybe it's >> really an excuse to provide a new conduit for providing users' IP >> address information to sites that are upset about particular >> postings? >> >> ISPs should be delivering bits, not playing "off-topic" content cop >> enforcers. >> >> http://bit.ly/6LScLw (Slashdot) >> >> --Lauren-- >> NNSquad Moderator > Archives > > > > -- > Edward Vielmetti > Ann Arbor, MI 48104 > > Google Voice: +1 734 330 2465 > Web: http://vielmetti.typepad.com ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_6z4/unaUL5oZdftVNh7tfQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT




Begin forwarded message:

From: Edward Vielmetti <edward.vielmetti@gmail.com>
Date: December 1, 2009 5:50:26 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?

Dave -

If it's possible for this to make sense, it could make sense in
the context of Verizon's own message boards;

http://forums.verizon.com/

which has terms of service

http://forums.verizon.com/t5/Terms-of-Service-and-User/Verizon-Community-Terms-of-Service/td-p/2

which at a glance look 

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:
If this is accurate, it is outragious. djf



Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: December 1, 2009 3:34:38 PM EST
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ]  Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?


Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?

Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) change made yesterday to the
FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "post[ing] off-topic
information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking sites."

Say what?  Is this a case of a Verizon lawyer with too much time on
his or her hands?  Or does Verizon now intend to police, prosecute,
terminate, or otherwise flog and punish users for "irrelevance" in
postings that users make on sites completely unaffiliated with
Verizon?

Verizon appears to have elevated simple "off-topic" postings (whatever
that really means!) to the same level as DDoS attacks, Trojans, spam,
and libel.

Exactly who is going to determine which "offenders" rise to a level
suitable for Verizon to slam down the AUP hammer?  Or maybe it's
really an excuse to provide a new conduit for providing users' IP
address information to sites that are upset about particular postings?

ISPs should be delivering bits, not playing "off-topic" content cop
enforcers.

http://bit.ly/6LScLw  (Slashdot)

--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator



--
Edward Vielmetti
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Google Voice: +1 734 330 2465
Web: http://vielmetti.typepad.com
--Boundary_(ID_6z4/unaUL5oZdftVNh7tfQ)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:39 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00L01XV6BU@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:14:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.83]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTZ00K8GXV5R8@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:13:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53A7AA2A2 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:14:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.87]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AC0AA2A1 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:14:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9809AA78E for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:14:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DCB19F599 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2749F598 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so1772799vws.28 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:07:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.126.165 with SMTP id c37mr7858318vcs.16.1259708878805; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ([67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm1046860vws.3.2009.12.01.15.07.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5) ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:07:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:06:54 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_69eB5vXcKZGSLxdGS1nzoA)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=DI2rpWLV/mZFD0jHS XxCIo/lkhE=; b=QjOU4gweEqo0nkzy6UGMibch2o/nfTClxmsgddG/ricMq0ojE wPffvIauiEJfEW07IC2YriQfQxYvW5um2gKng== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=2mlcoP5ugPcvBO85X0XkEE+3krfO6rcDNSJ4eukRjJE=; b=o8yww+5Ucnn2u0+0Rw4mU7C7+MZq4Q13nnreyfDw0soSsho0mr/tXLGHrxrgTjajJL MD1jIwBMu5n33y8Iysjbk029j/YxzyvYeYV5lfbvoEb1W2u4Vp/DjeVJojMiVR/2xY9C xW5G7Wx10jvf7e4VLH/dwMs79OcSKvtQZT/Vg= X-Listbox-UUID: 5F51DB40-DECE-11DE-93BB-B208060EBFE9 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=FoCKZXLJHG7KWC3B9q/z2dLSXAvVXTdPkmwTenXyslg97JibSmD1BZpJaHHiEq3o+h jd6PhhC8I7VRrJsR4GBvQK94faC8gnt7rmjehSR/LXyL7is+M4YD5pKyfxJR6e7XgTto rmkUhyf45E97pOTKyVEr/I65JADgfVS7mHmMA= --Boundary_(ID_69eB5vXcKZGSLxdGS1nzoA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Begin forwarded message: > From: Stan Hanks > Date: December 1, 2009 6:01:53 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: RE: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world > > We use Huawei in several of our portfolio company networks. I=E2= =80=99m goin=20 > g to try to answer what I can here, without crossing NDA boundaries= =E2=80=A6 > > When we started the process, some years back, there was heavy =20 > pressure from certain groups to discontinue our discussions. There = =20 > were rumors, innuendos and broad hints that Huawei had in fact = =20 > reverse engineered Cisco=E2=80=99s IOS and some of the line cards f= or the GS=20 > R. No one was ever able to demonstrate in an absolute manner that t= h=20 > is had happened. My own use of the various CLIs were not a whole lo= t=20 > different from my experience with other manufacturers who had prev= i=20 > ously sought to emulate the Cisco CLI language to make configuring = e=20 > quipment a simpler matter for engineering professionals =E2=80=93 a= n in-exac=20 > t copy, close enough to be familiar, different enough to be frustra= t=20 > ing. > > There were also issues raised about the ownership, rumors that it = =20 > was only semi-private and that it was in fact controlled by the = =20 > Chinese central government. While this would have been interesting,= =20 > I didn=E2=80=99t see it as being a =E2=80=9Cshow stopper=E2=80=9D i= n any way. Given =20 > that we were talking about private network placement, even if there= =20 > were =E2=80=9Cbugging technologies=E2=80=9D or the like it would no= t have been =20 > possible for any information so gained to have been exported to an = i=20 > nterested party. > > There were, and are, concerns about life cycle costs. When dealing = =20 > with any vendor for mission critical equipment, you have to worry = =20 > about what happens if they are unable to provide contracted support= . =20 > I mean, aren=E2=80=99t there a whole lot of =E2=80=9Cno one ever go= t fired for =20 > buying Nortel=E2=80=9D guys really, really sweating their futures r= ight now? > > I can=E2=80=99t comment on pricing other than to note that in every= case whe=20 > re we asked them for a quote, the provided an apples-to-apples tech= n=20 > ology solution at a price point that provided a clear economic win.= =20 > How, exactly, they did that relates to the concerns above about sta= b=20 > ility and unforeseen costs in the future. If they are a private com= p=20 > any, and are selling at cost or a loss, then that=E2=80=99s non sus= tainable =20 > and sooner or later there will be repercussions. If they are being = p=20 > ropped up by the central government, then that raises other issues.= =20 > If, on the other hand, they=E2=80=99ve just figured out how to do t= his for a=20 > fraction of the cost of the Other Guys, then that=E2=80=99s a whol= e =20 > =E2=80=98nuther discussion=E2=80=A6 > > In my dealings with their sales team and technology professionals, = I =20 > was very impressed by what they brought to the table. They didn= =E2=80=99t ha=20 > ve =E2=80=9Ccutting edge=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cahead of the curve= =E2=80=9D technology in the =20 > offered products, but the glimpses offered behind the scenes into t= h=20 > eir R & D efforts were pretty exciting, particularly against those = p=20 > reviews I=E2=80=99d had from other vendors. > > In the current US tech economy, we suffer greatly from tax changes = =20 > made in the 80s which make it un-economic to fund basic R & D on a = =20 > large scale. There will never be another =E2=80=9CBell Labs=E2=80= =9D because of =20 > the tax consequences. Instead, the only reasonable way to fund R & = D=20 > is via acquisition =E2=80=93 which is why you see so many early-st= age tech =20 > companies being snapped up by =E2=80=9Cgiants=E2=80=9D such as Cisc= o, Microsoft, =20 > etc. Which, in effect, means that our VC communities are funding ou= r=20 > future, and since they themselves have succumbed to =E2=80=9Cherd = mentality=20 > =E2=80=9D the odds of true break-away developments are in fact slim= . > > That=E2=80=99s where I see companies like Huawei as a =E2=80=9Cthre= at=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 they =20 > don=E2=80=99t have those constraints, and are fully funding basic r= esearch a=20 > nd application research at an aggressive pace. We, simply put, aren= =E2=80=99=20 > t. Which means, sooner or later, we=E2=80=99ll likely be licensing = stuff fro=20 > m them instead of the other way around=E2=80=A6 > > I would also point out this article from 2006, where a lot of the = =20 > same issues are raised in a quote from the International Edition of= =20 > Newsweek, 1/16/2006: http://mountainrunner.us/2006/06/the_huawei_wa= y_.html > > People have been bashing on them for a long time, and they=E2=80= =99re still =20 > keeping pace with the best we have to offer. Maybe even outpacing u= s=20 > in the labs, where we won=E2=80=99t know until it=E2=80=99s too la= te. > > Stan > > From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:26 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Rahul Tongia > Date: November 30, 2009 11:31:30 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: Re: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world > Reply-To: tongia@cmu.edu > > Dave, > > I write as an "outsider" not selling any products, but with some = =20 > industry knowledge and, some years back, extensive dealings with N.= =20 > American industry. > > If Huawei is now so big/dominant, then why is that, a priori, = =20 > something "to worry about"? Is it not creative destruction, and = =20 > something that benefits consumers? The SingleRAN appears to be = =20 > technologically advanced, or at least meeting consumer needs. > > Why it might be an issue would be (and I would like to know more on= ): > > 1) Are they inappropriately reverse engineering or otherwise using = =20 > technology they shouldn't? > 2) Are the govt. ties to the level that it is unfair business =20 > practices? Many European companies have strong govt. ties - one ha= s =20 > to remember the Air France first class bugging to remember how bad = =20 > things have been. > 3) Are there hidden costs (lifecycle) that are unknown? The article= =20 > claims the operating costs are lower, as opposed to just winning on= =20 > upfront (bid) costs. > 4) Are they selling at a loss to create market share? > > If they are private, and not public (needing "regular dividends") = =20 > then that is a financing option available to any company. OK, maybe= =20 > not without some high-level "support" but that in and of itself is = =20 > highly unlikely to account for 40-50% discounts. > > I get asked by a lot of developing country professionals/govt. = =20 > officials about Huawei - "how come they are so cheap"? I don't have= =20 > a good answer, and would like to understand better. The two answer= =20 > (private ownership and cheap labor) don't seem to be enough. If it= =20 > is "commodity" products, then the SingleRAN doesn't fit the bill. > > Rahul > > p.s. I won't bore folks with details, but I spent almost 3 years a = =20 > "long" while back (10 yrs ago) during the boom designing a national= -=20 > scale backbone - US entities didn't behave any "better" than what = =20 > they would complain newbies behave like. The periods of non-=20 > disclosure are over, but it's all academic at this point... > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Dave Farber wrote= : > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Richard Shockey >> Date: November 30, 2009 2:47:18 PM EST >> To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >> Subject: Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world >> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > >> > >> Well here is something else to worry about. >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/business/global/30telecom.html?r= ef=3Dbusines >> s > Archives > > > > Archives > > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_69eB5vXcKZGSLxdGS1nzoA) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin forwarded message:
From: Stan Hanks <= ;stan@colventures.com>=
Date: December 1, 2009 6:01:53 PM EST
To: dave@= farber.net
Subject: RE: [IP] Huawei now #2 telec= om supplier in the world

We use Huawei in several of our = portfolio company networks. I=E2=80=99m going to try to answer what I can here,= without crossing NDA boundaries=E2=80=A6

 <= /p>

When we started the process, som= e years back, there was heavy pressure from certain groups to discontinue our= discussions. There were rumors, innuendos and broad hints that Huawei had in fact = reverse engineered Cisco=E2=80=99s IOS and some of the line cards for the GSR= . No one was ever able to demonstrate in an absolute manner that this had happened= . My own use of the various CLIs were not a whole lot different from my experi= ence with other manufacturers who had previously sought to emulate the Cisco CL= I language to make configuring equipment a simpler matter for engineering profes= sionals =E2=80=93 an in-exact copy, close enough to be familiar, different enough to be frustrating.

 <= /p>

There were also issues raised ab= out the ownership, rumors that it was only semi-private and that it was in fa= ct controlled by the Chinese central government. While this would have b= een interesting, I didn=E2=80=99t see it as being a =E2=80=9Cshow stopper= =E2=80=9D in any way. Given that we were talking about private network placement, even= if there were =E2=80=9Cbugging technologies=E2=80=9D or the like it would not = have been possible for any information so gained to have been exported to an in= terested party.

 <= /p>

There were, and are, concerns ab= out life cycle costs. When dealing with any vendor for mission critical equipm= ent, you have to worry about what happens if they are unable to provide contra= cted support. I mean, aren=E2=80=99t there a whole lot of =E2=80=9Cno one = ever got fired for buying Nortel=E2=80=9D guys really, really sweating their futures= right now?

 <= /p>

I can=E2=80=99t comment on prici= ng other than to note that in every case where we asked them for a quote, the = provided an apples-to-apples technology solution at a price point that provide= d a clear economic win. How, exactly, they did that relates to the concerns abo= ve about stability and unforeseen costs in the future. If they are a private c= ompany, and are selling at cost or a loss, then that=E2=80=99s non sustainabl= e and sooner or later there will be repercussions. If they are being propped up by= the central government, then that raises other issues. If, on the other h= and, they=E2=80=99ve just figured out how to do this for a fraction of the cost of the Oth= er Guys, then that=E2=80=99s a whole =E2=80=98nuther discussion=E2=80=A6<= /o:p>

 <= /p>

In my dealings with their sales = team and technology professionals, I was very impressed by what they brought t= o the table. They didn=E2=80=99t have =E2=80=9Ccutting edge=E2=80=9D or = =E2=80=9Cahead of the curve=E2=80=9D technology in the offered products, but the glimpses o= ffered behind the scenes into their R & D efforts were pretty exciting, particularly against those previews I=E2=80=99d had from other vendor= s.

 <= /p>

In the current US tech economy, we suffer greatly =66rom tax changes made in the 80s which make it un-economic to fund = basic R & D on a large scale. There will never be another =E2=80=9CBell L= abs=E2=80=9D because of the tax consequences. Instead, the only reasonable way to = fund R & D is via acquisition =E2=80=93 which is why you see so many ear= ly-stage tech companies being snapped up by =E2=80=9Cgiants=E2=80=9D such as C= isco, Microsoft, etc. Which, in effect, means that our VC communities are f= unding our future, and since they themselves have succumbed to =E2=80=9Cherd men= tality=E2=80=9D the odds of true break-away developments are in fact slim.=

 <= /p>

That=E2=80=99s where I see compa= nies like Huawei as a =E2=80=9Cthreat=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 they don=E2=80=99t hav= e those constraints, and are fully funding basic research and application res= earch at an aggressive pace. We, simply put, aren=E2=80=99t. Which means, soon= er or later, we=E2=80=99ll likely be licensing stuff from them instead of the othe= r way around=E2=80=A6

 <= /p>

I would also point out this arti= cle from 2006, where a lot of the same issues are raised in a quote from the I= nternational Edition of Newsweek, 1/16/2006: http://mountainrunner.us/2006/06/the_huawei= _way_.html

 <= /p>

People have been bashing on them= for a long time, and they=E2=80=99re still keeping pace with the best we ha= ve to offer. Maybe even outpacing us in the labs, where we won=E2=80=99t know unti= l it=E2=80=99s too late.


Stan

 <= /p>

From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Monday, November= 30, 2009 11:26 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Huawei n= ow #2 telecom supplier in the world

 

 

 

Begin forwarded message:

 

From: Rahul Tongia <tongia@cmu.edu>

Date: November 30, 2009 11:31:30 PM EST

Subject: Re: [IP] Huaw= ei now #2 telecom supplier in the world

Reply-To: <= font size=3D"4" face=3D"Helvetica">tongia@cmu.edu


Dave,

I write as an "outsider" not selling any products, but with some industry knowledge and, some years back, extensive dealings with N. A= merican industry. 

If Huawei is now so big/dominant, then why is that, a priori,  s= omething "to worry about"? Is it not creative destruction, and something that benefits consumers?  The SingleRAN appears to be technologically= advanced, or at least meeting consumer needs.

Why it might be an issue would be (and I would like to know more on):=

1) Are they inappropriately reverse engineering or otherwise using te= chnology they shouldn't?
2) Are the govt. ties to the level that it is unfair business practic= es?  Many European companies have strong govt. ties - one has to remember = the Air France first class bugging to remember how bad things have been. = ;
3) Are there hidden costs (lifecycle) that are unknown? The article c= laims the operating costs are lower, as opposed to just winning on upfront (bid= ) costs.
4) Are they selling at a loss to create market share?

If they are private, and not public (needing "regular dividends") then that is a financing option available to any company. OK, maybe n= ot without some high-level "support" but that in and of itself is highly unlikely to account for 40-50% discounts.

I get asked by a lot of developing country professionals/govt. offici= als about Huawei - "how come they are so cheap"? I don't have a good answer, and would like to understand better.  The two answer (private ow= nership and cheap labor) don't seem to be enough.  If it is "commodity" products, then the SingleRAN doesn't fit the bill. 

Rahul

p.s. I won't bore folks with details, but I spent almost 3 years a "long" while back (10 yrs ago) during the boom designing a national-scale backbone - US entities didn't behave any "better" than what they would complain newbies behave like.  The periods of non-disclosure are over, but it's all academic at this point...<= /o:p>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Dave Farber <dave@farber.= net> wrote:




Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Shockey <richard@SHOCKEY.US>
Date: November 30, 200= 9 2:47:18 PM EST
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM<= /a>
Subject: Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world
Reply-To: Telecom Regu= lation & the Internet <C= YBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

Archives

<= font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman">

 

 

Archives

<= font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman">

 

--Boundary_(ID_69eB5vXcKZGSLxdGS1nzoA)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:41 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00L01Y0VJS@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.83]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTZ00KAVY0VR8@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:17:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F45AABB6 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.87]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A06EAABB5 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39381AAD88 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-www-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-www-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.83]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4779EBD3 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:05:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-www-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994ACAA82F for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:05:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286489F56E for 01 Dec 2009 18:02:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E144C9F56D for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:02:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so1771148vws.28 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:02:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.66.74 with SMTP id m10mr7895813vci.2.1259708570055; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:02:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ([67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm1034571vws.8.2009.12.01.15.02.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5) ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:02:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:01:46 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] approve;0911 re Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_1BvAgGF3cwwSr97v+car1w)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=ox99JfLUXbaqwmZO7 UTt2qzuRcs=; b=QYDUO5JTol3WoxSynGVxRbFSZrUh2dzlufPhlG532G4638Yi+ ALGEcCw1a24fN6XpbbXmMtZhV5SSn2kRcHUUw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=V/PFkuGwfel3/rPKmYU0kNdk5Rap2dJIp+xp6NAjFAU=; b=bNlBwmx6yj1qEMkUdiJ5SwoW3g+jyH1SzPM0PYaw6h8EqMOK5gdse06LMdhqPrkm3/ fPc6C4OFrddVldaU64I5x4WhUS2F7MobTvALO9dAhnPufQYqkfNoblmUDPFD1N8Bygwb g7g3IKZprQU+GvVH4OEUrZTH9Dh8+q16jGSwA= X-Reinject: approved by webmoderator X-Listbox-UUID: 01086ACC-DECE-11DE-AEBF-A4879ADCCC83 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 Lines: 179 References: <343d89550912011457i70ccd33bo846f8dd5b13be081@mail.gmail.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=Yo8ExeoAH0CTKdYWGP6FfezZ0+3TbHjJfCxGIwKBkaj+nTIlqq8Wf/UdWgwM1AQzmF F8VMaWq/CGi+PqT1d3noLoAyBV5oeL45rHR3RBXUiOamaCocwzySKSEexsu8rwOEqBVA 7FCZeGMMuEwK0KUKXbDRMtbkI6JTrDEA4oCVI= --Boundary_(ID_1BvAgGF3cwwSr97v+car1w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Edward Vielmetti > Date: December 1, 2009 5:57:23 PM EST > To: David Farber > Subject: Fwd: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? > > woops sent too early. > > anyway the TOS before includes this gem > > "The license shall include, without limitation, the irrevocable > right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, combine with other > works, alter, translate, distribute copies, display, perform, > license the Materials, and all rights therein, in the name of > Verizon, or its designees throughout the universe in perpetuity in > any and all media now or hereafter known." > > but is otherwise ordinary and includes this off-topic reference > > Discussions that veer off topic, are unrelated to resolving the > issue at hand, or abuse any company or product. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Edward Vielmetti > Date: Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM > Subject: Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? > To: dave@farber.net > > > Dave - > > If it's possible for this to make sense, it could make sense in > the context of Verizon's own message boards; > > http://forums.verizon.com/ > > which has terms of service > > http://forums.verizon.com/t5/Terms-of-Service-and-User/Verizon-Community-Terms-of-Service/td-p/2 > > which at a glance look > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Dave Farber wrote: > If this is accurate, it is outragious. djf > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Lauren Weinstein >> Date: December 1, 2009 3:34:38 PM EST >> To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org >> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? >> > >> >> Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? >> >> Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) change made yesterday to >> the >> FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "post[ing] off-topic >> information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking >> sites." >> >> Say what? Is this a case of a Verizon lawyer with too much time on >> his or her hands? Or does Verizon now intend to police, prosecute, >> terminate, or otherwise flog and punish users for "irrelevance" in >> postings that users make on sites completely unaffiliated with >> Verizon? >> >> Verizon appears to have elevated simple "off-topic" postings >> (whatever >> that really means!) to the same level as DDoS attacks, Trojans, spam, >> and libel. >> >> Exactly who is going to determine which "offenders" rise to a level >> suitable for Verizon to slam down the AUP hammer? Or maybe it's >> really an excuse to provide a new conduit for providing users' IP >> address information to sites that are upset about particular >> postings? >> >> ISPs should be delivering bits, not playing "off-topic" content cop >> enforcers. >> >> http://bit.ly/6LScLw (Slashdot) >> >> --Lauren-- >> NNSquad Moderator > Archives > > > > -- > Edward Vielmetti > Ann Arbor, MI 48104 > > Google Voice: +1 734 330 2465 > Web: http://vielmetti.typepad.com > > > > -- > Edward Vielmetti > Ann Arbor, MI 48104 > > Google Voice: +1 734 330 2465 > Web: http://vielmetti.typepad.com ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_1BvAgGF3cwwSr97v+car1w) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT




Begin forwarded message:

From: Edward Vielmetti <edward.vielmetti@gmail.com>
Date: December 1, 2009 5:57:23 PM EST
To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Fwd: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?

woops sent too early.

anyway the TOS before includes this gem

"The license shall include, without limitation, the irrevocable right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, combine with other works, alter, translate, distribute copies, display, perform, license the Materials, and all rights therein, in the name of Verizon, or its designees throughout the universe in perpetuity in any and all media now or hereafter known."

but is otherwise ordinary and includes this off-topic reference

  • Discussions that veer off topic, are unrelated to resolving the issue at hand, or abuse any company or product.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edward Vielmetti <edward.vielmetti@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?
To: dave@farber.net


Dave -

If it's possible for this to make sense, it could make sense in
the context of Verizon's own message boards;

http://forums.verizon.com/

which has terms of service

http://forums.verizon.com/t5/Terms-of-Service-and-User/Verizon-Community-Terms-of-Service/td-p/2

which at a glance look 

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:
If this is accurate, it is outragious. djf



Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: December 1, 2009 3:34:38 PM EST
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ]  Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?


Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?

Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) change made yesterday to the
FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "post[ing] off-topic
information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking sites."

Say what?  Is this a case of a Verizon lawyer with too much time on
his or her hands?  Or does Verizon now intend to police, prosecute,
terminate, or otherwise flog and punish users for "irrelevance" in
postings that users make on sites completely unaffiliated with
Verizon?

Verizon appears to have elevated simple "off-topic" postings (whatever
that really means!) to the same level as DDoS attacks, Trojans, spam,
and libel.

Exactly who is going to determine which "offenders" rise to a level
suitable for Verizon to slam down the AUP hammer?  Or maybe it's
really an excuse to provide a new conduit for providing users' IP
address information to sites that are upset about particular postings?

ISPs should be delivering bits, not playing "off-topic" content cop
enforcers.

http://bit.ly/6LScLw  (Slashdot)

--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator



--
Edward Vielmetti
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Google Voice: +1 734 330 2465
Web: http://vielmetti.typepad.com



--
Edward Vielmetti
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Google Voice: +1 734 330 2465
Web: http://vielmetti.typepad.com
--Boundary_(ID_1BvAgGF3cwwSr97v+car1w)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:42 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00L01Y7KPN@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:21:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.5]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTZ00L1EY7KMN@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:21:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D85DB6B87 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.38]) by b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C795ACA45 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB97ADF45 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191CAA6BA1 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:23:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP02.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.197]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D521CA6B9F for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB1INJiQ019480 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:23:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:23:19 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] CFP: Trust 2010 To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <6B7C4803-18E0-48B3-8BC3-518BDEAB2B39@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=from :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=WU72Ep/5RyQt74qYG 8HfISxdgxo=; b=GKzwiecMcyUgJRXuBLBVaCkfED6eQJ3ghpxmKrzsGrJjWgieG RehNoj+2XveE4Q8o8Emuh08L9dzvxDj8dB79w== X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.197 X-Listbox-UUID: 9BBCD99A-DEA6-11DE-B32C-D62C9B8E8113 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <014901ca72b0$07ee51b0$17caf510$@cmu.edu> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: From: "Alessandro Acquisti" Date: December 1, 2009 12:59:30 PM EST To: Subject: CFP: Trust 2010 Dave: The CFP for a trust conference we are organizing. For the IP list, if you see it fit. Thank you, -alessandro --- Alessandro Acquisti Associate Professor Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/ ************************************************************************** Call for Papers Trust 2010 3rd International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing June 21-23, 2010, Berlin, Germany http://www.trust2010.org ************************************************************************** Building on the success of Trust 2009 (held at Oxford, UK) and Trust 2008 (Villach, Austria), this conference focuses on trusted and trustworthy computing, both from the technical and social perspectives. The conference itself will have two main strands, one devoted to technical aspects and one devoted to the socio-economic aspects of trusted computing. The conference solicits original papers on any aspect (technical or social and economic) of the design, application and usage of trusted and trustworthy computing, which concerns a broad range of concepts including trustworthy infrastructures, services, hardware, software and protocols. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: Technical Strand: ----------------- * Architecture and implementation technologies for trusted platforms and trustworthy infrastructures * Mobile trusted computing * Implementations of trusted computing (covering both hardware and software) * Applications of trusted computing * Trustworthy infrastructures and services for cloud computing * Attestation and possible variants (e.g., property-based attestation, runtime attestation) * Cryptographic aspects of trusted computing * Security hardware, i.e., hardware with cryptographic and security functions, physically unclonable functions (PUFs) * Establishing trust in embedded systems (e.g., sensor networks) * Hardware Trojans (detection, prevention) * Intrusion resilience in trusted computing * Virtualisation for trusted platforms * Security policy and management of trusted computing * Access control for trusted platforms * Privacy aspects of trusted computing * Verification of trusted computing architectures * End-user interactions with trusted platforms * Limitations of trusted computing Socio-economic Strand: ---------------------- * Usability and user perceptions of trustworthy systems and risks * Effects of trustworthy systems upon user, corporate, and governmental behavior * The adequacy of guarantees provided by trustworthy systems for systems critically dependent upon trust, such as elections and government oversight * The impact of trustworthy systems upon digital forensics, police investigations and court proceedings * Economic drivers for trustworthy systems * Group and organizational behavior within trustworthy systems * The impact of trustworthy systems upon user autonomy, social capital, and power relationships * Cross-cultural definitions of trustworthiness * Can systems be truly "trustworthy" without any capacity for moral reasoning? * Trustworthy systems and precursors of trust such as honesty, benevolence, value similarity, or competence * Trustworthiness, regret and forgiveness * Trustworthy systems as enhancements or constraints on government power * The role of independence from vested interests as a driver of trust * Game theoretical approaches to modeling or designing trustworthy systems * Experimental economics studies of trustworthiness * The interplay between privacy, privacy enhancing technologies and trustworthiness * Regulatory vs peer-produced trustworthiness, including reputation systems * Global governance initiatives to manage trust * Critiques of trustworthy systems General Chair: Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, University of Bochum, Germany Program Chair (Technical Strand) Sean Smith, Dartmouth College, USA Program Chair (Socio-economic Strand) Alessandro Acquisti, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Program Committee (Technical Strand) N. Asokan, Nokia Research Center, Finland Sergey Bratus, Dartmouth College, USA Liqun Chen, HP Laboratories, UK Cynthia Irvine, Naval Postgraduate School, USA Bernhard Kauer, Technische Universtat Dresden, Germany Michael LeMay, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA Michael Locasto, George Mason University, USA Andrew Martin, University of Oxford, UK Jon McCune, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Chris Mitchell, Royal Holloway University, UK David Naccache, ENS, France Dimitris Pendarakis, IBM Watson, USA Graeme Proudler, HP Laboratories, UK Anand Rajan, Intel, USA Scott Rotondo, Sun, USA Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, University of Bochum, Germany Radu Sion, Stony Brook University, USA Christian Stueble, Sirrix, Germany G. Edward Suh, Cornell University, USA Leendert van Doorn, AMD, USA Claire Vishik, Intel, UK Program Committee (Socio-economic Strand) Andrew A. Adams, Reading University, UK Ian Brown, University of Oxford, UK Johann Cas, Austrian Academy of Science Lorrie Faith Cranor, Carnegie-Mellon University, USA Tamara Dinev, Florida Atlantic University, USA Peter Gutmann, University of Auckland, New Zealand Tristan Henderson, St Andrews University, UK Adam Joinson, Bath University, UK Eleni Kosta, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Meryem Marzouki, French National Scientific Research Center (CNRS) Tyler Moore, Harvard University, USA Deirdre Mulligan, UC Berkely, USA Anne-Marie Oostveen, Oxford University, UK Andrew Patrick, Carleton University, Canada Angela Sasse, University College London, UK Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard University, USA Important Dates: Submission due: 20 January 2010 Notification: 3 March 2010 Camera ready: 24 March 2010 Conference: 21-23 June 2010 Paper Submission: http://www.trust2010.org/submission.html --- Alessandro Acquisti Associate Professor Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/ -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:43 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KTZ00N01ZE6IE@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KTZ00KIGZE6R8@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:46:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.38]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404A63802 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE61B02E1 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:23:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAB5A619D for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7EAA619C for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:11:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so1707490vws.28 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:11:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.127.36 with SMTP id e36mr7642197vcs.4.1259698268624; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:11:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ([67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm778659vws.3.2009.12.01.12.11.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:11:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:10:04 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <60CF525E-D4DF-4020-BC14-12A8F86DEBE2@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_uUtZrHO2w0j9OpgStBSRCA)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=VUUpYZjEklAxCJ67d3IYF95Nt0aVfz72CbE7R7+N8Gg=; b=Il/Oa5SgQdGTDBvs0sDZKjx13eK8mGzz/6oR2y2fU/wPgdKmXwubW3zIzmlTpcSSKZ M2FNkGJ5aEvSNjD26UosQktBpdEGIe+vYLaas8YLEO1NeP+5YgRLPu1is5MmoXoMXuhE +Ocfk43sPAbAgGmC3rCWTQaJKP2LHPSoPMyXw= X-Listbox-UUID: AB743ED2-DEB5-11DE-98BE-97C7DC0C0DBB X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=ma+etNEdHETtJw90A3XA1ZyOrrsuW+Al2PH1/v2EtGULDfHjYuddWRniARe7//8uC/ 5wRfokO7zj1+07Tz/l5EkKM4UT4clQ3IWHwyQlEHZpHvevlWuvKmbKJE2PvBnIhKqpot Sn/yuv78ah+eU6J3zFrOO5NkyeJhfBdT1or4I= --Boundary_(ID_uUtZrHO2w0j9OpgStBSRCA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: "Atkinson, Robert" > Date: December 1, 2009 2:54:52 PM EST > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > > This is the sort of event that can start the dominoes falling toward > "more regulation." Network outages that effectively strand > individuals (read "voters") for any length of time is the one thing > that politicians and regulators can understand and react to, much > more readily than vague network neutrality, competition, technology > or pricing issues. Network outages affect constituents immediately > and obviously so politicians and regulators will feel compelled to > "do something." This instance won't be a triggering event but if > similar outages on a "critical infrastructure" occur on a regular > basis and make the news, pressure will grow and grandstanding > politicians will latch onto "saving the internet" as a great issue. > Service providers screw up like this at their own peril. > > Bob > > > On 12/1/09 2:54 AM, "Matt Larsen - Lists" wrote: > > Some kind of combination of failure between Charter and Qwest has left > tens of thousands of people in Nebraska without Internet and has > disrupted the Internet and phone services for thousands more. Right > now, the outage is going on 12 hours and there is no ETA for repair in > sight. > > The word coming down is that the outage is on a Qwest fiber, but it > looks to me like both parties should be on the hot seat for not having > the ability to route around the problem. There was a four hour > outage > on Charter a week ago that was caused by a fiber cut in Gothenburg, > Nebraska. > That one killed everything west of the cut, but it was small potatoes > compared to this one. Is this truly the level of performance that we > can expect from our major Internet backbone providers? It took me > about 10 seconds to re-route my traffic to a backup provider - you > would > think that a couple of multimillion dollar companies would be able to > sort out a problem of this nature in a reasonable amount of time. > The > small CLEC that I use for my backup connection had enough capacity to > route around the problem and was even able to lend me a little bit > after > 5pm when the traffic on their network (mostly businesses) dropped off. > It isn't rocket science to figure out how to route around an outage. > > Almost as frustrating is that there was NO news about the outages > anywhere except on the social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter). > One TV station in Hastings, NE put up a short story on their website, > but I got more news from the tweets and FB posts that people where > posting from their cell phones than I did from anywhere else. None > of > the network outage sites have any news about this. > > Could this be a harbinger of things to come? I am feeling pretty > thankful right now that I have a choice in backbone providers and > that I > kept a second one. Diversity is a good thing, and this is a great > example of why we need competition and multiple options for Internet. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_uUtZrHO2w0j9OpgStBSRCA) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: "Atkinson, Robert" <= rca53@COLUMBIA.EDU>
Date: December 1, 2009 2:54:52 P= M EST
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@L= ISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failur= e of Critical Infrastructure
Reply-To: Telecom Regulati= on & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

This is the sort= of event that can start the dominoes falling toward "more regulation= ." Network outages that effectively strand individuals (read "voters"= ) for any length of time is the one thing that politicians and regula= tors can understand and react to, much more readily than vague networ= k neutrality, competition, technology or pricing issues.  Networ= k outages affect constituents immediately and obviously so politician= s and regulators will feel compelled to "do something."  This in= stance won't be a triggering event but if similar outages on a "criti= cal infrastructure" occur on a regular basis and make the news, press= ure will grow and grandstanding politicians will latch onto "saving t= he internet" as a great issue.  Service providers screw up like = this at their own peril.

Bob<= br>

On 12/1/09 2:54 AM, "Matt = Larsen - Lists" <lists@MANA= GEISP.COM> wrote:

Some kind o= f combination of failure between Charter and Qwest has lefttens of thousands of people in Nebraska without Internet and h= as
disrupted the Internet and phone services for thou= sands more.    Right
now, the outage i= s going on 12 hours and there is no ETA for repair in
sight.

The word coming down is that= the outage is on a Qwest fiber, but it
looks to me l= ike both parties should be on the hot seat for not having
<= span>the ability to route around the problem.    There= was a four hour outage
on Charter a week ago that wa= s caused by a fiber cut in Gothenburg,
Nebraska.
That one killed everything west of the cut, but it was sm= all potatoes
compared to this one.   Is thi= s truly the level of performance that we
can expect f= rom our major Internet backbone providers?   It took me
about 10 seconds to re-route my traffic to a backup prov= ider - you would
think that a couple of multimillion = dollar companies would be able to
sort out a problem = of this nature in a reasonable amount of time.   The=
small CLEC that I use for my backup connection had enough c= apacity to
route around the problem and was even able= to lend me a little bit after
5pm when the traffic o= n their network (mostly businesses) dropped off.
It i= sn't rocket science to figure out how to route around an outage.

Almost as frustrating is that there was = NO news about the outages
anywhere except on the soci= al networking sites (Facebook, Twitter).
One TV stati= on in Hastings, NE put up a short story on their website,
<= span>but I got more news from the tweets and FB posts that people whe= re
posting from their cell phones than I did from any= where else.   None of
the network outage si= tes have any news about this.

Could = this be a harbinger of things to come?   I am feeling prett= y
thankful right now that I have a choice in backbone= providers and that I
kept a second one.   = Diversity is a good thing, and this is a great
exampl= e of why we need competition and multiple options for Internet.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
Archives
--Boundary_(ID_uUtZrHO2w0j9OpgStBSRCA)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:44 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU000P0102S3W@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:01:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU000M9T02S7M@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:01:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28874AB952 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF0BAE385 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:18:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDE29FAA8 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:28:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-yw0-f198.google.com (mail-yw0-f198.google.com [209.85.211.198]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474DA9FAA7 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:28:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by ywh36 with SMTP id 36so4000116ywh.15 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:28:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.101.134.25 with SMTP id l25mr2615023ann.98.1259688491695; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:28:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ([67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm105843ywd.23.2009.12.01.09.28.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:28:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:27:07 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Comcast Launches Data Usage Meter To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_BP49fqLawZ8YYdREgK/4IA)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=5H6QalAKHkvbXiFYYVrYclOteAptMHS91lFQXSSnkSw=; b=rdBoIGCUuoQtnjTOQgsoLrlBUnMKVPaNyMuY4xE7Uk4WdmO4cHfz+RM6JF7tJXHwrJ vS4/gXCDsvVUh7oQHzWCo3YMhKKSy7U8MNrCA8WOoW9FvQD9x9Pycwr2IgFD0q7gHkPt wvvC4TgjjguxNLivgBtZt85Zyf+JKBfOz+RYE= X-Listbox-UUID: E7899ECE-DE9E-11DE-A48A-90D096159015 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=A7T4uJOowdd/LUJu3+o/2VLVTPU7pNaiZuNPFVipt9Fp6Rw5WQqY16kOCOQ2GqsMcm II9i26kHZz7X8JZTh2S1fZcbsrAExpMdLhsGeA4TOPKwZ6mmo4W1jpKGLiAZo+bG8uzl ZJQ0hkUV0JkEBQfdoeLMQvgFu2VwcGUqIEiok= --Boundary_(ID_BP49fqLawZ8YYdREgK/4IA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Begin forwarded message: > From: Jason Livingood > Date: December 1, 2009 12:01:29 PM EST > To: Dave Farber > Subject: Comcast Launches Data Usage Meter > > Dave - For IP if you wish: > > Today we announced the start of a pilot market deployment of our = =20 > data usage meter for our High-Speed Internet Service. This =20 > deployment begins today for customers in Portland, Oregon. We =20 > announced this on our blog (at http://blog.comcast.com/2009/12/comc= ast-data-usage-meter-launches.html=20 > ), on our network management page (at http://networkmanagement.comc= ast.net=20 > and http://networkmanagement.comcast.net/datausagemeter.htm) in an= =20 > email to customers in the pilot market sent today, and on two web = =20 > forums (our own at http://forums.comcast.net/comcastsupport/board/m= essage?board.id=3D5&thread.id=3D114335=20 > and Broadband Reports at http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23419689= -Data-Usage-Meter-Launched=20 > ). An extensive list of FAQs can be found on our help site, as the= =20 > index updates (at http://sitesearch.comcast.com/?q=3Ddata+usage+met= er&cat=3Dccentral=20 > ). > > Since we know many of our customers will be curious about how the = =20 > usage meter works, we commissioned an independent analysis of the = =20 > usage meter by NetForecast, Inc. Their report on the system is = =20 > available on their website (at http://netforecast.com/documents/NFR= 5101_Comcast_Usage_Meter_Accuracy.pdf=20 > ). > > The pilot market deployment follows employee testing of the meter = =20 > this past summer. We selected Portland because it is an area where= =20 > we have a single Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) platform, = =20 > enabling us to control for that variable in the pilot (many markets= =20 > have several different CMTS platforms). > > Customers can view the usage meter by logging into Customer Central= =20 > (at http://customer.comcast.com) and clicking on the =E2=80=9CUsers= and Sett=20 > ings=E2=80=9D tab. From there, click on =E2=80=9CView details=E2= =80=9D in the =E2=80=9CMy =20 > devices=E2=80=9D section (located toward the upper right hand of th= e screen)=20 > and that will go to the meter page. You can see what the usage met= e=20 > r looks like at http://networkmanagement.comcast.net/datausagemeter= .jpg=20 > . > > Our systems update the meter approximately every three hours, and i= t =20 > displays in whole Gigabytes (GB), shown over a calendar month (not = a =20 > billing cycle) rounded down to the nearest GB. > > Much more detail can be found in the forum and Network Management = =20 > page links noted above. > > Regards > Jason Livingood > Internet Systems Engineering > Comcast > > > > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_BP49fqLawZ8YYdREgK/4IA) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Date:= December 1, 2009 12:01:29 PM EST
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject:<= /b> Comcast Launches Data Usage Meter

Dave - For IP if you wish:
 
Today we announced the start of a pilot market deployment of our data= usage meter for our High-Speed Internet Service. This deployment beg= ins today for customers in Portland, Oregon. We announced this on our= blog (at http://blog.comcast.com/2009/12= /comcast-data-usage-meter-launches.html), on our network mana= gement page (at http://networkmanagement= .comcast.net and http://networkmanagement.comcast.net/datausage= meter.htm) in an email to customers in the pilot market sent = today, and on two web forums (our own at http://forums.comcast.net/com= castsupport/board/message?board.id=3D5&thread.id=3D114335= and Broadband Reports at http://www.dslreports= .com/forum/r23419689-Data-Usage-Meter-Launched).  An ext= ensive list of FAQs can be found on our help site, as the index updat= es (at http://sitesearch.comcast.com/?q= =3Ddata+usage+meter&cat=3Dccentral).
 
Since we know many of our customers will be curious about how the usa= ge meter works, we commissioned an independent analysis of the usage = meter by NetForecast, Inc.  Their report on the system is availa= ble on their website (at http://net= forecast.com/documents/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage_Meter_Accuracy.pdf).  
 
The pilot market deployment follows employee testing of the meter thi= s past summer.  We selected Portland because it is an area where= we have a single Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) platform, ena= bling us to control for that variable in the pilot (many markets have= several different CMTS platforms).
 
Customers can view the usage meter by logging into Customer Central (= at http://customer.comcast.com) and clicking on th= e =E2=80=9CUsers and Settings=E2=80=9D tab.  From there, click o= n =E2=80=9CView details=E2=80=9D in the =E2=80=9CMy devices=E2=80= =9D section (located toward the upper right hand of the screen) and t= hat will go to the meter page. You can see what the usage meter looks= like at http://networkmanagement.comcast.net/datausagemeter.jpg.
 
Our systems update the meter approximately every three hours, and it = displays in whole Gigabytes (GB), shown over a calendar month (not a = billing cycle) rounded down to the nearest GB.  
 
Much more detail can be found in the forum and Network Management pag= e links noted above.
 
Regards
Jason Livingood
Internet Systems Engineering
Comcast
 
 

 
--Boundary_(ID_BP49fqLawZ8YYdREgK/4IA)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:45 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU0000010FBNK@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:09:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.82]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU000MC80FB7M@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:09:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B81BABDD2 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:09:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.86]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B0BABDD1 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:09:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3E7A918B for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:09:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFBB9F6F2 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:04:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-qy0-f193.google.com (mail-qy0-f193.google.com [209.85.221.193]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660F09F6F1 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:04:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31so2681673qyk.9 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:04:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.96.142 with SMTP id h14mr2255886qan.232.1259712249825; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ([67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm318013qyk.2.2009.12.01.16.04.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:04:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:03:06 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <1A832F9B-739D-4D00-8F93-53CF226449BB@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_EzFIFdsPon1PzYNdmhpfaw)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=KQF8ibwHgej1ZNWb8 JEssg5PdxE=; b=NqlV82PJrWJBrH26RC+ZcGxQEunYivzZnRbIIpTfSWxQknTJF Nlm+FlxuhioRBDDGF1kx/SMJpoW6RInW2CZqw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=+gYnMzfniyrYW58FsmwPFXzaBNAhTLQnEbrW+bXSRbE=; b=MRkGk6zhd3usXaA/fNOtwUIWqjGy1Dc+HBj/mQlEZE5aRPZFPubjntcWMnInJnnfWu rYuk6poCDYckwpXDOzysS6/c/SOhJErJLwqQuCe22pCLfjLOjdUbGWUuv63NRSDyTCFs yX6RepW/kTn8AACOuUK6EAblTQuSJEvEKiDx8= X-Listbox-UUID: 387443B6-DED6-11DE-964C-8C26A2D44B4B X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <20091201232849.GA17109@vortex.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=q5Me3UwfB1GQUwT1/7pD6kjUMq5SYZ5UwAHII7ImhuTcrpr+pLs6iNIATYy9RgN5yq Bt7CNP+DMh6hHbjdBqBtn1WIJWY6QJo2uPNkH5Z4t0BkSLms5WF77GV3Vh2UsPx/Z/0X xWfCWbOYfDwGcFuuWTZuQjvUP9ub+DQVJHuks= --Boundary_(ID_EzFIFdsPon1PzYNdmhpfaw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Lauren Weinstein > Date: December 1, 2009 6:28:49 PM EST > To: John Levine > Cc: dave@farber.net > Subject: Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? > > > John, language matters. I did in fact inspect other AUPs -- and your > quotes below simply say that users must follow the rules of other > sites. That is *not* the same thing as an ISP saying specifically > that "off topic postings" are forbidden at third party sites! Is that > language used by any other major ISPs? That determination, logically, > is a decision to be made by the individual Web services, *not* the > ISP! > > Still, it seems likely that what they're really going after in a > hamfisted > way is spam. But that's already covered by other language. See my > follow-up: > > http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg02378.html > > --Lauren-- > > On 12/01 23:21, John Levine wrote: >>>> Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) change made yesterday to >>>> the FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "post[ing] off-topic >>>> information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking >>>> sites." >> >> The wording is a bit crude, but their entirely reasonable intention >> is >> to forbid blog spam, usenet message floods, and the like. Had you >> looked, you would have found that just about every provider has >> similar language. >> >> For example, Comcast says: >> >> [You may not] violate the rules, regulations, terms of service, or >> policies applicable to any network, server, computer database, >> service, application, system, or Web site that you access or >> use; ... >> >> Comcast reserves the right to refuse to transmit or post, and to >> remove or block, any information or materials, in whole or in part, >> that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be in violation of >> Sections I or II of this Policy, or otherwise harmful to Comcast's >> network or customers using the Service, regardless of whether this >> material or its dissemination is unlawful so long as it violates >> this Policy. Neither Comcast nor any of its affiliates, suppliers, >> or agents have any obligation to monitor transmissions or postings >> (including, but not limited to, e-mail, file transfer, blog, >> newsgroup, and instant message transmissions as well as materials >> available on the Personal Web Pages and Online Storage features) >> made on the Service. However, Comcast and its affiliates, suppliers, >> and agents have the right to monitor these transmissions and >> postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and to >> disclose, block, or remove them in accordance with this Policy, the >> Subscriber Agreement, and applicable law. >> >> Qwest says: >> >> Users may have access through the Qwest Network and Services to >> search engines, subscription Web services, chat areas, bulletin >> boards, Web pages, USENET, or other services that promulgate rules, >> guidelines or agreements to govern their use. Users must adhere to >> any such rules, guidelines, or agreements. >> >> AT&T says: >> >> Failure to adhere to the rules, guidelines or agreements applicable >> to search engines, subscription Web services, chat areas, bulletin >> boards, Web pages, USENET, applications, or other services that are >> accessed via a link from the AT&T-branded website or from a website >> that contains AT&T-branded content is a violation of this AUP. >> >> R's, >> John ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_EzFIFdsPon1PzYNdmhpfaw) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Lauren Weinstein <lau= ren@vortex.com>
Date: December 1, 2009 6:28:49 PM ES= T
To: John Levine <joh= nl@iecc.com>
Cc: = dave@farber.net
Subj= ect: Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?

John, language matters.  I did in fact insp= ect other AUPs -- and your
quotes below simply say th= at users must follow the rules of other
sites.  = That is *not* the same thing as an ISP saying specifically
= that "off topic postings" are forbidden at third party sites! &= nbsp;Is that
language used by any other major ISPs? &= nbsp;That determination, logically,
is a decision to = be made by the individual Web services, *not* the
ISP= !

Still, it seems likely that what t= hey're really going after in a hamfisted
way is spam.=  But that's already covered by other language.  See my
follow-up:

http://www.nnsq= uad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg02378.html
--Lauren--

On 12/01 23:21, Jo= hn Levine wrote:
Slashdot notes an "interest= ing" (indeed!) change made yesterday to
the FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, pr= ohibiting "post[ing] off-topic
information on message boards, chat rooms o= r social networking
=
sites."

The wording is a bit crude, but their entirely= reasonable intention is
to forbid blog spam, usenet message floods, and the like. =  Had you
= looked, you would have found that just about every provider has
similar language.

For example, Comcast says:

 [You may not] violate= the rules, regulations, terms of service, or
=
 policies applicable to any net= work, server, computer database,
 service, application, system, or Web site t= hat you access or use; ...

 Comcast reserves the right to refuse to transmit or post, a= nd to
 r= emove or block, any information or materials, in whole or in part,
 that it, = in its sole discretion, deems to be in violation of
 Sections I or II of this= Policy, or otherwise harmful to Comcast's
 network or customers using the Se= rvice, regardless of whether this
 material or its dissemination is unlawful = so long as it violates
 this Policy. Neither Comcast nor any of its affiliate= s, suppliers,
=  or agents have any obligation to monitor transmissions or post= ings
 (i= ncluding, but not limited to, e-mail, file transfer, blog,
=
 newsgroup, and in= stant message transmissions as well as materials
 available on the Personal W= eb Pages and Online Storage features)
 made on the Service. However, Comcast = and its affiliates, suppliers,
 and agents have the right to monitor these tr= ansmissions and
 postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and= to
 dis= close, block, or remove them in accordance with this Policy, the
 Subscriber = Agreement, and applicable law.

Qwest says:

 User= s may have access through the Qwest Network and Services to
 search engines, = subscription Web services, chat areas, bulletin
 boards, Web pages, USENET, o= r other services that promulgate rules,
 guidelines or agreements to govern t= heir use. Users must adhere to
 any such rules, guidelines, or agreements.

AT&T says:

 Failure to adhere to the rules, gu= idelines or agreements applicable
 to search engines, subscription Web servic= es, chat areas, bulletin
 boards, Web pages, USENET, applications, or other s= ervices that are
 accessed via a link from the AT&T-branded website or fr= om a website
=  that contains AT&T-branded content is a violation of this A= UP.
R's,
John
--Boundary_(ID_EzFIFdsPon1PzYNdmhpfaw)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:47 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU0002011NT6K@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:35:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU000NA61NSBF@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:35:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.38]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F05CABB4C for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:36:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D76FB1FCD for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:44:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96FBA6CB4 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:43:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB0DA6CB3 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:43:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so1784507vws.28 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.122.212 with SMTP id m20mr7820942vcr.92.1259710999890; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.86.105.166? (mobile-166-137-134-171.mycingular.net [166.137.134.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm1096709vws.5.2009.12.01.15.43.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:42:13 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <347519BA-2A64-421E-9FE6-4118E0B009D6@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_avM32IWgEAlZvtspy4jp8Q)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=S1FDYkwqkWUvcyueINTOqKbPtlutcKH9VgcLKsktZ/o=; b=hwH6ap9tsT8KA2PJgu1CfqSWzbaQlWPstVdzCVDP/PBTt4b+euSyBP/c5R32T0lgvR poUId3MqD65CsHJSFGxcQCI4f01EdybM4myW+Vx2q0+upXWyVU6pcZVhHaUa6Z8BezrB 20ZzmiZ8i+81kPUOPXbErGEMXWhoeJxBSUP54= X-Listbox-UUID: 4FAFD12E-DED3-11DE-9688-B317D872F21A X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <72cfb3d70912011509v6f0a80c0je197a377305ca5e5@mail.gmail.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=LWqf5jo/KcZyGEbXPV2cWAKvTattRuLq4KYsXdwLOAwFo3xcEj3qwAOc1TryS6PrB1 WCDOQnZXIrKHUs2VwApQ2CRJszvxaD0A5lqeaG8n00b0s0xmpfLwn266ob+dhDdLIpNE Ixj9mey3b7tKStnlPcFUb7H/43JdYc+guKW78= --Boundary_(ID_avM32IWgEAlZvtspy4jp8Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Gene Gaines > Date: December 1, 2009 6:09:49 PM EST > To: dave > Cc: ip > Subject: Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? > > Dave, Lauren, You are just being silly. > > Why would you worry about Verizon FIOS policing off-topic posts? > > I would be more worried that Verizon enjoys the right to censor, > suspend or cut your access to the Internet for any reason they choose. > > I will quote from Verizon's Terms of Service and Acceptable Use > Policy: > > If you use Verizon Internet access services, then you have agreed to: > > (From the Verizon web site www.verison.net) > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY > > 1. General Policy: Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or > restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or terminate your > Service, if the use of your Service by you or anyone using it, in > our sole discretion, violates the Agreement or other Verizon > policies, is objectionable or unlawful, interferes with the > functioning or use of the Internet or the Verizon network by Verizon > or other users, or violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy > ("AUP"). > > So, to recap the above, the user had agreed to: > > Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or restrict your > Service ... suspend or terminate your Service, if the use of your > Service ... in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement or other > Verizon policies, is objectionable or unlawful. > ... > > This raises the question as to the definition of "Service". Here it > is. > > VERIZON ONLINE TERMS OF SERVICE > ... > 2.2. "Service" means all Verizon dial-up, Broadband Service and Wi- > Fi wireless Internet access services (where applicable), Software, > Equipment, Content, Additional Services as defined in Attachment B, > technical support, email, domain name server ("DNS") and related > services, Verizon Web Sites and other products and services provided > by Verizon under the pricing plan applicable to your Service. The > Service does not include voice telephony services. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > (end quote from Verizon.) > > Whew! > > Gene Gaines > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Dave Farber wrote: > If this is accurate, it is outragious. djf > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Lauren Weinstein >> Date: December 1, 2009 3:34:38 PM EST >> To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org >> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? >> > >> >> Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? >> >> Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) change made yesterday to >> the >> FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "post[ing] off-topic >> information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking >> sites." >> >> Say what? Is this a case of a Verizon lawyer with too much time on >> his or her hands? Or does Verizon now intend to police, prosecute, >> terminate, or otherwise flog and punish users for "irrelevance" in >> postings that users make on sites completely unaffiliated with >> Verizon? >> >> Verizon appears to have elevated simple "off-topic" postings >> (whatever >> that really means!) to the same level as DDoS attacks, Trojans, spam, >> and libel. >> >> Exactly who is going to determine which "offenders" rise to a level >> suitable for Verizon to slam down the AUP hammer? Or maybe it's >> really an excuse to provide a new conduit for providing users' IP >> address information to sites that are upset about particular >> postings? >> >> ISPs should be delivering bits, not playing "off-topic" content cop >> enforcers. >> >> http://bit.ly/6LScLw (Slashdot) >> >> --Lauren-- >> NNSquad Moderator > Archives > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_avM32IWgEAlZvtspy4jp8Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Gene Gaines <gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com>
Date: December 1, 200= 9 6:09:49 PM EST
To: dave <dave@farber.net>
Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: Re= : [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?

Dave, Lauren, &n= bsp;  You are just being silly.

Why would you= worry about Verizon FIOS policing off-topic posts?

I would be more worried that Verizon enjoys the right to cens= or, suspend or cut your access to the Internet for any reason they ch= oose.  

I will quote from Verizon's Terms of Service and = Acceptable Use Policy:

If you use Verizon In= ternet access services, then you have agreed to:

=
(From the Verizon web site www.verison.net)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ACCE= PTABLE USE POLICY
=
1. &n= bsp;General Policy: Verizon reserves the sole discretion = to deny or restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or termin= ate your Service, if the use of your Service by you or anyone using i= t, in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement or other Verizon po= licies, is objectionable or unlawful, interferes with the functioning= or use of the Internet or the Verizon network by Verizon or other us= ers, or violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP").

=
 Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or res= trict your Service ... suspend or terminate your Service, if the use of your Service ... in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement= or other Veriz= on policies, is objectionable or unlawful.
...

This raises the question as to the definition= of "Service".  Here it is.
=
VERIZON ONLIN= E TERMS OF SERVICE
...
2.2. "Service" means a= ll Verizon dial-up, Broadband Service and Wi-Fi wireless Internet acc= ess services (where applicable), Software, Equipment, Content, Additi= onal Services as defined in Attachment B, technical support, email, d= omain name server ("DNS") and related services, Verizon Web Sites and= other products and services provided by Verizon under the pricing pl= an applicable to your Service. The Service does not include voice tel= ephony services.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - -
= (end quote from Verizon.)

Whew!

Gene Ga= ines




On Tue, Dec 1= , 2009 at 5:17 PM, Dave Farber <dave@farber.net= > wrote:
If this is accurate, it is outragious. = djf



Begin forwarded message:

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: December 1, 2009 3:34:38 PM EST
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSqu= ad ]  Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?


Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings?<= br>
Slashdot notes an "interesting" (indeed!) c= hange made yesterday to the
FiOS Acceptable Use Policy, prohibiting "post[ing] off-topic
information on message boards, chat rooms or social net= working sites."

Say what?  Is t= his a case of a Verizon lawyer with too much time on
his or her hands?  Or does Verizon now intend to police, p= rosecute,
terminate, or otherwise flog and punish use= rs for "irrelevance" in
postings that users make on s= ites completely unaffiliated with
Verizon?

Verizon appears to ha= ve elevated simple "off-topic" postings (whatever
tha= t really means!) to the same level as DDoS attacks, Trojans, spam,
and libel.

Exactly who is goin= g to determine which "offenders" rise to a level
suit= able for Verizon to slam down the AUP hammer?  Or maybe it's
really an excuse to provide a new conduit for providing users' = IP
address information to sites that are upset about = particular postings?

ISPs should be = delivering bits, not playing "off-topic" content cop
enforcers.

http= ://bit.ly/6LScLw  (Slashdot)

= --Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator

--Boundary_(ID_avM32IWgEAlZvtspy4jp8Q)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:49 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU00040148EB9@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:31:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU0002K648EUI@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:31:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFF6AB144 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:32:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A692BA94D6 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:40:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAB29FF91 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:48:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP01.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.196]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B319FF90 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB1Jmlcl011063 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:48:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:48:47 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] Why the TSA's procedures are flawed (from a former MD asst. police chief) To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <23E41665-7572-43E5-96ED-4FEDB9493F56@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.196 X-Listbox-UUID: 8CCB72B4-DEB2-11DE-9C6D-98545A3E2C76 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Joshua Weinberg Date: December 1, 2009 1:51:15 PM EST To: David Farber Subject: Why the TSA's procedures are flawed (from a former MD asst. = police chief)=20 Dave, for IP if you wish... Discovered via Stupid Security Blog http://www.stupidsecurity.com/ http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/10/15/%E2%80%9Cdo-i-have-the-right-to-re= fuse-this-search%E2%80%9D/ =93Do I have the right to refuse this search?=94 (Today=92s guest author is Deirdre Walker. She retired recently as t= he Assistant Chief of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of = Police. She spent 24 years as a police officer.) =93Do I have the right to refuse this search?=94 This is a question I heard many times during my law enforcement caree= r. Often my answer was no. But occasionally it would be =93yes,= =94 followed by an admonition to have a good day. For the last half of my career, I would have documented each interact= ion, whether or not it involved an arrest. I would have written down= the nature and length of the interaction, the gender, race, and age = of the person, and the outcome of the contact (arrest, citation, etc.= ). I carry the baggage of this history with me as I=92ve traveled over t= he last eight years, mindlessly placing my luggage on the conveyer be= lt and removing my shoes for TSA inspection. Recently, something changed. Within the last few months, I have been singled out for =93additional= screening=94 roughly half the time I step into an airport security l= ine. On Friday, October 9, as I stepped out of the full-body scannin= g device at BWI, I decided I needed more information to identify why = it is that I have become such an appealing candidate for secondary sc= reening. Little did I know this would be only the first of many questions I no= w have regarding my airport experiences. Over these last few months, I have grown increasingly frustrated with= what I view as an unjustifiable intrusion on my privacy. It was no= t so much the search (then) as it was the embarrassment of being sing= led out, effectively being told =93You are different,=94 but getting = no explanation as to why. That frustration has been tempered by a combination of my desire to b= e a good citizen, and my empathy for the TSA screeners. These folks,= after all, are merely doing what we, the American traveling public, = have permitted and now expect them to do. I am left to wonder whether my own passive acceptance of these evolvi= ng search procedures has contributed to a potentially fatal dichotomy= : what we allow TSA screeners to do in order to maximize efficiency = and enhance our perception of safety, or what we really need them to = do in order to preserve our rights and dignity and enhance our actual= safety. We have asked TSA to find the tools terrorists use and prevent both f= rom boarding a passenger plane. We have unintentionally created an a= gency that now seeks efficiency and compliance more than any weapon o= r explosive. While returning my computer and shoes to their proper places, I watch= ed the screening line at BWI. I thought about the haphazard events s= urrounding the security screening process. As I watched the screenin= g officers, I wondered what information drives their decisions. Left= only to my observations, I concluded that their decisions were entir= ely random, and likely based upon three criteria: passenger load, st= affing, and whim. I was left to conclude that I am not screened because I look like a t= errorist. I am routinely screened because I look like someone who wil= l readily comply. I decided then that my next invitation to enjoy ad= ditional screening would be met with more inquiry. I did not have wait very long. On my return through Albany to BWI = =97 Surprise! =96 I got =93randomly selected=94 for additional scree= ning. This time, I was =93invited=94 to step into one of the explosive dete= ction machines, commonly referred to as a =93puffer machine.=94 The = traveller is exposed to short, intense bursts of air, which are then,= supposedly, analyzed for trace residue. I read an article awhile ago that suggested these machines are entire= ly ineffective. I have subsequently observed that they now sit idle= at many airports where they were originally installed (Tampa Interna= tional, for example). In recently renovated airports (San Jose) they= have not been installed. At some other airports (like BWI), they ha= ve been replaced by the body-scanning technology. When notified by the cheerful screener that I had been selected for a= dditional screening (the screener=92s tone reminded my of the announc= er who tells the contestant that she has just won a TV on the Price i= s Right), I stepped reluctantly toward the machine and asked her quie= tly whether I had the right to refuse the search. I did not want to = become a spectacle, or have to rent a car and drive back to Maryland. The screeners face dropped and she appeared stunned, as if my questio= n had been received like a body-blow. She asked me to repeat what I= said, and I repeated my inquiry regarding whether or not I had the r= ight to refuse this search, especially since it was my understanding = that the equipment did not work. She responded defensively, =93It so= unds an alarm!=94 What followed is what I can only describe as a process that left me w= ith more questions and a hunger for something we need and something t= hat has apparently been missing from TSA procedures since September 1= 2, 2001: Data. It is, again, important to note my general respect for the front line= TSA screeners =97 with the exception of those screeners who feel tha= t it is necessary to yell at people. In my experience as a cop, as a= supervisor and as a manager, I know that yelling at people is the on= e method guaranteed to ensure sub-par performance and a collapse of a= ny semblance of cooperation. My motivation to write this piece is first, to vent, but then to take= a stab at the windmill that has grown from flawed processes to becom= e a barrier to achieving the real mission and ultimate goal: Passeng= er safety. I believe, fundamentally, that our collective compliance with the cur= rent screening procedures has served only to undermine TSA, and has d= enied our screeners the tools they need to correct their course. After realizing I was serious about refusing to step into the puffer = machine, I was told that I would be subjected to a =93full-body pat-d= own=94 and that all of my =93stuff would be fully searched.=94 I shrugged and waited while the screeners figured out what to do next= . One of the screeners said =93Who is the supervisor? Notify a supe= rvisor.=94 I waited two to three minutes with two female screeners. = I was then approached by a uniformed screener and the following exch= ange took place. =93She refused the puffer. We are supposed to notify a supervisor. = You=92re a supervisor, right?=94 Apparently reminded of his role, the subordinate screener then said = =93We=92re notifying you.=94 She said nothing further. The supervi= sor then informed me that if I did not step into the =93puffer=94 I w= ould be subjected to a full body-pat-down, that I would be =93wanded= =94 and that all of my belongings would be fully searched by hand. By this time, my belongings had already passed through the x-ray and = sat oddly unattended on the belt. They had aroused no suspicion, eit= her as they passed through the x-ray or as they sat completely unatte= nded. I thought it odd that my initial refusal to be subjected to th= e =91puffer=92 now rendered the x-ray examination effectively flawed.= I was being cajoled and was then offered the opportunity to change = my mind, which, again, I thought rather odd. If I posed such a risk = by refusing the secondary screening, why would that risk be now mitig= ated, if only I were to change my mind? I did not change my mind. So, I stepped between two glass walls and = was subjected to what my police training would allow me to conclude w= as a procedural vacuum. I had been told repeatedly I would be subjected to a =93pat-down.= =94 I correctly suspected otherwise. During the course of my police= career, I have conducted many pat-downs on the street. The Supreme = Court has described pat downs as a cursory check of the outer clothin= g of a person by a police officer, upon articulable suspicion that th= e officer=92s safety is at risk of being compromised. My department= =92s procedure indicated that this pat-down was to be conducted with = an open hand, gently patting the outer clothing of an individual, for= purposes of officer safety only, with the goal of detecting weapons.= In other words, it is not a search. What happened to me in Albany was not the promised =93pat-down.=94 I= t was a full search conducted in full public view. It was also one o= f the most flawed searches I have ever witnessed. =46rom the outset, it was very clear that the screener would have pre= ferred to be anywhere else. She acted as if she was afraid of me, th= ough given that I had set myself apart as apparently crazy, perhaps I= cannot blame her. With rubber-gloved hands she checked my head, my = arms, my legs, my buttocks (and discovered a pen that had fallen into= one of my pockets) and even the bottom of my feet. Perhaps in a nod= to decorum, she did not check my crotch, my armpits or either breast= area. Here was a big problem: an effective search cannot nod to decorum. These three areas on a woman, and the crotch area of men, offer the g= reatest opportunity to seclude weapons and contraband. Bad guys and= girls rely on the type of reluctance displayed by this screener to g= et weapons and drugs past the authorities. We train cops to realize = that their life depends upon the ability to compartmentalize any appr= ehension about the need to lift and separate. Fatal consequences can= and do result when officers fail to detect a secreted weapon which i= s later used against them. At the Albany airport, I was left to wonder what kind of training th= e screener received. I was forced to conclude the answer might be = =93none.=94 At a minimum, she needs re-training, assuming there is a= ny policy or training that governs searches. Further, after being re= peatedly informed that I would be =93wanded=94 by the metal detector = in addition to the =91pat-down,=92 I was not. Had I actually intended to move contraband past the screening point, = my best strategy would have been to refuse secondary screening. I am also forced to conclude that the purpose of the =93pat-down=94 w= as not to actually interdict contraband. In my case, I believe I w= as subjected to a haphazard response in order to effectively punish m= e for refusing secondary screening and to encourage a different decis= ion in the future. All of this is admittedly subjective, based on my perceptions at the = time. What is also entirely subjective is identifying which traveler= s are selected for secondary screening. This is where I find myself now obsessing over TSA policy, or its app= arent lack. Every one of us goes to work each day harboring prejudic= e. This is simply human nature. What I have witnessed in law enforc= ement over the course of the last two decades serves to remind me how= active and passive prejudice can undermine public trust in important= institutions, like police agencies. And TSA. Over the last fifteen years or so, many police agencies started captu= ring data on police interactions. The primary purpose was to documen= t what had historically been undocumented: informal street contacts. = By capturing specific data, we were able to ask ourselves tough ques= tions about potentially biased-policing. Many agencies are still str= uggling with the answers to those questions. Regardless, the data permitted us to detect problematic patterns, com= monly referred to as passive discrimination. This is a type of discr= imination that occurs when we are not aware of how our own biases aff= ect our decisions. This kind of bias must be called to our attention= , and there must be accountability to correct it. One of the most troubling observations I made, at both Albany and BWI= , was that =97 aside from the likely notation in a log (that no one w= ill ever look at) =97 there was no information captured and I was ask= ed no questions, aside from whether or not I wanted to change my mind= . Given that TSA interacts with tens if not hundreds of millions of tra= velers each year, it is incredible to me that we, the stewards of hom= eland security, have failed to insist that data capturing and analys= is should occur in a manner similar to what local police agencies hav= e been doing for many years. Some might argue that the potential for intrusion is not the same bet= ween police and TSA. I believe my experience this past weekend demon= strates otherwise. Currently, there is no way to know whether a cer= tain male screener routinely identifies predominantly women for addit= ional screening. There is no way to identify whether a Latino screen= er routinely isolates African-Americans, or vice versa. To assert th= at the screeners are highly trained and do not engaged in this type o= f discrimination, whether passive or active, is unsupportable because= there is no data. You simply cannot solve problems that you do not = want to identify. Finally, I am most concerned about the =93random=94 nature of my repe= ated selection for secondary screening. If there is no discriminatio= n at work, and my selection is entirely random, then we have yet anot= her, and probably more significant problem. For years in policing, we relied on random patrols to curb crime. We= relied upon this =93strategy=94 until someone went out and captured = some data, and did a study that demonstrated conclusively that random= patrols do not work (Kansas City Study). As police have employed other types of =93random=94 interventions, as= in DWI checkpoints, they have had to develop policies, procedures an= d training to ensure that the =93random=94 nature of these intrusions= is truly random. Whether every car gets checked, or every tenth car= , police must demonstrate that they have attempted to eliminate the e= ffects of active and passive discrimination when using =93random=94 s= trategies. No such accountability currently exists at TSA. As I left the screening check point in Albany, I looked over a few f= eet and observed an elderly Asian couple talking to =93my=94 supervis= or. I unashamedly eavesdropped. I heard the man say that his wife had not been told that the machine = would blow air and that she had been quite startled. The woman said = she should have been informed and the supervisor agreed. He said he w= ould speak to the screener (but again, who knows whether he actually = did). Then the man said =93And she should have been told she can refuse.= =94 The bells in my head were deafening. I believe what we have here is the beginning of the end of complacenc= y. It is now apparent to me that in the haste to ensure compliance w= ith procedures that are inconsistent if not inarticulable, TSA has ha= stened the likelihood of failure. If we do not insist that TSA work = to create articulable policies that make sense, procedures that are e= xplicit and consistent and training that supports both, then we are c= omplicit in what will inevitably be an ultimate compromise of TSA. That compromise may come in the form of terrorist attack, or it may c= ome in the form of a collapse of public support. Either or both are = inevitable. Either or both are preventable. --- The Digital Life Consulting Group Advising companies from product concept to launch www.DLifegroup.com Blog: www.launchlessons.com Joshua Weinberg (415) 777-3339 Phone (415) 816-4444 Cell joshua@DLifegroup.com -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:51 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU000J01UMX01@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:01:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.5]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU000GGAUMX8L@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:01:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.38]) by b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1594AC872 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6A2AC228 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85299F9D4 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:00:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP02.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.197]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0804D9F9D3 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB2AxBFV002960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:00:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:00:06 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] Re: Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.197 X-Listbox-UUID: DBE7709E-DF31-11DE-BFA1-99A7E92A5708 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <200912020349.UAA18546@lariat.net> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Brett Glass Date: December 1, 2009 10:49:01 PM EST To: dave@farber.net, "ip" Subject: Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? Most ISPs have provisions similar to these in their Acceptable Use Po= licies. A bit of history: they were instituted to avoid having all of= their subscribers blocked due to a bit of online vigilantism that wa= s once called the "Usenet Death Penalty." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_Death_Penalty for more. --Brett Glass -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:52 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU000J01UOO2D@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.82]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU000EGXUONRB@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDB3ABD9B for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.86]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656A5ABD97 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09441A917F for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:03:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A829C5B1 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:59:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP02.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.197]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EE19C5B0 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:59:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB2AxBFU002960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:59:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:59:11 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <519E4D82-F934-4B6C-88F3-CEE2C4DD9EB5@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=from :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=8bQCzJNsQSfdscW0G ukqz9EE/Dg=; b=mTBJIr/UcoMCpvwcj0FM4O1sspTtzASSqQ+10PJsViPhGxnWo 4At5pqOI+QtMxCuQWRPXH1Vy6TCvOGInkhuXg== X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.197 X-Listbox-UUID: BAE2DFA0-DF31-11DE-A840-DA47A52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <4B162B25.5070508@acb.net> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Andrew C Burnette Date: December 2, 2009 3:53:57 AM EST To: dave@farber.net, stan@colventures.com Subject: Re: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world Dave, for IP if you wish. It isn't innuendo that Huawei did in fact copy cisco products down to= the pdf's of the manuals for them. Huawei settled the lawsuits and F= TC actions with cisco some time ago regarding that very fact. http://www.networkworld.com/edge/news/2004/0728huawei.html Simply search the names and the word "copy" (or similar) and you'll r= eadily find various pointers to the trails of evidence. As for selling at a loss, well, the yuan has always traded at a rough= 75% discount on the US dollar in the currency market for a long time= as a matter of standing policy of China's central bank. That's anoth= er story entirely. best regards, Andy Burnette Dave Farber wrote: > Begin forwarded message: >> *From:* Stan Hanks > >> *Date:* December 1, 2009 6:01:53 PM EST >> *To:* dave@farber.net >> *Subject:* *RE: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world* >>=20 >> We use Huawei in several of our portfolio company networks. I=92m = going to try to answer what I can here, without crossing NDA boundari= es=85 >>=20 >>=20 >> When we started the process, some years back, there was heavy pres= sure from certain groups to discontinue our discussions. There were r= umors, innuendos and broad hints that Huawei had in fact reverse engi= neered Cisco=92s IOS and some of the line cards for the GSR. No one w= as ever able to demonstrate in an absolute manner that this had happe= ned. My own use of the various CLIs were not a whole lot different fr= om my experience with other manufacturers who had previously sought t= o emulate the Cisco CLI language to make configuring equipment a simp= ler matter for engineering professionals =96 an in-exact copy, close = enough to be familiar, different enough to be frustrating. >>=20 >>=20 >> There were also issues raised about the ownership, rumors that it = was only semi-private and that it was in fact controlled by the Chine= se central government. While this would have been interesting, I didn= =92t see it as being a =93show stopper=94 in any way. Given that we w= ere talking about private network placement, even if there were =93bu= gging technologies=94 or the like it would not have been possible for= any information so gained to have been exported to an interested par= ty. >>=20 >>=20 >> There were, and are, concerns about life cycle costs. When dealing= with any vendor for mission critical equipment, you have to worry ab= out what happens if they are unable to provide contracted support. I = mean, aren=92t there a whole lot of =93no one ever got fired for buyi= ng Nortel=94 guys really, really sweating their futures right now? >>=20 >>=20 >> I can=92t comment on pricing other than to note that in every case= where we asked them for a quote, the provided an apples-to-apples te= chnology solution at a price point that provided a clear economic win= . How, exactly, they did that relates to the concerns above about sta= bility and unforeseen costs in the future. If they are a private comp= any, and are selling at cost or a loss, then that=92s non sustainable= and sooner or later there will be repercussions. If they are being p= ropped up by the central government, then that raises other issues. I= f, on the other hand, they=92ve just figured out how to do this for a= fraction of the cost of the Other Guys, then that=92s a whole =91nut= her discussion=85 >>=20 >>=20 >> In my dealings with their sales team and technology professionals,= I was very impressed by what they brought to the table. They didn= =92t have =93cutting edge=94 or =93ahead of the curve=94 technology i= n the offered products, but the glimpses offered behind the scenes in= to their R & D efforts were pretty exciting, particularly against tho= se previews I=92d had from other vendors. >>=20 >>=20 >> In the current US tech economy, we suffer greatly from tax changes= made in the 80s which make it un-economic to fund basic R & D on a l= arge scale. There will never be another =93Bell Labs=94 because of th= e tax consequences. Instead, the only reasonable way to fund R & D is= via acquisition =96 which is why you see so many early-stage tech co= mpanies being snapped up by =93giants=94 such as Cisco, Microsoft, et= c. Which, in effect, means that our VC communities are funding our fu= ture, and since they themselves have succumbed to =93herd mentality= =94 the odds of true break-away developments are in fact slim. >>=20 >>=20 >> That=92s where I see companies like Huawei as a =93threat=94 =96 t= hey don=92t have those constraints, and are fully funding basic resea= rch and application research at an aggressive pace. We, simply put, a= ren=92t. Which means, sooner or later, we=92ll likely be licensing st= uff from them instead of the other way around=85 >>=20 >>=20 >> I would also point out this article from 2006, where a lot of the = same issues are raised in a quote from the International Edition of N= ewsweek, 1/16/2006: http://mountainrunner.us/2006/06/the_huawei_way_.html >>=20 >>=20 >> People have been bashing on them for a long time, and they=92re st= ill keeping pace with the best we have to offer. Maybe even outpacing= us in the labs, where we won=92t know until it=92s too late. >>=20 >>=20 >> Stan >>=20 >>=20 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------= ------ >>=20 >> *From:* David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] >> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2009 11:26 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Begin forwarded message: >>=20 >>=20 >> *From: *Rahul Tongia < tongia@cmu.edu > >>=20 >> *Date: *November 30, 2009 11:31:30 PM EST >>=20 >> *To: * dave@farber.net >>=20 >> *Subject: Re: [IP] Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world* >>=20 >> *Reply-To: * tongia@cmu.edu >>=20 >>=20 >> Dave, >>=20 >> I write as an "outsider" not selling any products, but with some i= ndustry knowledge and, some years back, extensive dealings with N. Am= erican industry.=20 >> If Huawei is now so big/dominant, then why is that, a priori, som= ething "to worry about"? Is it not creative destruction, and somethin= g that benefits consumers? The SingleRAN appears to be technological= ly advanced, or at least meeting consumer needs. >>=20 >> Why it might be an issue would be (and I would like to know more o= n): >>=20 >> 1) Are they inappropriately reverse engineering or otherwise using= technology they shouldn't? >> 2) Are the govt. ties to the level that it is unfair business prac= tices? Many European companies have strong govt. ties - one has to r= emember the Air France first class bugging to remember how bad things= have been. 3) Are there hidden costs (lifecycle) that are unknown? T= he article claims the operating costs are lower, as opposed to just w= inning on upfront (bid) costs. >> 4) Are they selling at a loss to create market share? >>=20 >> If they are private, and not public (needing "regular dividends") = then that is a financing option available to any company. OK, maybe n= ot without some high-level "support" but that in and of itself is hig= hly unlikely to account for 40-50% discounts. >>=20 >> I get asked by a lot of developing country professionals/govt. off= icials about Huawei - "how come they are so cheap"? I don't have a go= od answer, and would like to understand better. The two answer (priv= ate ownership and cheap labor) don't seem to be enough. If it is "co= mmodity" products, then the SingleRAN doesn't fit the bill.=20 >> Rahul >>=20 >> p.s. I won't bore folks with details, but I spent almost 3 years a= "long" while back (10 yrs ago) during the boom designing a national-= scale backbone - US entities didn't behave any "better" than what the= y would complain newbies behave like. The periods of non-disclosure = are over, but it's all academic at this point... >>=20 >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Dave Farber < dave@farber.net > wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Begin forwarded message: >>=20 >>> *From:* Richard Shockey < richard@SHOC= KEY.US > >>> *Date:* November 30, 2009 2:47:18 PM EST >>> *To:* CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >>> *Subject:* *Huawei now #2 telecom supplier in the world* >>> *Reply-To:* Telecom Regulation & the Internet < CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > >>>=20 >>> Well here is something else to worry about. >>>=20 >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/business/global/30te= lecom.html?ref=3Dbusines >>> s >>>=20 >>=20 >> =09 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> =09 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 http://www.listbox.com> -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:53 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU000J01URT5G@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:04:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.83]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU000GIAURT8L@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:04:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D684AAD23 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.87]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABBEAAD22 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C8CABA5C for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEEB39F5D8 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:01:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.198]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811C09F5D7 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB2B1AWI009840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:01:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:01:10 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: Re: DEBUNKING Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings? To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=from :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=mvTI24J/vJEOKzxpx M/9V9w0C3M=; b=bd7PC3xOqjMSTU/FvMUaHnd7m4OsV0dt9Y2xTq3WJKW3nngwW qJR1Vl31aT3CqRJ8RSRO4Gjqrj58pMWA3Z+kw== X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.198 X-Listbox-UUID: 017A7B76-DF32-11DE-9DD2-BB02B228D758 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <20091202032517.GA4309@sethf.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Seth Finkelstein Date: December 1, 2009 10:25:17 PM EST To: Dave Farber , ip Cc: Edward Vielmetti , John Levine , Lauren Weinstein , Gene Gaines Subject: DEBUNKING Re: [IP] Verizon FiOS to police off-topic postings= ? [For IP] On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:17:42PM -0500, Dave Farber wrote: > If this is accurate, it is outragious. djf =09Here we go again ... wolf! Wolf!! WWOOLLFF!!! =09The outrage is quite a bit late, as I've found a blog post from *2006* that talks about similar Verizon FiOS language: http://dankeenan.blogspot.com/2006/10/fios-rant.html "g) to post information on newsgroups which is not in the topic area = or charter (e.g. off-topic posting) of the newsgroup" =09Note http://community.vzw.com/t5/FiOS-Internet/New-Acceptable-Use-Policy/m= -p/124847 "That line has been in the AUP for quite some time, I believe."=20 =09Ah - http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r20086414-Replacement-o= f-Your-Verizon-Internet-Access-Service-TOS There is one important change in the Acceptable Use Policy as it relates to the posting of "off-topic" information. In the March, 200= 8, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^= ^^ version it reads "The following are examples of conduct which may le= ad to termination of your Service:" ... 2(e) "post off-topic informatio= n on message boards, chat rooms or social networking sites." In the Dec., 2007, version it reads "You may NOT use the Service as follows:" ... 3(g) "to post information on newsgroups which is not i= n the topic area or charter (e.g. off-topic posting) of the newsgroup"= . =09If you read it in Slashdot, it is ... well, lots of other people have read it too, but that doesn't make it true. =09Y'know, this is a classic net collective insanity: 1) High traffic site posts some sort of "ZOMG! THEY'RE COMING TO GET = US!!!" 2) Lots of responses in forums about "COME AND GET ME, HA HA HA!!!" 3) More ranting of "THIS PROVES [insert enemy here] is *E*V*I*L*!!!" =09There's absolutely no incentive to be accurate rather than attention-seeking. I'm likely not going to get anything but grief for having done the research to debunk this. =09Oh, yes, I agree, TOS policies shouldn't be so vague. But this red alert treatment is basically utter nonsense. --=20 Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Wed Dec 2 10:29:54 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170V42@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100F0170O3N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:29:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU000K01VWMQZ@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:29:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.83]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU000K63VWMEC@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:29:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89954AADAF for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.87]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8766CAADAE for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747ACAACB8 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D140A6D07 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:25:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.198]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB012A6D06 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:25:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB2BPMr0010108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:25:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:25:43 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] Swedish Telecoms Regulator issues a report on open networks and services To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <286301DC-DC5D-4FA8-BEC9-9F18B715ECE2@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_l5u8ru3gykjnq42LKz88zw)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=from :content-type:subject:date:references:to:message-id:mime-version :reply-to:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s= launch; bh=X5eoeUrKTxplynPmJ3qQoeW3TX4=; b=GqH+UJ3NOYTqmYlPipXnn ant+64Lm1sRuFXxa9n2G9q6cFFXW6fcmrLKTIQC/DQRvq/VLEn87DBx3dYAWh78Z g== X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.198 X-Listbox-UUID: 6FE21B3E-DF35-11DE-8683-DBBC796756C1 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <2e1cda350912020247v673046b5nf4f3637aa3400f5d@mail.gmail.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 --Boundary_(ID_l5u8ru3gykjnq42LKz88zw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Sandra Keegan Date: December 2, 2009 5:47:35 AM EST To: dave@farber.net Subject: Swedish Telecoms Regulator issues a report on open networks = and services Dave, The Swedish Telecoms Regulator (PTS) has issued a 150 page report (in= Swedish) on open networks and services with a two page abstract (in = English) all of which can be found at the link below. Quoting: The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency (PTS) has come to the following c= onclusions after completing the Government commissioned assignment concerning open networks and services: 1. Openness creates the prerequisites for innovation and competitiven= ess but must be balanced against other interests worthy of protection= , such as incentives to invest and network security. 2. Openness is promoted by securing non-discrimination and effective = competition. 3. Openness is of great significance and it is therefore important th= at suppliers in their marketing activities and in applicable terms an= d conditions, provide clear and specific information with respect to = lock-in periods and restrictions relating to Internet access and acce= ss to services. =2E.... In the report PTS suggests several measures aimed at securing opennes= s, measures which take all interest worthy of protection into conside= ration =96 especially incentives to invest and network security. PTS = suggests stronger principles for equal treatment when building new in= frastructure, increased access to existing infrastructure, informatio= n designated to consumers regarding possible pitfalls and the importance of openness and, finally, increa= sed transparency regarding the existence of potential limitations of = Internet traffic such as prioritization of traffic and blocking of se= rvices. =2E.... http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Internet/2009/2009-32-Oppenhetsrap= porten.pdf Best regards, Sandra Keegan --=20 PhD candidate Edinburgh Law School Old College South Bridge, Edinburgh EH8 9YL Scotland UK ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_l5u8ru3gykjnq42LKz88zw) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

<= div>Begin forwarded message:

From: Sandra Keegan <sandra.keegan@gmail.com&= gt;
Date: Decem= ber 2, 2009 5:47:35 AM EST

Dave,

The Swedish Telecoms Regulat= or (PTS) has issued a 150 page report (in Swedish) on open networks a= nd services with a two page abstract (in English) all of which can be= found at the link below.

Quoting:

The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency (PTS) has come to the foll= owing conclusions after completing the Government commissioned assign= ment
concerning open networks and services:

1. Openn= ess creates the prerequisites for innovation and competitiveness but = must be balanced against other interests worthy of protection, such a= s incentives to invest and network security.

2. Openness is promoted by securing non-discrimination and effect= ive competition.

3. Openness is of great significance and it i= s therefore important that suppliers in their marketing activities an= d in applicable terms and conditions, provide clear and specific info= rmation with respect to lock-in periods and restrictions relating to = Internet access and access to services.

.....

In the report PTS suggests several = measures aimed at securing openness, measures which take all interest= worthy of protection into consideration =96 especially incentives to= invest and network security. PTS suggests stronger principles for eq= ual treatment when building new infrastructure, increased access to e= xisting infrastructure, information designated to consumers regarding=
possible pitfalls and the importance of openness and, finally, increa= sed transparency regarding the existence of potential limitations of = Internet traffic such as prioritization of traffic and blocking of se= rvices.

=2E....

http://ww= w.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Internet/2009/2009-32-Oppenhetsrapporten.pd= f


Best regards,
Sandra Keegan
--
PhD candidate
Edinburgh Law School
Old = College
South Bridge,
Edinburgh EH8 9YL
Scotland
UK

--Boundary_(ID_l5u8ru3gykjnq42LKz88zw)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:13 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100I018LTRJ@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:03:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100GJ78LTR5@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:03:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08C6ABEDA for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:04:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F374ABC0C for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:04:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29AB49F1D5 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9DE9F1D4 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:36:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so120805vws.28 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.125.104 with SMTP id x40mr303031vcr.41.1259768203326; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:36:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.86.105.166? (mobile-166-137-134-171.mycingular.net [166.137.134.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm2413187vws.9.2009.12.02.07.36.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:36:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:35:36 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <12974E6A-9291-449B-B0DF-49766EB0C6C7@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_6PNMP/GGrFmm5nHZWHDq4g)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=IJ0mD7s4e/pHbwixKB7QzjD518qAEU5MQYrCZfbxUGM=; b=Akrp/yRhVog2Ui0HPD10BAPm57r1FXYf1CJyczdU+Gx+OqcP89sCilf6YgjFEWEo5K cUxb/+DJ2svJIReBAxSxnIKYqmk4OfdCC7mqEPI8YV/c1ST/dSJZW8uaf8bF6v+RnMoF YdchB+ui+L9I+jGv14FIK5GEDAr7OOQvxRC+Q= X-Listbox-UUID: 80260870-DF58-11DE-A448-CA9DE25DE5F4 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <85B6A806CD073F418D8E1F3BFF694D313A6B144711@KSMH01V.kellogg.local> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=sysDKUh2RscPrSDon62jz5NjlXLdLd5Q8sPIj5ZDwJ/x/mDxo8m7UnUzOJ5sbTWoFs ED+YaXfpBtkGD0xZOuDJEuK2cNCSh0QYOCYS3uHNazBlTh0NS17USwos63OTZLM/Ps8w yoGkfAzvgLTJrgXz1lHlb3fI7NhcChbMwYaEI= --Boundary_(ID_6PNMP/GGrFmm5nHZWHDq4g) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Shane Greenstein > Date: December 2, 2009 9:44:48 AM EST > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > > Bob Cannon raises an interesting nuance about the history of the > Internet. He is right that about ownership -- there is no particular > reason why the government or private industry should own it. The > military is perfectly capable of running its own Internet, for > example, just as are private firms. Indeed, the Internet began its > life as a military network. That is true. But one nuance is missing > from his historical response below. There is a common after-the-fact > reasoning about why the NSF gave the Internet backbone to private > industry, and it is misleading. > > Let's be clear about three things: > > First, by the time the NSF walked away from the Internet the network > had a very decentralized operational structure. Even during the > research days, the NSF only managed the backbone, while regional > cooperatives managed the regional networks, and thousands of > universities and research labs managed their own networks. This > happened for simple budgetary reasons; the NSF did not have a budget > to run the whole thing. In short, it was possible for the NSF to > privatize the Internet because, in fact, most of the assets already > were privatized, owned and operated by others. It was nothing sacred > about private enterprise that mattered, just simple budgetary facts > on the ground. > > Second, NSF is not allowed to start new industries. That is outside > its charter, which only pertains to supporting basic research in the > US. And talk to any NSF administrator. While they are proud of their > role in developing the Internet, they are very precise about their > surprise at the economic impact of the NSF privatization. They were > not trying to start a new industry or a new economic revolution > built around it. Indeed, to aspire to that in any way shape or form > would have been outside their charter, and would have led to massive > Congressional investigation. They were supporting basic research, > and sometimes it leads to new stuff in private industry, but the > latter is outside what they are allowed to influence. > > Third, Steve Wolf (the primary administrator for the backbone) is > very up front about why he thought privatization was a good idea. > For one, the technology was refined enough so that any engineer > could operate it; and for two, he forecast that sharing the > technology with private users would increase scale of use, which > would bring down costs, and the research community could benefit > from the lower costs. It is a small point, but crucial. Private > industry could supply both government and private users in 1995, but > government could not. In the decentralized structure of the mid > 1990s, there was no other option for achieving that scale other than > privatization. > > So, while it is nice to talk about ownership of the Internet by > public entities and private entities in the abstract, we should > recognize what part of that abstract debate actually mattered for > historical events. In practice, this was close to a private > technology before it officially privatized in the US. And, it is no > surprise (to me) that the Internet is a government operation in the > countries who adopted later and where the institutions push that way > already (such as China). Oh well. So it goes. > > Shane > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Telecom Regulation & the Internet [CYBERTELECOM- > L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Robert Cannon [rcannon100@YAHOO.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:44 PM > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical > Infrastructure > >> For >> sure if "The Internet" was >> nationalized (a crazy notion, but China seems to be doing >> it OK), then there >> would be no need for regulation. > > The Internet was a DOD project from 1969 to 1990. Originally a > DARPA project, day to day operations were transferred in 1975 to the > Defense Communications Agency. In 1983, DOD migrated these networks > to TCP/IP. > > In 1985, the National Science Foundation stepped in and funded > NSFNET. NSFNET ran pursuant to NSF funding and direction until 1995. > > NSF originally set up the contracts for the operations of the DNS > and IP numbering functions. That authority was transferred to Dept > of Commerce NTIA in the late 1990s, which beget ICANN. This > authority continues today which it has evolved. > > The Internet was born of USG effort. > > But as to the second part, whether regulation would be needed, that > is not true either. It depends on the structure and arrangement - > there are procurement regulations - there are regs that deal with > funding. The postal service faces its own regulatory regimes. Just > because something does not fit within title II of the Telecom Act > does not mean "its not regulated." > > Finally, as a footnote, I would note that all telephone networks > including AT&T was nationalized during WWI and were managed by the > Post Office. > >> The reason The Internet is not a federal >> entity is because of who we are. >> In the U.S., private enterprise is valued and >> cherished. However, if things > > The Internet was a government project for the majority of its > existence. Yes, private enterprise is valued, but we need to be > careful not to be mythical about the Internet. > > http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/internet_history.htm > > B ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_6PNMP/GGrFmm5nHZWHDq4g) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Shane Greenstein <greenstein@KELLOGG.NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
Date= : December 2, 2009 9:44:48 AM EST
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject= : Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure
<= b>Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.A= OL.COM>

Bob Cannon raises an interesting nuance about th= e history of the Internet. He is right that about ownership -- there = is no particular reason why the government or private industry should= own it. The military is perfectly capable of running its own Interne= t, for example, just as are private firms. Indeed, the Internet began= its life as a military network. That is true. But one nuance is miss= ing from his historical response below. There is a common after-the-f= act reasoning about why the NSF gave the Internet backbone to private= industry, and it is misleading.

Le= t's be clear about three things:

Fi= rst, by the time the NSF walked away from the Internet the network ha= d a very decentralized operational structure. Even during the researc= h days, the NSF only managed the backbone, while regional cooperative= s managed the regional networks, and thousands of universities and re= search labs managed their own networks. This happened for simple budg= etary reasons; the NSF did not have a budget to run the whole thing. = In short, it was possible for the NSF to privatize the Internet becau= se, in fact, most of the assets already were privatized, owned and op= erated by others. It was nothing sacred about private enterprise that= mattered, just simple budgetary facts on the ground.

Second, NSF is not allowed to start new industries.= That is outside its charter, which only pertains to supporting basic= research in the US. And talk to any NSF administrator. While they ar= e proud of their role in developing the Internet, they are very preci= se about their surprise at the economic impact of the NSF privatizati= on. They were not trying to start a new industry or a new economic re= volution built around it. Indeed, to aspire to that in any way shape = or form would have been outside their charter, and would have led to = massive Congressional investigation. They were supporting basic resea= rch, and sometimes it leads to new stuff in private industry, but the= latter is outside what they are allowed to influence.

Third, Steve Wolf (the primary administrator for t= he backbone) is very up front about why he thought privatization was = a good idea. For one, the technology was refined enough so that any e= ngineer could operate it; and for two, he forecast that sharing the t= echnology with private users would increase scale of use, which would= bring down costs, and the research community could benefit from the = lower costs. It is a small point, but crucial. Private industry could= supply both government and private users in 1995, but government cou= ld not. In the decentralized structure of the mid 1990s, there was no= other option for achieving that scale other than privatization.

So, while it is nice to talk about owner= ship of the Internet by public entities and private entities in the a= bstract, we should recognize what part of that abstract debate actual= ly mattered for historical events. In practice, this was close to a p= rivate technology before it officially privatized in the US. And, it = is no surprise (to me) that the Internet is a government operation in= the countries who adopted later and where the institutions push that= way already (such as China). Oh well. So it goes.
<= /span>
Shane



________________________________________<= br>From: Telecom Regulation & the Internet [CYBERTELECOM-L@= LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Robert Cannon [rcannon100@YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:44 PM
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.A= OL.COM
Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] A Ridiculous F= ailure of Critical Infrastructure

  For
sure if "The Internet" was
nationalized (a crazy notion,= but China seems to be doing
it OK), then there
would be no need for regulation.

The Internet was a DOD project from 19= 69 to 1990.  Originally a DARPA project, day to day operations w= ere transferred in 1975 to the Defense Communications Agency.  I= n 1983, DOD migrated these networks to TCP/IP.

In 1985, the National Science Foundation stepped in and fu= nded NSFNET.  NSFNET ran pursuant to NSF funding and direction u= ntil 1995.

NSF originally set up the= contracts for the operations of the DNS and IP numbering functions. =  That authority was transferred to Dept of Commerce NTIA in the = late 1990s, which beget ICANN.  This authority continues today w= hich it has evolved.

The Internet wa= s born of USG effort.

But as to the = second part, whether regulation would be needed, that is not true eit= her.  It depends on the structure and arrangement - there are pr= ocurement regulations - there are regs that deal with funding.  = The postal service faces its own regulatory regimes.  Just becau= se something does not fit within title II of the Telecom Act does not= mean "its not regulated."

Finally, = as a footnote, I would note that all telephone networks including AT&= amp;T was nationalized during WWI and were managed by the Post Office= .

 &= nbsp;The reason The Internet is not a federal
=
entity is because of who we are.
In the U.S., priva= te enterprise is valued and
cherished.  However, if things

The Internet was a government project fo= r the majority of its existence.  Yes, private enterprise is val= ued, but we need to be careful not to be mythical about the Internet.=

http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/int= ernet_history.htm

B
--Boundary_(ID_6PNMP/GGrFmm5nHZWHDq4g)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:14 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100101D33V9@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:40:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU10014FD33JJ@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:40:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE08AB5F5 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5909CABAEF for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967709F595 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:39:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.198]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B289F594 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:39:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB2HdnE8016411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:39:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:39:48 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <1D6411BF-5392-4294-A5DF-3B759C2A30BC@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.198 X-Listbox-UUID: B2CF5D10-DF69-11DE-A665-F2751FDFD1B8 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <4B16981B.4020407@bbiw.net> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Dave CROCKER Date: December 2, 2009 11:38:51 AM EST To: dave@farber.net Cc: ip , Shane Greenstein , "Atkinson, Robert" Subject: Re: [IP] : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure Dave Farber wrote: >> Indeed, the Internet began its life as a military network. That = is true.=20 Actually, it's not. The US Department of Defense funded the research that created the Arp= anet and then the early Internet, but the only portions actually oper= ated by the military were the sites containing hosts and "routers" (p= acket switches) on military sites. Other sites and the Network Opera= tions Center (at BBN) had civilian operation. So the Arpanet and initial Internet had unclassified, non-military op= eration (and non-miliary content) at mostly non-military sites But one nuance is missing >> from his historical response below. There is a common after-the-fa= ct reasoning about why the NSF gave the Internet backbone to private = industry, and it is misleading. Some clarifications that are consistent with later comments in Greens= tein's note: NSFNet was an addition to the existing Internet, which already had it= s own backbone. This forced creation of a routing protocol, BGP, tha= t could support multiple backbones. The NSF gave only its own backbone to private Industry. Other backbo= nes had other ownership. >> Let's be clear about three things: >>=20 >> First, by the time the NSF walked away from the Internet the netwo= rk had a very decentralized operational structure. Even during the re= search days, the NSF only managed the backbone, while regional cooper= atives managed the regional networks, and thousands of=20 The NSF also had created a number of those regional networks in the U= S, some of which went on to also be 'given' to private industry. d/ --=20 Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:15 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100201DB59N@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:45:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.83]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU1001A6DB5JJ@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:45:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E758AA229 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:45:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.87]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6E4AA228 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:45:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E5EAB07C for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:45:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07A59F6B6 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:40:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.198]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889CF9F6B5 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB2HdnE9016411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:40:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:40:26 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=from :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=7/kVwJL4r0SvmF1fA 4PuJlTEfbU=; b=AhCBo3k7PwmFjl9mldi1ZOdGIirbbyGVfpYQlOvWZVOXwS9Y7 EixVKiKD3eo2S5ryMAMIbAuu1hfxKprVe0fJA== X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.198 X-Listbox-UUID: C8914172-DF69-11DE-A3E8-BC713F93DD26 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0141ABF2E6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Lee W McKnight Date: December 2, 2009 11:24:36 AM EST To: "dave@farber.net" , ip Subject: RE: [IP] : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure Dave, For IP if you wish: To clarify the historical record: it didn't matter what NSF thought m= ight happen post-commercialization, even if its mandate is broader th= an Shane implies, ie including applied research which might contribut= e to growth of new (science-based) industrial sectors. It was Congress (the famous Gore Bill) which mandated commercializati= on. NSF was just following Congressional (and Presidential) orders. The Gore Bill of 1990 said the Internet would be commercial/NSF's sub= sidy to backbone would stop April 1, 1995; and it did. The bipartisan compromise of 1990 was NSF could pump $1bn into the ba= ckbone, over 5 years, ie $200m/yr; and then it was up to industry to = carry the net forward. Lee McKnight PS: To all those out there who have been laughing at poor Al for havi= ng said something along lines of claiming he contributed to creating = the (commercial) Internet: guess what: he did. ________________________________________ =46rom: Dave Farber [dave@farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:35 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Shane Greenstein > Date: December 2, 2009 9:44:48 AM EST To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.= AOL.COM Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > Bob Cannon raises an interesting nuance about the history of the Inte= rnet. He is right that about ownership -- there is no particular reas= on why the government or private industry should own it. The military= is perfectly capable of running its own Internet, for example, just = as are private firms. Indeed, the Internet began its life as a milita= ry network. That is true. But one nuance is missing from his historic= al response below. There is a common after-the-fact reasoning about w= hy the NSF gave the Internet backbone to private industry, and it is = misleading. Let's be clear about three things: First, by the time the NSF walked away from the Internet the network = had a very decentralized operational structure. Even during the resea= rch days, the NSF only managed the backbone, while regional cooperati= ves managed the regional networks, and thousands of universities and = research labs managed their own networks. This happened for simple bu= dgetary reasons; the NSF did not have a budget to run the whole thing= . In short, it was possible for the NSF to privatize the Internet bec= ause, in fact, most of the assets already were privatized, owned and = operated by others. It was nothing sacred about private enterprise th= at mattered, just simple budgetary facts on the ground. Second, NSF is not allowed to start new industries. That is outside i= ts charter, which only pertains to supporting basic research in the U= S. And talk to any NSF administrator. While they are proud of their r= ole in developing the Internet, they are very precise about their sur= prise at the economic impact of the NSF privatization. They were not = trying to start a new industry or a new economic revolution built aro= und it. Indeed, to aspire to that in any way shape or form would have= been outside their charter, and would have led to massive Congressio= nal investigation. They were supporting basic research, and sometimes= it leads to new stuff in private industry, but the latter is outside= what they are allowed to influence. Third, Steve Wolf (the primary administrator for the backbone) is ver= y up front about why he thought privatization was a good idea. For on= e, the technology was refined enough so that any engineer could opera= te it; and for two, he forecast that sharing the technology with priv= ate users would increase scale of use, which would bring down costs, = and the research community could benefit from the lower costs. It is = a small point, but crucial. Private industry could supply both govern= ment and private users in 1995, but government could not. In the dece= ntralized structure of the mid 1990s, there was no other option for a= chieving that scale other than privatization. So, while it is nice to talk about ownership of the Internet by publi= c entities and private entities in the abstract, we should recognize = what part of that abstract debate actually mattered for historical ev= ents. In practice, this was close to a private technology before it o= fficially privatized in the US. And, it is no surprise (to me) that t= he Internet is a government operation in the countries who adopted la= ter and where the institutions push that way already (such as China).= Oh well. So it goes. Shane ________________________________________ =46rom: Telecom Regulation & the Internet [CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AO= L.COM] On Behalf Of Robert Cannon [rcannon100@YAHOO.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:44 PM To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.= AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructu= re For sure if "The Internet" was nationalized (a crazy notion, but China seems to be doing it OK), then there would be no need for regulation. The Internet was a DOD project from 1969 to 1990. Originally a DARPA= project, day to day operations were transferred in 1975 to the Defen= se Communications Agency. In 1983, DOD migrated these networks to TC= P/IP. In 1985, the National Science Foundation stepped in and funded NSFNET= . NSFNET ran pursuant to NSF funding and direction until 1995. NSF originally set up the contracts for the operations of the DNS and= IP numbering functions. That authority was transferred to Dept of C= ommerce NTIA in the late 1990s, which beget ICANN. This authority co= ntinues today which it has evolved. The Internet was born of USG effort. But as to the second part, whether regulation would be needed, that i= s not true either. It depends on the structure and arrangement - the= re are procurement regulations - there are regs that deal with fundin= g. The postal service faces its own regulatory regimes. Just becaus= e something does not fit within title II of the Telecom Act does not = mean "its not regulated." Finally, as a footnote, I would note that all telephone networks incl= uding AT&T was nationalized during WWI and were managed by the Post O= ffice. The reason The Internet is not a federal entity is because of who we are. In the U.S., private enterprise is valued and cherished. However, if things The Internet was a government project for the majority of its existen= ce. Yes, private enterprise is valued, but we need to be careful not= to be mythical about the Internet. http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/internet_history.htm B www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:16 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100701GGK3X@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:53:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.5]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU1005E5GGKVR@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:53:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.38]) by b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF74ACD1D for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:53:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C755ACD14 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B659CBAA for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:49:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-qy0-f193.google.com (mail-qy0-f193.google.com [209.85.221.193]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418E89CBA9 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:49:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31so245850qyk.9 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.117.8 with SMTP id o8mr268780qaq.227.1259779740509; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:49:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? ([67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm755991qyk.1.2009.12.02.10.48.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:48:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:47:58 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Z39izcHetWyTvxJJN0OYIw)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=RJJaHrH0WbA4ltV6pH39+9SKKjGci87CSCP1XzGo58o=; b=dH0nUT5FOl+MQqhmoCyKdtZ7fsu8A6LPqzk/z9EoWGAXHRVytBV3v9NVohHC2AM7Xq S5n1ZdoTXl6zJoKdG44VNhB7T5qycpQSF8UP7JEDirUtJzxuBd25tWNcnCOMwfAe/4PQ G0cw8vFTij2zhuzr7DHLkz0bcoU5kIeCZ+6T8= X-Listbox-UUID: 5D017832-DF73-11DE-81E1-0E3BA52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <73E65FFF-A139-4749-B48B-B2A1B6F86F79@cox.net> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=b1p/h2kM3P6ONLk7ijcK1hmXzdhfIhsDiiQMaDnH5+Y2s5XQieV75kl1Bn2SEAk+e0 CnAJ7tVePdrhLDRZJVu1LsoawfJX2eIfgaNcky4Rpr4V+gmcgV6u5aWk9gi8j+2lJIFq imNHNHl6wGWZKOE8J1QpZyDmytAkeMixhrLSc= --Boundary_(ID_Z39izcHetWyTvxJJN0OYIw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Goldstein > Date: December 2, 2009 1:30:57 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Cc: Steve Goldstein , ip > Subject: Re: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > > > I was at NSF-CISE-DNCRI during those times. I kept a plot of the > "size" of the various parts of the Internet, viz. the > "commercial" (I think it included .com and .org, and I am not sure > about .net) vs. the "non-commercial" (total of .edu, .mil, > and .gov). By just about any measure (number of registrations, > traffic flow, size of pipes), the non-commercial component kept on > growing almost linearly (my recollection), while the commercial > component grew rather slowly in the first few years of the 1990's, > crossed the non-commercial component in 1994, and then shot up much > like a parabola (dare I say exponentially? I never actually fit an > equation to the curve...just eyeballed it) and thoroughly eclipsed > the non-commercial within a few years. I am pretty sure that I did > not include non-US domains in those plots. But, I think that the > main point is still valid: 1994 was the "crossover" year, and from > then on the Internet had commercialized. RIPE NCC actually > published monthly statistics of registrations, at least during the > first half of the 1990's. They might still have those numbers lying > around if anybody wants to look. > > Next, NSF did not "give its own backbone to private industry." What > happened was that (1) the needs of the research and academic > community that the NSFnet backbone served outgrew NSF's ability to > pay for sufficient capacity, and (2) commercial ISPs complained to > Congress that the Government (NSF) was unfairly taking away their > potential customers by serving the R&A community. So, the decision > was made to go on subsidizing connections to commercial backbones as > long as the chosen backbones met up at at least three designated > exchange points so that all supported institutions could reach all > the others by virtue of traffic exchanges (NAPs, or network access > points). This gave an early boost to the concept of peering, though > the NAPs were not the only peering points. > > In about the same time frame, NSF solicited bids for a very high > speed backbone network *service* (or vBNS), note the emphasis on > "service." This was to be a 45 Mbps backbone service, which could > be implemented in such a way that the the purveyor could also sell > services to other customers. And, this was because NSF could not > afford to pay for its own 45 Mbps backbone. But, the vBNS was not > for normal Internet traffic, but for support of actual research > projects requiring more than every day uses such as e-mail and > browsing. The vBNS was furnished by a new company that was set up > for that purpose with Al Weiss, a former IBM VP as its CEO, ANS > (which I later realized was SNA spelled backwards...but I digress). > And, we set up STARTAP, an international high-performance R&A > exchange point in Chicago so that the newly formed high-performance > networks of other countries could exchange traffic with each other > on a bi-lateral (no US AUP) agreement basis. > > And, again, in about the same time frame as the vBNS (I am typing > this all from memory, and my memory for dates is lousy), the > universities were dissatisfied with the service that they were > getting from the commercial ISPs (underprovisioning, congestion), so > Internet2 was birthed as a private membership organization to > acquire a private university backbone. Internet2 lives on, as does > National Lambda Rail (NLR), a very high performance private backbone > network that serves a customer base similar to and overlapping with > that of Internet2. Readers will recall the notice that Glenn > Ricart, who originally headed up one of the original NSFnet regional > networks, SURAnet, is the newly appointed CEO of NLR. > > And, other U.S. Governmental research networks are active, e.g.. > Energy's ESnet and (still alive?) NASA Science Network (NSN). And, > the STARTAP morphed into STARlight, an international lightwave > exchange point located on the lakefront campus of Northwestern > University in Chicago. STARlight is but one of several international > lightwave exchange points used by international R&A networks that > comprise the Global Lambda Integrated Facility (GLIF), a cooperative > that serves computationally intensive research needs globally. And, > much to my dismay, several of the GLIF member countries (NL, KR, CA, > JP, ...) have left the US in the dust when it comes to advanced > infrastructure provisioning. The US has a lot of catching up to do. > > Whew, I started out to type a few sentences, and I ran off at the > fingers. Hope that what I wrote is reasonably accurate, and that I > have not bored you. > > --Steve > >>>> >>>> Let's be clear about three things: >>>> >>>> First, by the time the NSF walked away from the Internet the >>>> network had a very decentralized operational structure. Even >>>> during the research days, the NSF only managed the backbone, >>>> while regional cooperatives managed the regional networks, and >>>> thousands of > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_Z39izcHetWyTvxJJN0OYIw) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Steve Goldstein <steve.goldstein@cox.net>
Date: December 2, 2009 1:= 30:57 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: Ste= ve Goldstein <steve.gol= dstein@cox.net>, ip <i= p@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] A Ridiculous = Failure of Critical Infrastructure


I was at= NSF-CISE-DNCRI during those times.  I kept a plot of the "size"= of the various parts of the Internet, viz. the "commercial" (I think= it included .com and .org, and I am not sure about .net) vs. the "no= n-commercial" (total of .edu, .mil, and .gov).  By just about an= y measure (number of registrations, traffic flow, size of pipes), the= non-commercial component kept on growing almost linearly (my recolle= ction), while the commercial component grew rather slowly in the firs= t few years of the 1990's, crossed the non-commercial component in 19= 94, and then shot up much like a parabola (dare I say exponentially? = I never actually fit an equation to the curve...just eyeballed it) an= d thoroughly eclipsed the non-commercial within a few years.  I = am pretty sure that I did not include non-US domains in those plots. =  But, I think that the main point is still valid: 1994 was the "= crossover" year, and from then on the Internet had commercialized. &n= bsp;RIPE NCC actually published monthly statistics of registrations, = at least during the first half of the 1990's.  They might still = have those numbers lying around if anybody wants to look.  

Next, NSF did not "give its own backbone= to private industry."  What happened was that (1) the needs of = the research and academic community that the NSFnet backbone served o= utgrew NSF's ability to pay for sufficient capacity, and (2) commerci= al ISPs complained to Congress that the Government (NSF) was unfairly= taking away their potential customers by serving the R&A communi= ty.  So, the decision was made to go on subsidizing connections = to commercial backbones as long as the chosen backbones met up at at = least three designated exchange points so that all supported institut= ions could reach all the others by virtue of traffic exchanges (NAPs,= or network access points).  This gave an early boost to the con= cept of peering, though the NAPs were not the only peering points. &n= bsp;

In about the same time frame, N= SF solicited bids for a very high speed backbone network *service* (o= r vBNS), note the emphasis on "service."  This was to be a 45 Mb= ps backbone service, which could be implemented in such a way that th= e the purveyor could also sell services to other customers. And, this= was because NSF could not afford to pay for its own 45 Mbps backbone= .  But, the vBNS was not for normal Internet traffic, but for su= pport of actual research projects requiring more than every day uses = such as e-mail and browsing.  The vBNS was furnished by a new co= mpany that was set up for that purpose with Al Weiss, a former IBM VP= as its CEO, ANS (which I later realized was SNA spelled backwards...= but I digress).  And, we set up STARTAP, an international high-p= erformance R&A exchange point in Chicago so that the newly formed= high-performance networks of other countries could exchange traffic = with each other on a bi-lateral (no US AUP) agreement basis.  

And, again, in about the same time fr= ame as the vBNS (I am typing this all from memory, and my memory for = dates is lousy), the universities were dissatisfied with the service = that they were getting from the commercial ISPs (underprovisioning, c= ongestion), so Internet2 was birthed as a private membership organiza= tion to acquire a private university backbone.  Internet2 lives = on, as does National Lambda Rail (NLR), a very high performance priva= te backbone network that serves a customer base similar to and overla= pping with that of Internet2.  Readers will recall the notice th= at Glenn Ricart, who originally headed up one of the original NSFnet = regional networks, SURAnet, is the newly appointed CEO of NLR.  =

And, other U.S. Governmental resear= ch networks are active, e.g.. Energy's ESnet and (still alive?) NASA = Science Network (NSN).  And, the STARTAP morphed into STARlight,= an international lightwave exchange point located on the lakefront c= ampus of Northwestern University in Chicago. STARlight is but one of = several international lightwave exchange points used by international= R&A networks that comprise the Global Lambda Integrated Facility= (GLIF), a cooperative that serves computationally intensive research= needs globally.  And, much to my dismay, several of the GLIF me= mber countries (NL, KR, CA, JP, ...) have left the US in the dust whe= n it comes to advanced infrastructure provisioning.  The US has = a lot of catching up to do.

Whew, I = started out to type a few sentences, and I ran off at the fingers. &n= bsp;Hope that what I wrote is reasonably accurate, and that I have no= t bored you.

--Steve


Let's be clear about three things:
=

First, by the time = the NSF walked away from the Internet the network had a very decentra= lized operational structure. Even during the research days, the NSF o= nly managed the backbone, while regional cooperatives managed the reg= ional networks, and thousands of

--Boundary_(ID_Z39izcHetWyTvxJJN0OYIw)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:17 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100E01KXZMI@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100D45KXYZG@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:29:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4111AAB5F1 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:30:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB64AC5B1 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:30:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E409CDD0 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541639CDCE for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:41:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so87241qwb.27 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:41:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.70.202 with SMTP id e10mr320133qaj.16.1259782870871; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:41:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm777028qyk.4.2009.12.02.11.41.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:41:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:40:08 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <0E2264ED-B99F-4834-BC76-64AB38B7DBB4@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_rlBCOMPuwBQ7lJb4W2rUFQ)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=P6hzACYdR4x5ZgHmtf+BG0D+FmCcI146Wtd47hnsNyg=; b=kwzRdkSbFzgRCO1MKheVxqLnoWYIkzi2U4pY22augmruCqD4H5WUmlLGsa2AVeNZcr /zwuzugZf+f2lPckza0XN9aZIuoG6ghWgXjyq0qx364ayENzgZnBgZN+pgXHYIrjOtoY lADUEwhAvMQsaAalVfKCP5RY1tJsyOqGRBYD8= X-Listbox-UUID: A7D95F30-DF7A-11DE-86FE-DF3EA52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=jT7XWBoujFDzHzh0PueRkqsz2rjKReOurlDpsQg/NS1C7pFpKLs3CmaDgf9N3qdgTQ UsDX5lG8px54eyI8PxDNP3wvogUaoQfL/9Pwp8iXFkLgqvo7zvUyneCv0i67htO+7Uoz EaxH5Ez5Sa5iGo7TChBQjjoVAS4Yk1PqsY5as= --Boundary_(ID_rlBCOMPuwBQ7lJb4W2rUFQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Sid Karin > Date: December 2, 2009 2:32:42 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: [IP] Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > > Dave, (for IP) > > A few relevant historical details: > > The NSF established the Supercomputer Centers program in 1983 > and the first centers opened their doors in 1985. A result of the > contract (actually Cooperative Agreement) negotiations, the centers > were encouraged (read: required) to find additional funds from other > sources to help support their operations. We turned to industrial > partners as well as state government, etc. > > The industrial partners required access to the centers and this was > originally via the NSFnet. Soon the industrial partners wanted more > than just access to the center's resources for research purposes. > That is, they wanted more than what was permitted under the > acceptable use policy aimed at restricting use to non proprietary > research activities. > > The first regional networks were established by NSF in 1987 with > planned > funding phase out over a period of a few years. During that time > the regional networks began, with NSF's blessing, to successfully > seek industrial customers. Shortly thereafter the regionals > established > a number of exchange points so that, at least in principle, commercial > traffic could reach all points on the network without using the > (restricted to research) NSFnet backbone. How the traffic was > actually routed is another story. Individual consumer access began > at about the same time, with the regionals selling dial up access to > whoever wanted it. > > All this was in place and functioning by about the end of 1987 or > early 1988. At least some of the regionals were cash flow positive, > even fully profitable (*not* counting the declining NSF subsidy), > well in advance of December 1991 when the Gore bill was passed. > > Cheers, > > ......Sid > > > > >> >> >> From: Lee W McKnight >> Date: December 2, 2009 11:24:36 AM EST >> To: "dave@farber.net" , ip >> Subject: RE: [IP] : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure >> >> Dave, >> >> For IP if you wish: >> >> To clarify the historical record: it didn't matter what NSF thought >> might happen post-commercialization, even if its mandate is broader >> than Shane implies, ie including applied research which might >> contribute to growth of new (science-based) industrial sectors. >> >> It was Congress (the famous Gore Bill) which mandated >> commercialization. >> >> NSF was just following Congressional (and Presidential) orders. >> >> The Gore Bill of 1990 said the Internet would be commercial/NSF's >> subsidy to backbone would stop April 1, 1995; and it did. >> >> The bipartisan compromise of 1990 was NSF could pump $1bn into the >> backbone, over 5 years, ie $200m/yr; and then it was up to industry >> to carry the net forward. >> >> Lee McKnight >> >> PS: To all those out there who have been laughing at poor Al for >> having said something along lines of claiming he contributed to >> creating the (commercial) Internet: guess what: he did. >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Dave Farber [dave@farber.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:35 AM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Shane Greenstein > >> >> Date: December 2, 2009 9:44:48 AM EST >> To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >> >> Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure >> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > >> >> Bob Cannon raises an interesting nuance about the history of the >> Internet. He is right that about ownership -- there is no >> particular reason why the government or private industry should own >> it. The military is perfectly capable of running its own Internet, >> for example, just as are private firms. Indeed, the Internet began >> its life as a military network. That is true. But one nuance is >> missing from his historical response below. There is a common after- >> the-fact reasoning about why the NSF gave the Internet backbone to >> private industry, and it is misleading. >> >> Let's be clear about three things: >> >> First, by the time the NSF walked away from the Internet the >> network had a very decentralized operational structure. Even during >> the research days, the NSF only managed the backbone, while >> regional cooperatives managed the regional networks, and thousands >> of universities and research labs managed their own networks. This >> happened for simple budgetary reasons; the NSF did not have a >> budget to run the whole thing. In short, it was possible for the >> NSF to privatize the Internet because, in fact, most of the assets >> already were privatized, owned and operated by others. It was >> nothing sacred about private enterprise that mattered, just simple >> budgetary facts on the ground. >> >> Second, NSF is not allowed to start new industries. That is outside >> its charter, which only pertains to supporting basic research in >> the US. And talk to any NSF administrator. While they are proud of >> their role in developing the Internet, they are very precise about >> their surprise at the economic impact of the NSF privatization. >> They were not trying to start a new industry or a new economic >> revolution built around it. Indeed, to aspire to that in any way >> shape or form would have been outside their charter, and would have >> led to massive Congressional investigation. They were supporting >> basic research, and sometimes it leads to new stuff in private >> industry, but the latter is outside what they are allowed to >> influence. >> >> Third, Steve Wolf (the primary administrator for the backbone) is >> very up front about why he thought privatization was a good idea. >> For one, the technology was refined enough so that any engineer >> could operate it; and for two, he forecast that sharing the >> technology with private users would increase scale of use, which >> would bring down costs, and the research community could benefit >> from the lower costs. It is a small point, but crucial. Private >> industry could supply both government and private users in 1995, >> but government could not. In the decentralized structure of the mid >> 1990s, there was no other option for achieving that scale other >> than privatization. >> >> So, while it is nice to talk about ownership of the Internet by >> public entities and private entities in the abstract, we should >> recognize what part of that abstract debate actually mattered for >> historical events. In practice, this was close to a private >> technology before it officially privatized in the US. And, it is no >> surprise (to me) that the Internet is a government operation in the >> countries who adopted later and where the institutions push that >> way already (such as China). Oh well. So it goes. >> >> Shane >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Telecom Regulation & the Internet [CYBERTELECOM- >> L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Robert Cannon [rcannon100@YAHOO.COM] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:44 PM >> To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >> >> Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical >> Infrastructure >> >> For >> sure if "The Internet" was >> nationalized (a crazy notion, but China seems to be doing >> it OK), then there >> would be no need for regulation. >> >> The Internet was a DOD project from 1969 to 1990. Originally a >> DARPA project, day to day operations were transferred in 1975 to >> the Defense Communications Agency. In 1983, DOD migrated these >> networks to TCP/IP. >> >> In 1985, the National Science Foundation stepped in and funded >> NSFNET. NSFNET ran pursuant to NSF funding and direction until 1995. >> >> NSF originally set up the contracts for the operations of the DNS >> and IP numbering functions. That authority was transferred to Dept >> of Commerce NTIA in the late 1990s, which beget ICANN. This >> authority continues today which it has evolved. >> >> The Internet was born of USG effort. >> >> But as to the second part, whether regulation would be needed, that >> is not true either. It depends on the structure and arrangement - >> there are procurement regulations - there are regs that deal with >> funding. The postal service faces its own regulatory regimes. >> Just because something does not fit within title II of the Telecom >> Act does not mean "its not regulated." >> >> Finally, as a footnote, I would note that all telephone networks >> including AT&T was nationalized during WWI and were managed by the >> Post Office. >> >> The reason The Internet is not a federal >> entity is because of who we are. >> In the U.S., private enterprise is valued and >> cherished. However, if things >> >> The Internet was a government project for the majority of its >> existence. Yes, private enterprise is valued, but we need to be >> careful not to be mythical about the Internet. >> >> http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/internet_history.htm >> >> B >> ] >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- > > > -- > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Sidney Karin, Ph.D., P.E. 858-534-5075 (voice) > 858-755-5199 (fax) > > skarin@ucsd.edu Professor > Emeritus, > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > Director Emeritus, > San Diego Supercomputer Center > University of California, San Diego > 9500 Gilman Drive > La Jolla, CA 92093-0505 > > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_rlBCOMPuwBQ7lJb4W2rUFQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Sid Karin <skarin@ucsd.= edu>
Date: December 2, 2009 2:32:42 PM EST
To:= dave@farber.net
Subject: [IP] Re:  &n= bsp; A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure

Dave, &= nbsp; (for IP)

A few relevant h= istorical details:

The NSF establish= ed the Supercomputer Centers program in 1983
and the = first centers opened their doors in 1985.  A result of the
contract (actually Cooperative Agreement)  negotiatio= ns, the centers
were encouraged (read: required) to f= ind additional funds from other
sources to help suppo= rt their operations.    We turned to industrial=
partners as well as state government, etc.
=
The industrial partners required access to the cente= rs and this was
originally via the NSFnet.  Soon= the industrial partners wanted more
than just access= to the center's resources for research purposes.
Tha= t is, they wanted more than what was permitted under the
acceptable use policy aimed at restricting use to non proprietary=
research activities.

The first regional networks were established by NSF in 1987 with pl= anned
funding phase out over a period of a few years.=  During that time
the regional networks began, = with NSF's blessing, to successfully
seek industrial = customers.   Shortly thereafter the regionals established
a number of exchange points so that, at least in princ= iple, commercial
traffic could reach all points on th= e network without using the
(restricted to research) = NSFnet backbone.  How the traffic was
actually r= outed is another story.  Individual consumer access began=
at about the same time, with the regionals selling dial up = access to
whoever wanted it.
<= br>All this was in place and functioning by about the end of 19= 87 or
early 1988.  At least some of the regional= s were cash flow positive,
even fully profitable (*no= t* counting the declining NSF subsidy),
well in advan= ce of December 1991 when the Gore bill was passed.

   Cheers,

       ......Sid






From: Lee W McK= night <lmcknigh@syr.edu>= ;
Date: Decemb= er 2, 2009 11:24:36 AM EST
To: "dave@farber.n= et" <dave@farber.net>= ;, ip <ip@v2.listbox.com&= gt;
Subject: R= E: [IP] : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure
<= /blockquote>

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">Dave,

For IP if you wish:

To clarify the historical record: it didn't matter what NSF though= t might happen post-commercialization, even if its mandate is broader= than Shane implies, ie including applied research which might contri= bute to growth of new (science-based) industrial sectors.
<= /blockquote>

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">It was Congress (the famous Gore Bill)= which mandated commercialization.

NSF was just following Congressional (and Presidential) order= s.

=
The Gore Bill of 1990 sa= id the Internet would be commercial/NSF's subsidy to backbone would s= top April 1, 1995; and it did.

The bipartisan compromise of 1990 was NSF could pump $1bn into th= e backbone, over 5 years, ie $200m/yr; and then it was up to industry= to carry the net forward.

Lee McKnight

PS: To all = those out there who have been laughing at poor Al for having said som= ething along lines of claiming he contributed to creating the (commer= cial) Internet: guess what: he did.


____= ____________________________________
From: Dave Farber [dave@farber.net]
=
Sent: Wednesday, Decembe= r 02, 2009 10:35 AM
= To: ip
S= ubject: [IP] : A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure=

Begin forwarded message:

From: Shane Greenstein <greenstein@KELLOGG.NO= RTHWESTERN.EDU<mailto:greenstein@KELLOGG.NORTHWESTERN.EDU>>=
Date: December 2, 20= 09 9:44:48 AM EST
To: <mailto= :CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM<mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@LIS= TSERV.AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure<= /span>
Reply-To: Tele= com Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM<mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@LIS= TSERV.AOL.COM>>

Bob Cannon raises an interesting nuance about the history of the I= nternet. He is right that about ownership -- there is no particular r= eason why the government or private industry should own it. The milit= ary is perfectly capable of running its own Internet, for example, ju= st as are private firms. Indeed, the Internet began its life as a mil= itary network. That is true. But one nuance is missing from his histo= rical response below. There is a common after-the-fact reasoning abou= t why the NSF gave the Internet backbone to private industry, and it = is misleading.

Let's be cle= ar about three things:

Firs= t, by the time the NSF walked away from the Internet the network had = a very decentralized operational structure. Even during the research = days, the NSF only managed the backbone, while regional cooperatives = managed the regional networks, and thousands of universities and rese= arch labs managed their own networks. This happened for simple budget= ary reasons; the NSF did not have a budget to run the whole thing. In= short, it was possible for the NSF to privatize the Internet because= , in fact, most of the assets already were privatized, owned and oper= ated by others. It was nothing sacred about private enterprise that m= attered, just simple budgetary facts on the ground.

Second, NSF is not allowed to start new indu= stries. That is outside its charter, which only pertains to supportin= g basic research in the US. And talk to any NSF administrator. While = they are proud of their role in developing the Internet, they are ver= y precise about their surprise at the economic impact of the NSF priv= atization. They were not trying to start a new industry or a new econ= omic revolution built around it. Indeed, to aspire to that in any way= shape or form would have been outside their charter, and would have = led to massive Congressional investigation. They were supporting basi= c research, and sometimes it leads to new stuff in private industry, = but the latter is outside what they are allowed to influence.<= br>

Third, Steve Wolf (the primary adm= inistrator for the backbone) is very up front about why he thought pr= ivatization was a good idea. For one, the technology was refined enou= gh so that any engineer could operate it; and for two, he forecast th= at sharing the technology with private users would increase scale of = use, which would bring down costs, and the research community could b= enefit from the lower costs. It is a small point, but crucial. Privat= e industry could supply both government and private users in 1995, bu= t government could not. In the decentralized structure of the mid 199= 0s, there was no other option for achieving that scale other than pri= vatization.

So, while it is= nice to talk about ownership of the Internet by public entities and = private entities in the abstract, we should recognize what part of th= at abstract debate actually mattered for historical events. In practi= ce, this was close to a private technology before it officially priva= tized in the US. And, it is no surprise (to me) that the Internet is = a government operation in the countries who adopted later and where t= he institutions push that way already (such as China). Oh well. So it= goes.
=
Shane



________________________________________
From: Telecom Regulation & the Inte= rnet [CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Robert Cannon [rc= annon100@YAHOO.COM]
= Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:44 PM
To: <mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>= CYBERTELECOM-L@LI= STSERV.AOL.COM<mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: [CYBERTEL] A Ridicu= lous Failure of Critical Infrastructure

For
sure if "The Internet" was
nationalized (a crazy notion, but China seems to = be doing
it OK= ), then there
= would be no need for regulation.

= The Internet was a DOD project from 1969 to 1990.  Origina= lly a DARPA project, day to day operations were transferred in 1975 t= o the Defense Communications Agency.  In 1983, DOD migrated thes= e networks to TCP/IP.

In 19= 85, the National Science Foundation stepped in and funded NSFNET. &nb= sp;NSFNET ran pursuant to NSF funding and direction until 1995.

NSF originally set up the contra= cts for the operations of the DNS and IP numbering functions.  T= hat authority was transferred to Dept of Commerce NTIA in the late 19= 90s, which beget ICANN.  This authority continues today which it= has evolved.
=
The Internet = was born of USG effort.

But= as to the second part, whether regulation would be needed, that is n= ot true either.  It depends on the structure and arrangement - t= here are procurement regulations - there are regs that deal with fund= ing.  The postal service faces its own regulatory regimes.  = ;Just because something does not fit within title II of the Telecom A= ct does not mean "its not regulated."

Finally, as a footnote, I would note that all telephone ne= tworks including AT&T was nationalized during WWI and were manage= d by the Post Office.

The = reason The Internet is not a federal
entity is because of who we are.
In the U.S., private enterp= rise is valued and
<= span>cherished.  However, if things

The Internet was a government project for the majorit= y of its existence.  Yes, private enterprise is valued, but we n= eed to be careful not to be mythical about the Internet.

http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/interne= t_history.htm

B<= br>
Archives<> [https://www.listbox.com/images= /feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <= http://www.listbox.com>




-------------------------------------------
Archives:
http:/= /www.listbox.com


--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  &= nbsp; Sidney Karin, Ph.D., P.E.      &n= bsp; 858-534-5075 (voice)
   &nb= sp;           =            &nb= sp;            = ;  858-755-5199 (fax)
    &= nbsp;          &nbs= p;           &= nbsp;            &n= bsp;skarin@ucsd.edu  &nbs= p;           &= nbsp;          &nbs= p;           &= nbsp;      Professor Emeritus,     Department of Computer Science and E= ngineering
    Director Emeritus= ,
    San Diego Supercomputer Ce= nter
    University of Californi= a, San Diego
    9500 Gilman Dri= ve
    La Jolla,  CA  = 92093-0505


--Boundary_(ID_rlBCOMPuwBQ7lJb4W2rUFQ)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:19 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100M01QWSSN@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.5]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100L97QWSDX@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:38:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.38]) by b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B23AC059 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:39:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554C1AC807 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:39:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F089C5EB for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:26:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f203.google.com (mail-vw0-f203.google.com [209.85.212.203]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE459C5EA for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:26:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws41 with SMTP id 41so278996vws.15 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.128.1 with SMTP id i1mr841130vcs.87.1259792794276; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm3038347vws.12.2009.12.02.14.26.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:26:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:25:35 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <05B91949-1EE8-458B-A9FA-B5A3971616D7@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_e86rtoSuLXx3IBw9iosX+w)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=rjsspGmjmLrrO134ZUKhjOSlrAbkqXRxwWqRjbhhPDo=; b=Ruiiv7JwQ9SM7dLWcCex7q3vgB17QlVgFbEHZeEpnEmeBAQKrdUw9m0lXzjekAwNud y338ihoq5TufHMxnw9iHXS0Ph65nBEE+h9R6NvrAq7KyeIoRLoV4lzrEEje6Qir/mCCi LAzeXlpwF96ERqyMOkd0nFVxLphVk2WkvLPx0= X-Listbox-UUID: C051BA0A-DF91-11DE-951C-5C5CA52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=a+81Ym1vDXY2mCtozBrKnH1GMHlqna1XFgmjjG2ubeExcAFZrRl1Ikusd0pw5MYjW/ DnnT6xYWtJSHW7tLrCN5xStaidU/010lTNsXsAdurPSH5VVwiDdHeUYnrw1Lu/o0h01+ 9+WHnnmB+CoiMHCYWv9GiCDLgfqkpkJvp0Wv0= --Boundary_(ID_e86rtoSuLXx3IBw9iosX+w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: stephen wolff > Date: December 2, 2009 5:23:48 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Cc: ip > Subject: Re: [IP] Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical > Infrastructure > > I think you're talking about the High Performance Computing and > Communications Program, which contained lots more than networking > (supercomputing and software and education) and was multi-agency > (NSF, DoE, NASA, DARPA, ...) to boot. > > NSF never saw a billion dollars for network infrastructure. > > stephen wolff > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:40, David Farber wrote: > >> The bipartisan compromise of 1990 was NSF could pump $1bn into the >> backbone, over 5 years, ie $200m/yr; and then it was up to industry >> to carry the net forward. > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_e86rtoSuLXx3IBw9iosX+w) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: stephen wolff <swolff@= cisco.com>
Date: December 2, 2009 5:23:48 PM EST
= To: dave@farber.net
Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject:= Re: [IP] Re:    A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infras= tructure

I think you're talking about the High Performanc= e Computing and Communications Program, which contained lots more tha= n networking (supercomputing and software and education) and was mult= i-agency (NSF, DoE, NASA, DARPA, ...) to boot.

NSF never saw a billion dollars for network infrastructure= .

stephen wolff

On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:40, David Farber wrote:
=
The bipartisan compr= omise of 1990 was NSF could pump $1bn into the backbone, over 5 years= , ie $200m/yr; and then it was up to industry to carry the net forwar= d.

--Boundary_(ID_e86rtoSuLXx3IBw9iosX+w)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:20 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100N01RCKBD@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:48:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.5]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100JKARCKMY@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:48:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.38]) by b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D01CAC4B1 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823B9AB2E5 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:48:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B119F30F for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:41:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f178.google.com (mail-vw0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935739F30E for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws8 with SMTP id 8so322265vws.21 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.123.32 with SMTP id n32mr828184vcr.108.1259793701101; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm3059939vws.10.2009.12.02.14.41.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:41:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:40:39 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_KNtWdAgYEdND06eCJ4B0+g)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=bJ3VqgVQhHSShJi8hi7QwNGLgZZXhGqURXsRtR9Ajfc=; b=EvqRI2sDCMB++IjFfdkn3D8HpcCeMAIh43gDI8x1bWcd2y7E2GHOdGFVDqO2wjgmYv UW1wDVoxTEk2paqoENc4r/kNDJQyRrV+G2GMSRM3egXawqe6Mbnm+l413Gd5Dt+rNiwH XKg6MmoOelNW+MMjSZ7fGifgSdpJWQVrmapDM= X-Listbox-UUID: DD35B7DC-DF93-11DE-AFCE-B5E5F4DC2495 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <4A3354E7-AA34-4891-AB78-DDB6A91876FD@cisco.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=mZp7gPUuxxQpsqETWxVL1QVlBBamBdkoaB9em7dr1JQn7EoF4ZWyHS9lhK1zV/I2E8 dcWYt8YU3NBtb7bjm1IXB0qysGggdODKjRt8PAzOnsKF7ogtJjKQuz8Thpv4Ejo6jPoX DvgrbzSE6nSCGIymtRGXbMHxaf0/EnW4DvlXQ= --Boundary_(ID_KNtWdAgYEdND06eCJ4B0+g) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: stephen wolff > Date: December 2, 2009 5:06:12 PM EST > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:28, John S. Quarterman wrote: > >> I seem to recall technology transfer being a big buzzword at the >> time, >> at Congressional insistence. Weren't all the NSF regionals required >> to promote technology transfer? > > > I think not. NSF did not ask for the PSInet and ANS spinouts to > happen. > >> Does this discussion remind anyone else of the com-priv mailing list? > > > > -stephen wolff ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_KNtWdAgYEdND06eCJ4B0+g) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: stephen wolff <swolff@= CISCO.COM>
Date: December 2, 2009 5:06:12 PM EST
= To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.A= OL.COM
Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Crit= ical Infrastructure
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & = the Internet <C= YBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:28,= John S. Quarterman wrote:

I seem to recall technology transfer being a big buz= zword at the time,
<= span>at Congressional insistence.  Weren't all the NSF regionals= required
to p= romote technology transfer?

<= span>
I think not.  NSF did not ask for the PSIn= et and ANS spinouts to happen.

Does this discussion remind anyone else of the c= om-priv mailing list?

&= lt;Heh!>

-stephen wolff
--Boundary_(ID_KNtWdAgYEdND06eCJ4B0+g)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:21 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100N01RD0BS@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:48:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.83]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100L95RD0TO@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:48:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E7EAA8AB for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.87]) by b-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC99AA8A8 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071D0AAF40 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1099C66B for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f178.google.com (mail-vw0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79FC9C66A for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:43:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws8 with SMTP id 8so323331vws.21 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:43:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.122.170 with SMTP id l42mr857125vcr.93.1259793831308; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:43:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm3063156vws.10.2009.12.02.14.43.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:43:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:42:44 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <5A1225A6-E5CF-441F-84D1-5B08562955C8@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_AVauotaI1dGDKRS2OKEowA)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=e6LRVX/+bh7COscRc fk3Nzk2+DY=; b=Ub9tRy4kh7E49uKTQGDQYUATpy3Ukl+R+TBfNFp9MOGto6pj2 FiQpazOHU8TR5iSVgQxtnGITFCORF/kSRMgzw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=i0CG4ezzVKL1evjdxKjPGHoXYw51LEMPXlh1OzH2O/4=; b=llyKy1mZltGfaGHtt2r7abY/rHdiwG7AwCMGYhB4Wi1uzz8Ngw4pRaiZ6H7/ok9Jgt DmP9nXUwBQe6FdXFmYBMA5+uB5ISXt9TuYf67sBF76RpDvaRhZ+ZhiV4xQUWQW3LYjiD NdH06z6zUYPtwBt3sDJVtvQRYP4/0VI7DTBL8= X-Listbox-UUID: 2A891ABA-DF94-11DE-BC32-CC9EA52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <1259791938.765287.12588@marut.quarterman.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=rXKXmzCdGoOX1nGEKmIK2N6VxkFtp3GSvLlEaQ5Iw3+nmDvmYxFz3NjKGajbIQJsMy oBk5IockR8UyT5aOeLM4AuS4w1OGGDsi6+xCOkCFs04sMVvVj22oNEjppJZOfxrUGNdU YjOS7y1RyCHhpeGznoBVpGOAtNy3zlRmefLRo= --Boundary_(ID_AVauotaI1dGDKRS2OKEowA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: "John S. Quarterman" > Date: December 2, 2009 5:12:17 PM EST > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > > Shane, > > UUNET dates to 1987 as a dialup provider. > The World was the first commercial dialup ISP to offer Internet > access, > in 1989. > CERFNet and NEARNet already existed in their NSFNet regional forms > by around 1989. > UUNET and PSINet started offering commercial Internet access in 1991. > > If I've got any of those dates wrong, I'm sure someone will correct > me, > and all the principals are still alive and on the Internet, so you can > ask them. > > Why 1991? That's when NSFNet modified its Acceptable Use Policy > to permit commercial TCP/IP services to interconnect with NSFNet. > > http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_nsfnet.htm > > Not that UUNET (AlterNet) and PSINet waited for the official > starting pistol. > > I think the only point on which you and I differ is that if I > understand > you correctly you seem to think NSFNet did nothing to promote > privatization > before that date. It's my memory that NSF insisted on technology > transfer > long before then, because Congress insisted on it. It wasn't an > accident > that CERFNet, NEARNet, and other commercial entitites forked off from > NSFNet regionals. That was always one of the likely outcomes because > of technology transfer. > > "The networks of Stages 2 and 3 will be implemented and operated so > that they can become commercialized; industry will then be able to > supplant the government in supplying these network services." -- > Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee, Program Plan for > the National Research and Education Network, May 23, 1989, pp. 4-5. > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1192.html > > And it would appear the feds knew some of the likely effects > of what they were doing: > > "The NREN should be the prototype of a new national information > infrastructure which could be available to every home, office and > factory. Wherever information is used, from manufacturing to high- > definition home video entertainment, and most particularly in > education, the country will benefit from deployment of this > technology.... The corresponding ease of inter-computer > communication will then provide the benefits associated with the > NREN > to the entire nation, improving the productivity of all information- > handling activities. To achieve this end, the deployment of the > Stage 3 NREN will include a specific, structured process resulting > in > transition of the network from a government operation a commercial > service." -- Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal > High Performance Computing Program, September 8, 1989, pp. 32, 35. > > This was the formalization of technology transfer resulting in > commercialization and privatization. > > As RFC1192 (see above URL) notes, much privatization had already > occured by November 1990: > > "In some respects, the Internet is already > substantially privatized. The physical circuits are owned by the > private sector, and the logical networks are usually managed and > operated by the private sector. The nonprofit regional networks of > the NSFNET increasingly contract out routine operations, including > network information centers, while retaining control of policy and > planning functions. This helps develop expertise, resources, and > competition in the private sector and so facilitates the development > of similar commercial services. > > "In the case of NSFNET, the annual federal investment covers only a > minor part of the backbone and the regional networks. Although the > NSFNET backbone is operated as a cooperative agreement between NSF > and Merit, the Michigan higher education network, NSF contributes > less than $3 million of approximately $10 million in annual costs. > The State of Michigan Strategic Fund contributes $1 million and the > balance is covered by contributed services from the subcontractors > to > Merit, IBM and MCI." > > The RFC goes on to note that the NSFNet regionals were even less > supported > by the feds. > > The participants in the workshop that RFC writes up included > Rick Adams (UUNET), Bill Schrader (PSI), and Stephen Wolff (NSF). > The existing commercial outfits weren't waiting for the feds to change > their policies: they were actively working with the feds towards that > goal, and already selling commercial services at the same time. > > You wonder why more such outfits didn't spring up? First of all, > remember how much smaller the Internet community was back then. > I can dig up the numbers, if you like, but it wasn't until DNS > was deployed that exponential growth of the Internet really took > off, and that wasn't until the last 1980s. In 1991 there were > only a few million Internet users in the entire world. It was > still a smallish market, and there weren't all that many entrepeneurs > willing to bet on it. 1995 was the year the Internet became trendy, > because of Mosaic fronting the brand-new World Wide Web. Pictures! > And soon, banner ads! > > That there were even two companies willing to make a successful > go at commercial Internet access back in the tiny and antique > world of the late 1980s is the surprising part. > > Risky as a commerical proposition? UUNET was a commercial success > from > dialup access. PSI had a captive market in NYSerNet. > > UUNET and PSI originally occupied relatively small niches. Once UUNET > got going it was harder for competitors to go head to head with them, > and the PSI protagonists were the only ones who were willing to quit > their NSFNet regional and offer their services back to it, which was a > rather controversial move at the time. > > I don't find it so surprising that there were only two. I find it > more surprising that there were as many as two, each finding a > different approach to commercial viability. > > Back in the 1980s commercialization of the Internet was not a > certain outcome. > There were vociferous opponents of any commercial use of the Internet, > some of them in very influential positions. And there were commercial > private gardens that considered the academic networks more or less > irrelevant > (remember CompuServe? Prodigy?). Plus the dialup BBS community. > > This is why I brought up com-priv: all these issues were hashed out at > great length on that list. Probably somebody has archives of it. > > Other countries had their own peculiar policies. France had Minitel > and thought it was best. Japan didn't allow private commercial > data interconnections until 1994. Etc. > > Interestingly, although there are quite a few books about the > early days of the ARPANET and of the Internet (I wrote one of them), > so far as I know nobody has yet written a book about this critical > period of commercialization and privatization. It's not clear to me > there'd be much of a market for such a book, unfortunately. > > Anyway, there are people on Cybertelecom-L who were involved in all > these things. Most of the rest of the major players are on the net > and > answer their mail. Many of them are on Facebook, for that matter. > I know you know some of them. And you've probably noticed that > everybody has a point of view.... > > As far as the idea of renationalizing the Internet, I think it > would be even more useful to look at the state of commercialization > and privatization in those countries that have fast, affordable, > ubiquitous Internet access, such as Japan, Korea, Finland, etc. > They all have multiple competing private providers. Multiple as > in multiple in any given location, unlike the U.S. duopoly of > cableco and telco. And they all have government regulations > of that competition. "Robust open access policies", as this > report calls them: > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5751#penetration > > -jsq > > >> John, >> >> A very fair point. And well taken. There were spinoffs, you are >> quite right, >> and from some very smart people. And it is possible to trace some >> benefits to >> the US economy directly from those spinoffs. Looking back, the >> interesting >> question is about timing. More PSI's did not spring up in 1989. >> UUNet comes >> to mind, and some dial-up ISPs, but a lot less than I would later >> events >> would lead one to expect (albeit, with the benefit of hindsight). I >> conjecture (as an outsider) that most waited until NSF privatization >> plan was put into place, simply because doing anything before than >> was >> incredibly risky as a commercial proposition. Is that right? >> >> Shane ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_AVauotaI1dGDKRS2OKEowA) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@QUARTERMAN.COM>
Date: December 2, 2009 5:12:17= PM EST
To: CYBERTELECOM-L= @LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Fail= ure of Critical Infrastructure
Reply-To: Telecom Regula= tion & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

Shane,<= br>
UUNET dates to 1987 as a dialup provider.
The World was the first commercial dialup ISP to offer= Internet access,
in 1989.
CERFNet an= d NEARNet already existed in their NSFNet regional forms
by around 1989.
UUNET and PSINet started offering= commercial Internet access in 1991.

If I've got any of those dates wrong, I'm sure someone will correct = me,
and all the principals are still alive and on the= Internet, so you can
ask them.

Why 1991?  That's when NSFNet modified its Acceptabl= e Use Policy
to permit commercial TCP/IP services to = interconnect with NSFNet.

http://www.livinginternet.com= /i/ii_nsfnet.htm

Not that UU= NET (AlterNet) and PSINet waited for the official starting pistol.

I think the only point on which you an= d I differ is that if I understand
you correctly you = seem to think NSFNet did nothing to promote privatization
<= span>before that date.  It's my memory that NSF insisted on tech= nology transfer
long before then, because Congress in= sisted on it.  It wasn't an accident
that CERFNe= t, NEARNet, and other commercial entitites forked off from
= NSFNet regionals.  That was always one of the likely outco= mes because
of technology transfer.
<= /span>
"The networks of Stages 2 and 3 will be implemented = and operated so
 that they can become commercia= lized; industry will then be able to
 supplant = the government in supplying these network services."  --<= br>  Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee, Pro= gram Plan for
 the National Research and Educat= ion Network, May 23, 1989, pp. 4-5.

= http://www.faqs.org= /rfcs/rfc1192.html

And it would = appear the feds knew some of the likely effects
of wh= at they were doing:

 "The NREN= should be the prototype of a new national information
  infrastructure which could be available to every home,= office and
  factory.  Wherever info= rmation is used, from manufacturing to high-
 &= nbsp;definition home video entertainment, and most particularly in
  education, the country will benefit from d= eployment of this
  technology....  T= he corresponding ease of inter-computer
  = communication will then provide the benefits associated with the NREN=
  to the entire nation, improving the pro= ductivity of all information-
  handling a= ctivities.  To achieve this end, the deployment of the   Stage 3 NREN will include a specific, structured = process resulting in
  transition of the n= etwork from a government operation a commercial
&nbs= p; service."  -- Office of Science and Technology Policy, T= he Federal
  High Performance Computing Pr= ogram, September 8, 1989, pp. 32, 35.

This was the formalization of technology transfer resulting in
commercialization and privatization.

As RFC1192 (see above URL) notes, much privatization had= already
occured by November 1990:

 "In some respects, the Internet is already
  substantially privatized.  The physical= circuits are owned by the
  private secto= r, and the logical networks are usually managed and
=   operated by the private sector.  The nonprofit regio= nal networks of
  the NSFNET increasingly = contract out routine operations, including
 &nb= sp;network information centers, while retaining control of policy and=
  planning functions.  This helps de= velop expertise, resources, and
  competit= ion in the private sector and so facilitates the development   of similar commercial services.
=
 "In the case of NSFNET, the annual federal in= vestment covers only a
  minor part of the= backbone and the regional networks.  Although the
  NSFNET backbone is operated as a cooperative agreemen= t between NSF
  and Merit, the Michigan hi= gher education network, NSF contributes
  = less than $3 million of approximately $10 million in annual costs.
  The State of Michigan Strategic Fund contr= ibutes $1 million and the
  balance is cov= ered by contributed services from the subcontractors to
  Merit, IBM and MCI."

The RFC goes on to note that the NSFNet regionals were even less sup= ported
by the feds.

= The participants in the workshop that RFC writes up includedRick Adams (UUNET), Bill Schrader (PSI), and Stephen Wolff (N= SF).
The existing commercial outfits weren't waiting = for the feds to change
their policies: they were acti= vely working with the feds towards that
goal, and alr= eady selling commercial services at the same time.

You wonder why more such outfits didn't spring up? &nb= sp;First of all,
remember how much smaller the Intern= et community was back then.
I can dig up the numbers,= if you like, but it wasn't until DNS
was deployed th= at exponential growth of the Internet really took
off= , and that wasn't until the last 1980s.  In 1991 there were
only a few million Internet users in the entire world. &n= bsp;It was
still a smallish market, and there weren't= all that many entrepeneurs
willing to bet on it. &nb= sp;1995 was the year the Internet became trendy,
beca= use of Mosaic fronting the brand-new World Wide Web.  Pictures!<= /span>
And soon, banner ads!

That there were even two companies willing to make a successful
go at commercial Internet access back in the tiny and an= tique
world of the late 1980s is the surprising part.=

Risky as a commerical proposition? =  UUNET was a commercial success from
dialup acce= ss.  PSI had a captive market in NYSerNet.

UUNET and PSI originally occupied relatively small niches= .  Once UUNET
got going it was harder for compet= itors to go head to head with them,
and the PSI prota= gonists were the only ones who were willing to quit
t= heir NSFNet regional and offer their services back to it, which was a=
rather controversial move at the time.

I don't find it so surprising that there were onl= y two.  I find it
more surprising that there wer= e as many as two, each finding a
different approach t= o commercial viability.

Back in the = 1980s commercialization of the Internet was not a certain outcome.
There were vociferous opponents of any commercial use o= f the Internet,
some of them in very influential posi= tions.  And there were commercial
private garden= s that considered the academic networks more or less irrelevant
(remember CompuServe? Prodigy?).  Plus the dialup BBS= community.

This is why I brought up= com-priv: all these issues were hashed out at
great = length on that list.  Probably somebody has archives of it.

Other countries had their own peculiar p= olicies.  France had Minitel
and thought it was = best.  Japan didn't allow private commercial
dat= a interconnections until 1994.  Etc.

= Interestingly, although there are quite a few books about the
early days of the ARPANET and of the Internet (I wrote= one of them),
so far as I know nobody has yet writte= n a book about this critical
period of commercializat= ion and privatization.  It's not clear to me
the= re'd be much of a market for such a book, unfortunately.

Anyway, there are people on Cybertelecom-L who w= ere involved in all
these things.  Most of the r= est of the major players are on the net and
answer th= eir mail.  Many of them are on Facebook, for that matter.=
I know you know some of them.  And you've probably not= iced that
everybody has a point of view....
As far as the idea of renationalizing the Int= ernet, I think it
would be even more useful to look a= t the state of commercialization
and privatization in= those countries that have fast, affordable,
ubiquito= us Internet access, such as Japan, Korea, Finland, etc.
They all have multiple competing private providers.  Multiple= as
in multiple in any given location, unlike the U.S= . duopoly of
cableco and telco.  And they all ha= ve government regulations
of that competition.  = "Robust open access policies", as this
report calls t= hem:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5751#pen= etration

-jsq


John, <= /span>

A very fair point. And well= taken. There were spinoffs, you are quite right,
and from some very smart people.= And it is possible to trace some benefits to
=
the US economy directly from those s= pinoffs. Looking back, the interesting
question is about timing. More PSI's did not= spring up in 1989. UUNet comes
to mind, and some dial-up ISPs, but a lot less than= I would later events
would lead one to expect (albeit, with the benefit of hindsig= ht). I
conject= ure (as an outsider) that most waited until NSF privatization<= br>
plan was put into pla= ce, simply because doing anything before than was
incredibly risky as a commercial = proposition. Is that right?

Shane
--Boundary_(ID_AVauotaI1dGDKRS2OKEowA)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:22 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100P01SLQ16@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100O7USLQEP@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:15:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF35ABAA4 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:06:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A83AAD384 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DE69F03C for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:25:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f203.google.com (mail-vw0-f203.google.com [209.85.212.203]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196409F03B for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:25:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws41 with SMTP id 41so278666vws.15 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.122.96 with SMTP id k32mr828474vcr.96.1259792742468; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm3038347vws.12.2009.12.02.14.25.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:24:40 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <0225A45F-FE51-4D7E-B3D2-89626EBA16EC@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_e7QzPEoZm9CCQMpuxDamhQ)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=XIVGYpwbExMGlH68QQez2PiyF7tZ3VtFR/Ewd3ai9rA=; b=KTFrpSs0Cb5lZFsMGAZ9vPiCATCvUMUCh//p9gMDbvpnkeTn03bk4fVnMAU1bkd5DU aOe5PK/wLgEuY8gI8BpFf/imuvkbzr4l8/v7dpOGItKfO6b4vGtfKRd6BOmkdyJAYOIE nzS/kmHxTrMxsYcQzd3qpeMmByfHB0uVJFWhg= X-Listbox-UUID: A1D5AB04-DF91-11DE-8516-A14E8E78DC3C X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <200912022210.nB2MA86T008755@lserv-m02.elist.aol.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=Fmt6My3t566TKIG9efFMzVSy8NAXPspA1+Ip2FipciW2jtWgTnnWdrwcEjFXem4KSc F16cph1uWH+3neVE4gVRMhycWeb49OnZf0ePwAmehd6LBIDARE2r+Rob2fPgLF3tuSZX DMY+ITNuggM67KCzpK+DrumE0ratEESm31h7c= --Boundary_(ID_e7QzPEoZm9CCQMpuxDamhQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Bruce Kushnick > Date: December 2, 2009 5:10:09 PM EST > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_e7QzPEoZm9CCQMpuxDamhQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT




Begin forwarded message:

From: Bruce Kushnick <bruce@NEWNETWORKS.COM>
Date: December 2, 2009 5:10:09 PM EST
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

--Boundary_(ID_e7QzPEoZm9CCQMpuxDamhQ)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:23 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100P01SML2I@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100LDBS52DX@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF35ABAA4 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:06:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A83AAD384 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DE69F03C for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:25:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f203.google.com (mail-vw0-f203.google.com [209.85.212.203]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196409F03B for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:25:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws41 with SMTP id 41so278666vws.15 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.122.96 with SMTP id k32mr828474vcr.96.1259792742468; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm3038347vws.12.2009.12.02.14.25.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:24:40 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <0225A45F-FE51-4D7E-B3D2-89626EBA16EC@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Kc44TigZeuHQ14/E4f0nMw)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=XIVGYpwbExMGlH68QQez2PiyF7tZ3VtFR/Ewd3ai9rA=; b=KTFrpSs0Cb5lZFsMGAZ9vPiCATCvUMUCh//p9gMDbvpnkeTn03bk4fVnMAU1bkd5DU aOe5PK/wLgEuY8gI8BpFf/imuvkbzr4l8/v7dpOGItKfO6b4vGtfKRd6BOmkdyJAYOIE nzS/kmHxTrMxsYcQzd3qpeMmByfHB0uVJFWhg= X-Listbox-UUID: A1D5AB04-DF91-11DE-8516-A14E8E78DC3C X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <200912022210.nB2MA86T008755@lserv-m02.elist.aol.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=Fmt6My3t566TKIG9efFMzVSy8NAXPspA1+Ip2FipciW2jtWgTnnWdrwcEjFXem4KSc F16cph1uWH+3neVE4gVRMhycWeb49OnZf0ePwAmehd6LBIDARE2r+Rob2fPgLF3tuSZX DMY+ITNuggM67KCzpK+DrumE0ratEESm31h7c= --Boundary_(ID_Kc44TigZeuHQ14/E4f0nMw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Bruce Kushnick > Date: December 2, 2009 5:10:09 PM EST > To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_Kc44TigZeuHQ14/E4f0nMw) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT




Begin forwarded message:

From: Bruce Kushnick <bruce@NEWNETWORKS.COM>
Date: December 2, 2009 5:10:09 PM EST
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

--Boundary_(ID_Kc44TigZeuHQ14/E4f0nMw)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:24 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100P01SRD9O@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100LASSRDTO@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470C9AB4CE for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BB4ABAAC for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945E99C6BE for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:57:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.198]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F009C6BD for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:57:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB2Mv4OH026990 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:57:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:57:04 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] In the thick of it: how the Digital Economy bill is trying to kill open Wi-Fi networks To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <68CEB21C-AD0E-41C9-AC0E-F27BF78EF468@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.198 X-Listbox-UUID: 0417E2CE-DF96-11DE-A10B-7CA8A52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <36DB2E7D-0B1C-4D67-89BF-E762DC7178C8@warpspeed.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks) Date: December 1, 2009 7:02:12 PM EST To: Dewayne-Net Technology List Subject: [Dewayne-Net] In the thick of it: how the Digital Economy bi= ll is trying to kill open Wi-Fi networks In the thick of it: how the Digital Economy bill is trying to kill op= en Wi-Fi networks A professor of internet law explains how the government apparently wa= nts to kill off open Wi-Fi as a corollary of its Digital Economy bill Lilian Edwards guardian.co.uk,=09 Monday 30 November 2009 21.44 GMT A lot of people have talked to me over the last week about Wi-Fi (ope= n and closed, i.e. password-protected) and the Digital Economy bill. = The more I try to find answers, the more ludicrous it becomes. For in= stance, last week it turned out that a pub owner was allegedly fined = =A38,000 because someone downloaded copyright material over their ope= n Wi-Fi system. Would that get worse or better if the Digital Economy= bill passes in its present form? To illustrate, I'm going to pick my favourite example of a potentiall= y worried wireless network provider: my mum. She doesn't understand or like the internet, refuses to even think ab= out securing her Wi-Fi network. What is her legal status? What will s= he say if/when she receives warnings under the Digital Economy bill b= ecause someone has used her open Wi-Fi to download infringing files? Well, the bill contemplates that warnings can be sent only to "subscr= ibers". These include alleged infringers, and those who have "allowed= " others to use their access to the internet to allegedly infringe. T= hat sounds a lot like it covers those who operate Wi-Fi networks (and= is meant to). Later in the bill, however, a "subscriber" is defined = as any person who "(a) receives the service under an agreement betwee= n the person and the provider of the service; and (b) does not receiv= e it as a communications provider". [snip]RSS Feed: -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:25 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100001SRZAC@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100OAESRYEP@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEDF2ABBAE for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8580AAC18E for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F9E9C70B for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:03:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.198]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9259C70A for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:03:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp03.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nB2N39Ua027031 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:03:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:03:09 -0500 From: David Farber Subject: [IP] FCC Technical Advisory Process For Open Internet Proceeding And Announces Workshop To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <57E9B5F0-7FDF-4FA4-B25F-EF3C7EF85744@farber.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.198 X-Listbox-UUID: DD610466-DF96-11DE-ADE0-B584A52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <732959.94047.qm@web37907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 Begin forwarded message: =46rom: Robert Cannon Date: December 2, 2009 5:26:37 PM EST To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: FCC=92s Office Of Engineering & Technology Es tablishes Tech= nical Advisory Process For Open Internet Proceeding And Announces Wor= kshop Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:=09=09NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: December 2, 2009=09=09Walter Johnston: (202) 418-0807 =09=09Email: walter.johnston@fcc.gov =09=09Jon Peha: (202)-418-2406 =09=09Email: jon.peha@fcc.gov =09=09=09 Federal Communications Commission=92s Office Of Engineering & Technol= ogy Establishes Technical Advisory Process For Open Internet Proceedi= ng And Announces Workshop Washington, D.C. =96 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) toda= y announced that the Chief of the FCC=92s Office of Engineering & Tec= hnology (OET) has established a Technical Advisory Process to ensure = that decisions in the Commission=92s proceeding on the open Internet = reflect a thorough understanding of current technology and future tec= hnology trends. The process will provide an inclusive, open, and tra= nsparent forum for obtaining the best technical data and insights fro= m a broad range of stakeholders, including through a public workshop = on December 8, 2009 in the Commission meeting room. The Technical Advisory Process was called for in the FCC=92s October = 22, 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, =93In the Matter of Preservin= g the Open Internet, Broadband Industry Practices=94 (FCC 09-93), GN = Docket No. 09-191, WN Docket 07-52, which proposed draft rules to pre= serve the open Internet. OET has now established a technical working= group comprised of engineers and technologists from across the FCC= =92s bureaus and offices to receive information from stakeholders on = the technical issues in the open Internet proceeding. The working gr= oup will hold ex parte meetings with engineers and other interested p= arties to understand the range of views in the technical community on= the issues presented by the open Internet rulemaking, identify any a= reas of common ground between stakeholders, and clarify the scope of = key differences. In addition, FCC engineers from the working group w= ill be integrated into other teams within the Commission considering = the various issues raised in the open Internet proceeding. The Technical Advisory Process will include a workshop on December 8,= 2009 starting at 10 a.m. in the Commission meeting room, which will = be open to the public and live streamed via the Internet. The worksh= op will consist of tutorial presentations by experts on network manag= ement practices for various Internet access service delivery platform= s, followed by questions from the Commission=92s technical working gr= oup and members of the public. An agenda for the workshop will be made available soon. The workshop= will be open to the public; however, admittance will be limited to t= he seating available. Audio/video coverage of the workshop will be b= roadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the website= for this proceeding at http://www.openinternet.gov.=20 Reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities are available= upon request. Please include a description of the accommodation you= will need. Individuals making such requests must include their cont= act information should FCC staff need to contact them for more inform= ation. Requests should be made as early as possible. Please send an= e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs= Bureau: 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). =20 For additional information about the workshop, please contact Walter = Johnson at (202) 418-0807 or by email at walter.johnston@fcc.gov, or = Jon Peha at (202) 418-2406 or by email at jon.peha@fcc.gov. Parties wishing to meet with the technical working group should conta= ct Sandra Mata at (202) 418-2470 or by e-mail at sandra.mata@fcc.gov = . -FCC- -------------------------------------------   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:26 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100001SSDAJ@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:19:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100NC1SSDCJ@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:19:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D015ABFE6 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:20:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B363AC560 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A529C9F386 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-qy0-f193.google.com (mail-qy0-f193.google.com [209.85.221.193]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6809F385 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:05:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31so369502qyk.9 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.30.209 with SMTP id v17mr427504qac.188.1259795138911; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm886138qyk.6.2009.12.02.15.05.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:05:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:04:36 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_x5d0NZjU3Mx4U/dnmO/OjQ)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=q7Biff1hrSZSGIQGqMOH9x3/3UULnim9kkiB4qFiecA=; b=UfeRaH5rXKwmSfswT9Tr5HPbiE5yGHX9hlm98eoxtMkHX3g1QeVvh361GG06Lk8B2j wD1v3W8Qq7nlWY9SCm2iidf39MG7APbmAVtKnB+HzEvpp+rx6xl5n7A5sHQXas0u6N3j vh5BvaT1ROI5PEVpsNDeuovIXCzSlimGbiyyg= X-Listbox-UUID: 35E2F8BA-DF97-11DE-BCDA-91E4FC437900 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <76BCF359-F264-49D3-8BEF-0B48A33EDCDF@cisco.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=qMa+WKudaKgy9dLXk9W/x2cwO6Rb1vp7P7mfk6CAMGSf3Sn2Q3vSqG1CPKS218eDFi go5Tl0ifubECoDFGcHUELiF6wgUTbCax1dkGNC+WTetVjlm01kJgjv/f2t9Q9Y1tokxq 7evHha+QAHBD31KBotgRujPMoT45fY51NaRPc= --Boundary_(ID_x5d0NZjU3Mx4U/dnmO/OjQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: stephen wolff > Date: December 2, 2009 5:54:50 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Cc: ip > Subject: Re: [IP] re A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 13:47, Dave Farber wrote: > >>> In about the same time frame, NSF solicited bids for a very high >>> speed backbone network *service* (or vBNS), note the emphasis on >>> "service." This was to be a 45 Mbps backbone service, which could >>> be implemented in such a way that the the purveyor could also sell >>> services to other customers. And, this was because NSF could not >>> afford to pay for its own 45 Mbps backbone. But, the vBNS was not >>> for normal Internet traffic, but for support of actual research >>> projects requiring more than every day uses such as e-mail and >>> browsing. The vBNS was furnished by a new company that was set up >>> for that purpose with Al Weiss, a former IBM VP as its CEO, ANS >>> (which I later realized was SNA spelled backwards...but I >>> digress). And, we set up STARTAP, an international high- >>> performance R&A exchange point in Chicago so that the newly formed >>> high-performance networks of other countries could exchange >>> traffic with each other on a bi-lateral (no US AUP) agreement basis. > > Uh,... no. > > The NSFNET Backbone went to 45 mb/s under the same cooperative > agreement arrangements with the Merit-MCI-IBM consortium as the 1.5 > mb/s backbone of 1988 (for which you wrote the RFP/solicitation, > Steve); during the lifetime of that cooperative agreement, ANS was > spun out and the consortium procured backbone service from ANS. > > ANS had nothing to do with the vBNS. The vBNS was an OC3 (155 mb/s) > network furnished and operated by MCI under a coop agreement with > NSF beginning in 1995. And as you say it was intended for high- > performance traffic > > Although the NSFNET backbone transition to commercial providers had > been carefully crafted as you note with adequate funding to the > Regionals, and NAPs to ensure universal connectivity, it became > clear to the academic community that NSF's vision of arms-length > service from commercial ISPs (as we would call them today) was at > best premature, and Internet2 - a sort of immune reaction to the NSF > plan - was formed in 1996 after a series of planning meetings that > had begun as soon as NSF's intentions were known. > > stephen wolff ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_x5d0NZjU3Mx4U/dnmO/OjQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: stephen wolff <swolff@= cisco.com>
Date: December 2, 2009 5:54:50 PM EST
= To: dave@farber.net
Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject:= Re: [IP] re  A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure=

<= div>
On Dec 2, 2009, at 13:47, Dave Farber wrot= e:

In about the same time frame, NSF solicited bids f= or a very high speed backbone network *service* (or vBNS), note the e= mphasis on "service."  This was to be a 45 Mbps backbone service= , which could be implemented in such a way that the the purveyor coul= d also sell services to other customers. And, this was because NSF co= uld not afford to pay for its own 45 Mbps backbone.  But, the vB= NS was not for normal Internet traffic, but for support of actual res= earch projects requiring more than every day uses such as e-mail and = browsing.  The vBNS was furnished by a new company that was set = up for that purpose with Al Weiss, a former IBM VP as its CEO, ANS (w= hich I later realized was SNA spelled backwards...but I digress). &nb= sp;And, we set up STARTAP, an international high-performance R&A = exchange point in Chicago so that the newly formed high-performance n= etworks of other countries could exchange traffic with each other on = a bi-lateral (no US AUP) agreement basis.

Uh,... no.
The NSFNET Backbone went to 45 mb/s under the same cooperative= agreement arrangements with the Merit-MCI-IBM consortium as the 1.5 = mb/s backbone of 1988 (for which you wrote the RFP/solicitation, Stev= e); during the lifetime of that cooperative agreement, ANS was spun o= ut and the consortium procured backbone service from ANS.
<= span>
ANS had nothing to do with the vBNS.  The = vBNS was an OC3 (155 mb/s) network furnished and operated by MCI unde= r a coop agreement with NSF beginning in 1995.  And as you say i= t was intended for high-performance traffic
Although the NSFNET backbone transition to commercial provide= rs had been carefully crafted as you note with adequate funding to th= e Regionals, and NAPs to ensure universal connectivity, it became cle= ar to the academic community that NSF's vision of arms-length service= from commercial ISPs (as we would call them today) was at best prema= ture, and Internet2 - a sort of immune reaction to the NSF plan - was= formed in 1996 after a series of planning meetings that had begun as= soon as NSF's intentions were known.

stephen wolff
--Boundary_(ID_x5d0NZjU3Mx4U/dnmO/OjQ)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:27 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100401VKL0Y@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:19:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.82]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU100257VKKQZ@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19030AB174 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:20:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.86]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164B4AB173 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:20:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F7EA9688 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:20:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721429C937 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:15:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by a-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34DE9C936 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so342074vws.28 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:14:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.122.170 with SMTP id l42mr1046287vcr.33.1259799297988; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:14:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm3208652vws.5.2009.12.02.16.14.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:14:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:13:55 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] More on: Expert witness claiming that Google rankings rely on keyword meta tags To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <375577BA-FCFC-41A8-8C45-D35DC2CB1872@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_GUOMV2n9MxOnk00slHaGew)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=mFIAFqPE8RBBuQWU5 Tw47UuqSGc=; b=cmJqkGO3SK46JdgBHaC0tsUNQWLbHLjlWjb65GXlE4eS2/CSA ryidlQuptragoteJonnK2T/KV9o1cE1iDidsw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=agpVQo02A5VhKII/j8XswOo3pyPVWlDPxE7hy9SM2Mo=; b=pmv17N6cWCB4jiUarW78ryLRylhl1WNuiY3rQHK0rOwtio7C/9ThIjFzSS6rVqvTKZ OjB3tNy+Y5F/yo0Iako2JaiOHBj8F0xbjnO9yst8rC+5nzxfwH0dU3zjE2wvw2FMm1Jy mg3XCMS7IPCUefE5BnX0GJJoBdtP9Gb+YaNf0= X-Listbox-UUID: E54EA43A-DFA0-11DE-9689-1657A52306B0 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=kxTs6ZHZ2gpRFUZdL3ayFuz7DKUsXQIn0BCjwlrbRQcsp0RzqsNtKOWfrD6zEuMlbo hmD3cPYGG0yD2VzB+toQ3Z6U2F8MJynWXADyZaTpoPeATVxIeP6KPKJcFr2bj5aTbcsi d50aQ9GWrZ0lFSG8bRf2iPFdFWPOFYqsC4Slg= --Boundary_(ID_GUOMV2n9MxOnk00slHaGew) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Paul Levy > Date: December 2, 2009 1:02:02 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: More on: Expert witness claiming that Google rankings rely > on keyword meta tags > > A few weeks ago, you were so kind as to post my request for input > from list members about an affidavit from a computer expert, Frank > Farance, who claimed that Google relies on leyword meta tags in > computing search rankings, even though Google itself says that it > does not rely on them. The affidavit was submitted in support of a > trademark suit by Jenzabar, Inc., against a group of documentary > filmmakers whose web site includes a page containing unflattering > statements about Jenzabar and its founder; the page has keyword meta > tags that include Jenzabar's name. > > The posting brought in several useful comments, both onlist and > privately. As I had hoped, some of the comments related to the > substance of the affidavit, and some private comments provided > insights both about Jenzabar and about Farance himself. > > The comments helped us prepare our own analysis of the flaws in the > affidavit, which has now been submitted. It is available at http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=575 > , in case list members are interested. > > Paul Alan Levy > Public Citizen Litigation Group > 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. > Washington, D.C. 20009 > (202) 588-1000 > http://www.citizen.org/litigation > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_GUOMV2n9MxOnk00slHaGew) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Paul Levy <plevy@citi= zen.org>
Date: December 2, 2009 1:02:02 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: More on: Expe= rt witness claiming that Google rankings rely on=09keyword meta tags<= /b>

A few weeks ago, you were so kind as to post my request for = input from list members about an affidavit from a computer expert, Fr= ank Farance, who claimed that Google relies on leyword meta tags in c= omputing search rankings, even though Google itself says that it does= not rely on them.  The affidavit was submitted in support of a = trademark suit by Jenzabar, Inc., against a group of documentary film= makers whose web site includes a page containing unflattering stateme= nts about Jenzabar and its founder; the page has keyword meta tags th= at include Jenzabar's name.

The post= ing brought in several useful comments, both onlist and privately. As= I had hoped, some of the comments related to the substance of the af= fidavit, and some private comments provided insights both about Jenza= bar and about Farance himself.  

The comments helped us prepare our own analysis of the flaws in the= affidavit, which has now been submitted.  It is available at http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetail= s.cfm?cID=3D575, in case list members are interested.
<= span>
Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen L= itigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
<= span>http://www.citizen= .org/litigation

Archives
--Boundary_(ID_GUOMV2n9MxOnk00slHaGew)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:28 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100501WM86I@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:42:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.5]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU1001JDWM8ZP@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:42:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.38]) by b-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29D4AC3AB for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0332ACEDC for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E389F29C for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f198.google.com (mail-vw0-f198.google.com [209.85.212.198]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C523B9F29B for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:13:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws36 with SMTP id 36so341613vws.28 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.122.100 with SMTP id k36mr938996vcr.98.1259799214277; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm3209771vws.13.2009.12.02.16.13.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:13:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:12:31 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_TVqwvjdQ+2yj8bu4fAUKRg)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=be0odCmqNq1zcDmk+IxiXqqEEnebVbdRzRG7MLlYJK4=; b=xHLBpSSS9/JDBZ7HIa4tpd/coN+IySfW3Mnwo31+AU+moKFOuQZ5FULYMItqiOPH3f RXbAND4sU04fQWJSaSrFk54Gn5NnqhjT/TLdFNRxVjiaU9xrjUGDZReUXxQtPclCKhr+ QTYOxuGJut5KgOWVQMDrL5S2xMefr7NNTKnlE= X-Listbox-UUID: B3470F0E-DFA0-11DE-A772-CD916C5785D1 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <4B16BF94.60109@cavebear.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=Rc0xKRh1agn4SqJxijceIE/x7sR0GZY8OxSUBa0pbw891/WV0nAiAkDydmqgVhDzsc C5q05gewE/v6slIGzUh8/qRNHXzObx6P4NgFNuKWFiHWvuCu/KJzFQVxoAruGHe4XgqT BBZz4NlCfJUkskWpbsGhIh0fEpDLpKPC9NLXE= --Boundary_(ID_TVqwvjdQ+2yj8bu4fAUKRg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Karl Auerbach > Date: December 2, 2009 2:27:16 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Cc: ip > Subject: Re: [IP] re A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > Reply-To: karl@cavebear.com > > > Steve G. and others have give us a very nice view of the net from a > large scale perspective. Here is a perspective from the other end > of the size scale: > > Back in the latter 1980's there were several of us on the San > Francisco Penninsula who were using both usenet and the IP based > net, whatever name it might have had. The "we" consisted both of > individuals such as John Romkey and Dave Bridgham (both from FTP > Software) and small companies, such as my own Epilogue Technology. > > It was a frustrating mess. We had lashups of Telebit modems, SLIP > links, KA9Q engines (I hope that Phil Karn has been awarded Internet > Angel wings for that), and Doug Karl (another oft overlooked > contributor to the net) routers. > > So one nice afternoon several of us met - several meaning enough > people to sit around the largest table in The Little Garden, a > Chinese restaurant in Palo Alto - to talk about buying some circuits > and bolting together our own private net between San Francisco and > San Jose. The net took its name from the restaurant. > > The details are faint and I was only indirectly involved, but I > vaguely remember tossing some money into a pot and I think it was > D.V. Henkel-Wallace who took the lead in actually getting something > set up. > > The period from the latter '80's through the early '90's was a > period of massive small ad hoc networks, such as the Little Garden. > > I am sure that similar stories exist around the myriad of people and > companies that arose during that era - Intercon, Internode, TGV, > Beame and Whiteside, FTP Software, Epilogue Technology, Empirical > Tools and Toys (Technologies), Bunyip, etc. Simon Hackett's > (Internode) story of fibering and radioing Adelaide are worth a good > chapter. (Simon also did the first VOIP phone of which I am aware, > back around 1990.) > > And we should not underestimate the driving effect of the Interop > trade show which by the late 1980's was providing a twice-yearly > drumbeat to which the entire industry had to synchronize and prove > that it could deploy interoperating gear that we hooked to the > larger net (whatever it was called). > > I think that Carl Malamud may have documented parts of this self- > driven localized growth of the net in one of his books. > > --karl-- > > > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_TVqwvjdQ+2yj8bu4fAUKRg) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Karl Auerbach <karl@c= avebear.com>
Date: December 2, 2009 2:27:16 PM ESTTo: dave@farber.net
Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject= : Re: [IP] re  A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastru= cture
Reply-To: karl@cavebear.com

<= /div>

Steve G. and others have give us a very nice view of th= e net from a large scale perspective.  Here is a perspective fro= m the other end of the size scale:

B= ack in the latter 1980's there were several of us on the San Francisc= o Penninsula who were using both usenet and the IP based net, whateve= r name it might have had.  The "we" consisted both of individual= s such as John Romkey and Dave Bridgham (both from FTP Software) and = small companies, such as my own Epilogue Technology.
=
It was a frustrating mess.  We had lashups of T= elebit modems, SLIP links, KA9Q engines (I hope that Phil Karn has be= en awarded Internet Angel wings for that), and Doug Karl (another oft= overlooked contributor to the net) routers.
<= br>So one nice afternoon several of us met - several meaning en= ough people to sit around the largest table in The Little Garden, a C= hinese restaurant in Palo Alto - to talk about buying some circuits a= nd bolting together our own private net between San Francisco and San= Jose.  The net took its name from the restaurant.

The details are faint and I was only indirectly i= nvolved, but I vaguely remember tossing some money into a pot and I t= hink it was D.V. Henkel-Wallace who took the lead in actually getting= something set up.

The period from t= he latter '80's through the early '90's was a period of massive small= ad hoc networks, such as the Little Garden.
<= br>I am sure that similar stories exist around the myriad of pe= ople and companies that arose during that era - Intercon, Internode, = TGV, Beame and Whiteside, FTP Software, Epilogue Technology, Empirica= l Tools and Toys (Technologies), Bunyip, etc.  Simon Hackett's (= Internode) story of fibering and radioing Adelaide are worth a good c= hapter.  (Simon also did the first VOIP phone of which I am awar= e, back around 1990.)

And we should = not underestimate the driving effect of the Interop trade show which = by the late 1980's was providing a twice-yearly drumbeat to which the= entire industry had to synchronize and prove that it could deploy in= teroperating gear that we hooked to the larger net (whatever it was c= alled).

I think that Carl Malamud ma= y have documented parts of this self-driven localized growth of the n= et in one of his books.

  &nbs= p;    --karl--


=
--Boundary_(ID_TVqwvjdQ+2yj8bu4fAUKRg)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Thu Dec 3 07:10:29 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGVHM@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU200401SGRHH@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU100501XD3Y9@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.82]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU1002N1XD2RY@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:58:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F281DABCED for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:59:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.86]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD6EABCEC for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:59:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFB8A9200 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:59:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED2B9F6CA for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:52:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.25]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C63A9F6C9 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so133480qwb.27 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:52:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.82.85 with SMTP id a21mr486832qal.108.1259801573836; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.4? (c-67-165-107-113.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [67.165.107.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm933422qyk.0.2009.12.02.16.52.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:52:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:51:51 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_44AauoVKKq35VwNwUpOAYw)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=biujZna/iCXvaSkNe zZftLh00Ic=; b=C/FGM+5dKoBK1uRnEVfbx9oHrlAq4UHeoCWhzKhERc+tyZgwF sjFO4dhuuq3CohOhQbqMuHNua/MrmpQw/IedQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=XDRugOmOXfDxrivlMGWd0/XMh4gzYZ5d/D0hYz380/E=; b=fbzmujNA3GkuCS2ZqNMt+BPEMU6lH7EyB+uqOEYTjv0SjMbqfa4AbNXdnYmRNpiR6l hpmSCKBp4lYWemLyWH8QvbCZCN3kTWmeuABVj1ojAcdvQXXv+nj2kvc3h7aMBDHKdAKD 0A1mXtvT3wdRqcq6Q+1vYF8D9AXl0OMZn3w+o= X-Listbox-UUID: 32D144E2-DFA6-11DE-BE83-9697B596DCD9 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=XqVsQDAS9gbEFJnaBRgZnd3FppC8i+0SBr5tdHf9x1vX0gNKlcbHWviSI2qbWUlZZd UEi9pXzMXQuHZFz4Fv1BU7ej5anxT3WPoK9+8CInjtfoZuvP+CiCgUfR71jcbLSLLpsR DVY7S7AWjWni+JbJiyGL07uxqkE8/AprhoG1M= --Boundary_(ID_44AauoVKKq35VwNwUpOAYw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Rick Adams > Date: December 2, 2009 7:26:01 PM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: RE: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > > UUNET's first commercial TCP/IP service over leased lines was > running in November 1988. > AUP (Appropriate Use Policy) compliant traffic was exchanged with > NSFNET. Non-AUP compliant traffic was not. > Much of Europe's email came over this link for years. > > UUNET and PSINet both started actively selling TCP/IP in January 1990. > > I don't understand the reference to "Why 1991? That's when NSFNet > modified its Acceptable Use Policy > to permit commercial TCP/IP services to interconnect with NSFNet". > > As I remember, NSF cared if the entity abided by the AUP, not the > legal status of the corporate entity or its service provider. > > UUNET was certainly exchanging packets between NSFNET and AUP > compliant research groups in 1988 (with the explicit approval of > Steve Wolff. His guideline was "is it to support research and > scholarly pursuits?" but he personally approved each organization.) > > It really ramped up in 1989 and UUNET was frequently asking NSF to > clarify what was and wasn't appropriate use. > A key question in 1989 was if UUNET could gateway email between > CompuServe and the NSFNET. > > I believe that in early 1990 NSF stopped explicitly approving each > US network, but continued closely monitoring international > connections (I don't want to put words into Steve Wolff's mouth) > Export control issues were still a concern. > > In March 1991, NSFNET began permitting "Eastern Bloc" countries > (Soviet Union, Hungary and Czechoslovakia as they were know at the > time) to connect to the NSFNET > > From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:43 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "John S. Quarterman" >> Date: December 2, 2009 5:12:17 PM EST >> To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >> Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure >> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet > > >> > >> Shane, >> >> UUNET dates to 1987 as a dialup provider. >> The World was the first commercial dialup ISP to offer Internet >> access, >> in 1989. >> CERFNet and NEARNet already existed in their NSFNet regional forms >> by around 1989. >> UUNET and PSINet started offering commercial Internet access in 1991. >> >> If I've got any of those dates wrong, I'm sure someone will correct >> me, >> and all the principals are still alive and on the Internet, so you >> can >> ask them. >> >> Why 1991? That's when NSFNet modified its Acceptable Use Policy >> to permit commercial TCP/IP services to interconnect with NSFNet. >> >> http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_nsfnet.htm >> >> Not that UUNET (AlterNet) and PSINet waited for the official >> starting pistol. >> >> I think the only point on which you and I differ is that if I >> understand >> you correctly you seem to think NSFNet did nothing to promote >> privatization >> before that date. It's my memory that NSF insisted on technology >> transfer >> long before then, because Congress insisted on it. It wasn't an >> accident >> that CERFNet, NEARNet, and other commercial entitites forked off >> from >> NSFNet regionals. That was always one of the likely outcomes because >> of technology transfer. >> >> "The networks of Stages 2 and 3 will be implemented and operated so >> that they can become commercialized; industry will then be able to >> supplant the government in supplying these network services." -- >> Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee, Program Plan for >> the National Research and Education Network, May 23, 1989, pp. 4-5. >> >> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1192.html >> >> And it would appear the feds knew some of the likely effects >> of what they were doing: >> >> "The NREN should be the prototype of a new national information >> infrastructure which could be available to every home, office and >> factory. Wherever information is used, from manufacturing to high- >> definition home video entertainment, and most particularly in >> education, the country will benefit from deployment of this >> technology.... The corresponding ease of inter-computer >> communication will then provide the benefits associated with the >> NREN >> to the entire nation, improving the productivity of all >> information- >> handling activities. To achieve this end, the deployment of the >> Stage 3 NREN will include a specific, structured process >> resulting in >> transition of the network from a government operation a commercial >> service." -- Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal >> High Performance Computing Program, September 8, 1989, pp. 32, 35. >> >> This was the formalization of technology transfer resulting in >> commercialization and privatization. >> >> As RFC1192 (see above URL) notes, much privatization had already >> occured by November 1990: >> >> "In some respects, the Internet is already >> substantially privatized. The physical circuits are owned by the >> private sector, and the logical networks are usually managed and >> operated by the private sector. The nonprofit regional networks of >> the NSFNET increasingly contract out routine operations, including >> network information centers, while retaining control of policy and >> planning functions. This helps develop expertise, resources, and >> competition in the private sector and so facilitates the >> development >> of similar commercial services. >> >> "In the case of NSFNET, the annual federal investment covers only a >> minor part of the backbone and the regional networks. Although the >> NSFNET backbone is operated as a cooperative agreement between NSF >> and Merit, the Michigan higher education network, NSF contributes >> less than $3 million of approximately $10 million in annual costs. >> The State of Michigan Strategic Fund contributes $1 million and the >> balance is covered by contributed services from the >> subcontractors to >> Merit, IBM and MCI." >> >> The RFC goes on to note that the NSFNet regionals were even less >> supported >> by the feds. >> >> The participants in the workshop that RFC writes up included >> Rick Adams (UUNET), Bill Schrader (PSI), and Stephen Wolff (NSF). >> The existing commercial outfits weren't waiting for the feds to >> change >> their policies: they were actively working with the feds towards that >> goal, and already selling commercial services at the same time. >> >> You wonder why more such outfits didn't spring up? First of all, >> remember how much smaller the Internet community was back then. >> I can dig up the numbers, if you like, but it wasn't until DNS >> was deployed that exponential growth of the Internet really took >> off, and that wasn't until the last 1980s. In 1991 there were >> only a few million Internet users in the entire world. It was >> still a smallish market, and there weren't all that many entrepeneurs >> willing to bet on it. 1995 was the year the Internet became trendy, >> because of Mosaic fronting the brand-new World Wide Web. Pictures! >> And soon, banner ads! >> >> That there were even two companies willing to make a successful >> go at commercial Internet access back in the tiny and antique >> world of the late 1980s is the surprising part. >> >> Risky as a commerical proposition? UUNET was a commercial success >> from >> dialup access. PSI had a captive market in NYSerNet. >> >> UUNET and PSI originally occupied relatively small niches. Once >> UUNET >> got going it was harder for competitors to go head to head with them, >> and the PSI protagonists were the only ones who were willing to quit >> their NSFNet regional and offer their services back to it, which >> was a >> rather controversial move at the time. >> >> I don't find it so surprising that there were only two. I find it >> more surprising that there were as many as two, each finding a >> different approach to commercial viability. >> >> Back in the 1980s commercialization of the Internet was not a >> certain outcome. >> There were vociferous opponents of any commercial use of the >> Internet, >> some of them in very influential positions. And there were >> commercial >> private gardens that considered the academic networks more or less >> irrelevant >> (remember CompuServe? Prodigy?). Plus the dialup BBS community. >> >> This is why I brought up com-priv: all these issues were hashed out >> at >> great length on that list. Probably somebody has archives of it. >> >> Other countries had their own peculiar policies. France had Minitel >> and thought it was best. Japan didn't allow private commercial >> data interconnections until 1994. Etc. >> >> Interestingly, although there are quite a few books about the >> early days of the ARPANET and of the Internet (I wrote one of them), >> so far as I know nobody has yet written a book about this critical >> period of commercialization and privatization. It's not clear to me >> there'd be much of a market for such a book, unfortunately. >> >> Anyway, there are people on Cybertelecom-L who were involved in all >> these things. Most of the rest of the major players are on the net >> and >> answer their mail. Many of them are on Facebook, for that matter. >> I know you know some of them. And you've probably noticed that >> everybody has a point of view.... >> >> As far as the idea of renationalizing the Internet, I think it >> would be even more useful to look at the state of commercialization >> and privatization in those countries that have fast, affordable, >> ubiquitous Internet access, such as Japan, Korea, Finland, etc. >> They all have multiple competing private providers. Multiple as >> in multiple in any given location, unlike the U.S. duopoly of >> cableco and telco. And they all have government regulations >> of that competition. "Robust open access policies", as this >> report calls them: >> >> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5751#penetration >> >> -jsq >> >> >>> John, >> >>> >> >>> A very fair point. And well taken. There were spinoffs, you are >>> quite right, >> >>> and from some very smart people. And it is possible to trace some >>> benefits to >> >>> the US economy directly from those spinoffs. Looking back, the >>> interesting >> >>> question is about timing. More PSI's did not spring up in 1989. >>> UUNet comes >> >>> to mind, and some dial-up ISPs, but a lot less than I would later >>> events >> >>> would lead one to expect (albeit, with the benefit of hindsight). I >> >>> conjecture (as an outsider) that most waited until NSF privatization >> >>> plan was put into place, simply because doing anything before than >>> was >> >>> incredibly risky as a commercial proposition. Is that right? >> >>> >> >>> Shane > Archives ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_44AauoVKKq35VwNwUpOAYw) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT




Begin forwarded message:

From: Rick Adams <Rick.Adams@Cello.Net>
Date: December 2, 2009 7:26:01 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: RE: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure

UUNET's first commercial TCP/IP service over leased lines was running in November 1988.
AUP (Appropriate Use Policy) compliant traffic was exchanged with NSFNET. Non-AUP compliant traffic was not.
Much of Europe's email came over this link for years.
 
UUNET and PSINet both started actively selling TCP/IP in January 1990.
 
I don't understand the reference to "Why 1991?  That's when NSFNet modified its Acceptable Use Policy
to permit commercial TCP/IP services to interconnect with NSFNet".
 
As I remember, NSF cared if the entity abided by the AUP, not the legal status of the corporate entity or its service provider.
 
UUNET was certainly exchanging packets between NSFNET and AUP compliant research  groups in 1988 (with the explicit approval of Steve Wolff. His guideline was "is it to support research and scholarly pursuits?" but he personally approved each organization.)
 
It really ramped up in 1989 and UUNET was frequently asking NSF to clarify what was and wasn't appropriate use.
A key question in 1989 was if UUNET could gateway email between CompuServe and the NSFNET.
 
I believe that in early 1990 NSF stopped explicitly approving each US network, but continued closely monitoring international connections (I don't want to put words into Steve Wolff's mouth) Export control issues were still a concern.
 
In March 1991, NSFNET began permitting  "Eastern Bloc" countries (Soviet Union, Hungary and Czechoslovakia as they were know at the time) to connect to the NSFNET

From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:43 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure





Begin forwarded message:

From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@QUARTERMAN.COM>
Date: December 2, 2009 5:12:17 PM EST
To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>

Shane,

UUNET dates to 1987 as a dialup provider.
The World was the first commercial dialup ISP to offer Internet access,
in 1989.
CERFNet and NEARNet already existed in their NSFNet regional forms
by around 1989.
UUNET and PSINet started offering commercial Internet access in 1991.

If I've got any of those dates wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me,
and all the principals are still alive and on the Internet, so you can
ask them.

Why 1991?  That's when NSFNet modified its Acceptable Use Policy
to permit commercial TCP/IP services to interconnect with NSFNet.

http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_nsfnet.htm

Not that UUNET (AlterNet) and PSINet waited for the official starting pistol.

I think the only point on which you and I differ is that if I understand
you correctly you seem to think NSFNet did nothing to promote privatization
before that date.  It's my memory that NSF insisted on technology transfer
long before then, because Congress insisted on it.  It wasn't an accident
that CERFNet, NEARNet, and other commercial entitites forked off from
NSFNet regionals.  That was always one of the likely outcomes because
of technology transfer.

"The networks of Stages 2 and 3 will be implemented and operated so
 that they can become commercialized; industry will then be able to
 supplant the government in supplying these network services."  --
 Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee, Program Plan for
 the National Research and Education Network, May 23, 1989, pp. 4-5.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1192.html

And it would appear the feds knew some of the likely effects
of what they were doing:

 "The NREN should be the prototype of a new national information
  infrastructure which could be available to every home, office and
  factory.  Wherever information is used, from manufacturing to high-
  definition home video entertainment, and most particularly in
  education, the country will benefit from deployment of this
  technology....  The corresponding ease of inter-computer
  communication will then provide the benefits associated with the NREN
  to the entire nation, improving the productivity of all information-
  handling activities.  To achieve this end, the deployment of the
  Stage 3 NREN will include a specific, structured process resulting in
  transition of the network from a government operation a commercial
  service."  -- Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal
  High Performance Computing Program, September 8, 1989, pp. 32, 35.

This was the formalization of technology transfer resulting in
commercialization and privatization.

As RFC1192 (see above URL) notes, much privatization had already
occured by November 1990:

 "In some respects, the Internet is already
  substantially privatized.  The physical circuits are owned by the
  private sector, and the logical networks are usually managed and
  operated by the private sector.  The nonprofit regional networks of
  the NSFNET increasingly contract out routine operations, including
  network information centers, while retaining control of policy and
  planning functions.  This helps develop expertise, resources, and
  competition in the private sector and so facilitates the development
  of similar commercial services.

 "In the case of NSFNET, the annual federal investment covers only a
  minor part of the backbone and the regional networks.  Although the
  NSFNET backbone is operated as a cooperative agreement between NSF
  and Merit, the Michigan higher education network, NSF contributes
  less than $3 million of approximately $10 million in annual costs.
  The State of Michigan Strategic Fund contributes $1 million and the
  balance is covered by contributed services from the subcontractors to
  Merit, IBM and MCI."

The RFC goes on to note that the NSFNet regionals were even less supported
by the feds.

The participants in the workshop that RFC writes up included
Rick Adams (UUNET), Bill Schrader (PSI), and Stephen Wolff (NSF).
The existing commercial outfits weren't waiting for the feds to change
their policies: they were actively working with the feds towards that
goal, and already selling commercial services at the same time.

You wonder why more such outfits didn't spring up?  First of all,
remember how much smaller the Internet community was back then.
I can dig up the numbers, if you like, but it wasn't until DNS
was deployed that exponential growth of the Internet really took
off, and that wasn't until the last 1980s.  In 1991 there were
only a few million Internet users in the entire world.  It was
still a smallish market, and there weren't all that many entrepeneurs
willing to bet on it.  1995 was the year the Internet became trendy,
because of Mosaic fronting the brand-new World Wide Web.  Pictures!
And soon, banner ads!

That there were even two companies willing to make a successful
go at commercial Internet access back in the tiny and antique
world of the late 1980s is the surprising part.

Risky as a commerical proposition?  UUNET was a commercial success from
dialup access.  PSI had a captive market in NYSerNet.

UUNET and PSI originally occupied relatively small niches.  Once UUNET
got going it was harder for competitors to go head to head with them,
and the PSI protagonists were the only ones who were willing to quit
their NSFNet regional and offer their services back to it, which was a
rather controversial move at the time.

I don't find it so surprising that there were only two.  I find it
more surprising that there were as many as two, each finding a
different approach to commercial viability.

Back in the 1980s commercialization of the Internet was not a certain outcome.
There were vociferous opponents of any commercial use of the Internet,
some of them in very influential positions.  And there were commercial
private gardens that considered the academic networks more or less irrelevant
(remember CompuServe? Prodigy?).  Plus the dialup BBS community.

This is why I brought up com-priv: all these issues were hashed out at
great length on that list.  Probably somebody has archives of it.

Other countries had their own peculiar policies.  France had Minitel
and thought it was best.  Japan didn't allow private commercial
data interconnections until 1994.  Etc.

Interestingly, although there are quite a few books about the
early days of the ARPANET and of the Internet (I wrote one of them),
so far as I know nobody has yet written a book about this critical
period of commercialization and privatization.  It's not clear to me
there'd be much of a market for such a book, unfortunately.

Anyway, there are people on Cybertelecom-L who were involved in all
these things.  Most of the rest of the major players are on the net and
answer their mail.  Many of them are on Facebook, for that matter.
I know you know some of them.  And you've probably noticed that
everybody has a point of view....

As far as the idea of renationalizing the Internet, I think it
would be even more useful to look at the state of commercialization
and privatization in those countries that have fast, affordable,
ubiquitous Internet access, such as Japan, Korea, Finland, etc.
They all have multiple competing private providers.  Multiple as
in multiple in any given location, unlike the U.S. duopoly of
cableco and telco.  And they all have government regulations
of that competition.  "Robust open access policies", as this
report calls them:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5751#penetration

-jsq


John,

A very fair point. And well taken. There were spinoffs, you are quite right,
and from some very smart people. And it is possible to trace some benefits to
the US economy directly from those spinoffs. Looking back, the interesting
question is about timing. More PSI's did not spring up in 1989. UUNet comes
to mind, and some dial-up ISPs, but a lot less than I would later events
would lead one to expect (albeit, with the benefit of hindsight). I
conjecture (as an outsider) that most waited until NSF privatization
plan was put into place, simply because doing anything before than was
incredibly risky as a commercial proposition. Is that right?

Shane
--Boundary_(ID_44AauoVKKq35VwNwUpOAYw)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Fri Dec 4 08:04:14 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU400G01PMWSK@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU400G01PMSSB@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:04:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU300C0181RKZ@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:46:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU300C5581Q14@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:46:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB45AC97D for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB653ABACC for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:47:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D771BA0113 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f189.google.com (mail-vw0-f189.google.com [209.85.212.189]) by b-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24237A0112 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws27 with SMTP id 27so705624vws.9 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:45:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.65.200 with SMTP id k8mr2308078vci.116.1259862357476; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:45:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.205.110.183? (mobile-166-137-133-150.mycingular.net [166.137.133.150]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm4702710vws.8.2009.12.03.09.45.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:45:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:44:45 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Gillmor take on Comcast NBC To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <5141E883-FE3E-4E2C-A603-B123FCF42333@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_YKEZeWkIvABPRjfhrrUbHg)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=kyIBYpCHzSO3EnU4HCQuNcG6Oz6MhN+PEEX0Sf3pw80=; b=Dkk3gYN3ancxUFx3bG5jcEcBBdoV999VWNccrHoF2WsJnZbmRd+8vHRSeVvwav8jXz EjTzPWsq/aqul1+EaJOADFeJtJPBgu2s0lCDnj7ARvETc91D8Q3am6+8xcS5KkiKpnGb xcPVH8NQihGUVUULh2UeQNRG69IxMTqCOoHSo= X-Listbox-UUID: B78C3100-E033-11DE-9BAF-EAFFE9B42235 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=u7HwffMQ8p6pkEl5OsZKVHPwRdauFN1Wtts5jpgUE+37gOb6epsXVbid31aDfcSOh7 7Pvu+AdrTBwGLxB8agsCZPGVXAaYkyca0BpbhY6I79bD73GEVWFQCqJHelcmkPlgA2qH JxRouah1nbr/bEWk+Rd5ZpvsQXeKQngkMr8CU= --Boundary_(ID_YKEZeWkIvABPRjfhrrUbHg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Begin forwarded message: > From: Dan Gillmor > Date: December 3, 2009 11:48:15 AM EST > To: Dave Farber > Subject: my take on Comcast NBC > > http://mediactive.com/2009/12/03/the-road-toward-control/ > > So it=E2=80=99s official. Comcast has announced its intention to bu= y NBC Uni=20 > versal from GE. The danger of this cannot be overstated, but it cou= l=20 > d actually be the catalyst for a policy conversation the nation des= p=20 > erately needs to hold. > > A Comcast-NBC combination is brazenly anti-competitve and anti-= =20 > democratic. It would give one company far too much ownership over = =20 > not just professionally produced media but also the ways media = =20 > consumers can receive it. > > Worse, if approved, it could mark the tipping point in Big Media= =E2=80=99s p=20 > ush to take control over the Internet itself. That=E2=80=99s where = we need t=20 > o focus our attention. > > We can come out of this the right way if the announced deal prompts= =20 > Congress to stop ducking the key media consolidation issue of our = =20 > time. If we can use data networks the way we choose, the traditiona= l =20 > fears about media consolidation =E2=80=94 the concentration of mass= media in=20 > the hands of a few immensely powerful corporations =E2=80=94 lesse= n over ti=20 > me. They=E2=80=99re still worth worrying about, but not as much. > > No, the issue now is the truly scary media consolidation we face: = =20 > the =E2=80=9Cbroadband=E2=80=9D duopoly=E2=80=99s increasing contro= l over what we can =20 > do with our media. The cable and phone giants are determined to dec= i=20 > de what bits get delivered in what order, at what speed and at what= =20 > time =E2=80=94 if they get delivered at all =E2=80=94 to the people= who want them. > > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_YKEZeWkIvABPRjfhrrUbHg) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Dan Gillmor <dan@gillmo= r.com>
Date: December 3, 2009 11:48:15 AM EST
= To: Dave Farber <dave@farbe= r.net>
Subject: my take on Comcast NBC
<= a href=3D"http://mediactive.com/2009/12/03/the-road-toward-control/">= http://mediactive.com/2009/12/03/the-road-toward-control/<= br>
So it=E2=80=99s official. Comcast has annou= nced its intention to buy NBC Universal from GE. The danger of this c= annot be overstated, but it could actually be the catalyst for a poli= cy conversation the nation desperately needs to hold.

A Comcast-NBC combination is brazenly anti-competit= ve and anti-democratic. It would give one company far too much owners= hip over not just professionally produced media but also the ways med= ia consumers can receive it.

Worse, = if approved, it could mark the tipping point in Big Media=E2=80=99s p= ush to take control over the Internet itself. That=E2=80=99s where we= need to focus our attention.

We can= come out of this the right way if the announced deal prompts Congres= s to stop ducking the key media consolidation issue of our time. If w= e can use data networks the way we choose, the traditional fears abou= t media consolidation =E2=80=94 the concentration of mass media in th= e hands of a few immensely powerful corporations =E2=80=94 lessen ove= r time. They=E2=80=99re still worth worrying about, but not as much.<= /span>

No, the issue now is the truly scary= media consolidation we face: the =E2=80=9Cbroadband=E2=80=9D duopoly= =E2=80=99s increasing control over what we can do with our media. The= cable and phone giants are determined to decide what bits get delive= red in what order, at what speed and at what time =E2=80=94 if they g= et delivered at all =E2=80=94 to the people who want them.
=

--Boundary_(ID_YKEZeWkIvABPRjfhrrUbHg)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Fri Dec 4 08:04:15 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU400G01PMWSK@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU400G01PMSSB@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:04:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU300C018BQXP@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:52:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.82]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU300BAV8BPNC@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2779ABFE1 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:53:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com [64.74.157.86]) by a-lb-ob-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC275ABFE0 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:53:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-ex-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA61A91EB for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:53:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327869FB74 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f189.google.com (mail-vw0-f189.google.com [209.85.212.189]) by b-lb-mx-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65A69FB73 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws27 with SMTP id 27so707454vws.9 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:48:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.125.104 with SMTP id x40mr2419249vcr.41.1259862524319; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:48:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.205.110.183? (mobile-166-137-133-150.mycingular.net [166.137.133.150]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm4701393vws.14.2009.12.03.09.48.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:48:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:47:37 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] Update: Google's New Public DNS Service -- and Data Retention Issues To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: <37A27D3D-DC42-4018-B7DD-26CCE3BBD814@me.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_6w1KhfQ0VCrA+dIRSNRbYQ)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=listbox.com; h=message-id :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:reply-to:list-id:list-help :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe; s=launch; bh=r6N1qhbMYxZlnjS/l ydFkos2KYw=; b=dCISYZK6yVRIr2P6owdKwoEJVVLWUZwGNRB1oveUgbOHXJxbJ y6A29sP7s1jMJzNggghi/zoeEtLNiCb3lJBOg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=R0MdsM9WGY5apbU8/kg2/vr+coM7cJscULroV4Y8CHc=; b=PFViNrRg0C9NQ/Iv/ngln9olvv3XDSpsdaGygwZ1cvo7XLn0s1w3BTO2040y1I1cQf RBvmf3fV3ZoPLgnMAaCeGYnoIghl/PVBXrp0jIjuijlwZg/61fY26iLZAEa0sCRBrtGI Ie2MRsil7IjjIY8vPDJgd1nBJnlsMWpNGvHv4= X-Listbox-UUID: 1AC645F8-E034-11DE-88F9-FFAD90123FBD X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <200912031744.nB3HifqH010366@neon.vortex.com> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=PxyZaltg9DtorOIqIQmnEcqPCkK68xVAl4nwc7T332oj5wmULkJTQXr9bq9B2Wj9Ms YaQwkqPhaXFpkeKozKvGytDPMZ3TuTJWFSL0oPn9GdYjGJQYV0lXUEZWKTNvSMs3RsvG yRQ22T6g5Xso5k6VEiTZkIoYNszqh2dRmI2rk= --Boundary_(ID_6w1KhfQ0VCrA+dIRSNRbYQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: lauren@vortex.com > Date: December 3, 2009 12:44:41 PM EST > To: lauren-blog-notify@vortex.com > Subject: Lauren Weinstein's Blog Update: Google's New Public DNS > Service -- and Data Retention Issues > > Lauren Weinstein's Blog Update: Google's New Public DNS Service -- > and Data Retention Issues > > December 03, 2009 > > > --- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000645.html > > > > --- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Greetings. In a move potentially of significant importance to the > vast > majority of Internet users who do not run their own DNS servers to > resolve Internet site domain names, Google href="http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2009/12/introducing-google- > public- > dns-new-dns.html">has announced their own publicly accessible DNS > service. > > Unlike some other publicly accessible DNS services that may redirect > nonexistent domain queries for advertising purposes, Google href="http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/ > intro.html">explicit > ly states that "Google Public DNS never blocks, filters, or > redirects users." > > This is a key point for users who by default are configured to resolve > their Internet DNS queries through sometimes restrictive ISP DNS > services that may redirect or even block some DNS queries. > > Using a different DNS service is usually as "easy" as changing the IP > addresses in your OS DNS settings, but note that if your ISP is > actually diverting the TCP/IP ports that DNS uses to communicate, it > will be impossible for you to switch DNS servers through normal > mechanisms. (For more information on testing for this condition, > please see my href="http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000377.html">Testing Your > Internet Connection for ISP DNS Diversions page.) > > A concern that frequently arises with DNS services is their logging > policies. A DNS server potentially can gather a great deal of > information about the Internet sites that you use. Both some ISPs and > particular public DNS services have been criticized for their DNS data > retention policies, which sometimes provide for indefinite or long > retention of full DNS logging data. > > Google has obviously recognized the sensitivity of this issue. > Their > separate > privacy policy for the Google Public DNS strikes me as utterly > reasonable, particularly given its very rapid (24-48 hours) deletion > of > what I would consider to be the key privacy-sensitive data. > > No doubt this won't satisfy some hard-core Google haters, who will > either suggest that Google shouldn't log any DNS query data even for a > very short period of time -- or will simply claim that Google is lying > about their privacy and data retention policies. > > But I view graduated "data destruction" policies such as this one > announced by Google as being completely appropriate to provide for > reasonable research purposes without unreasonably impacting user > privacy concerns. I can't help those critics who seem to cynically > assume that Google is a serial liar about their privacy or other > policies, or are convinced that integrated circuits were an "alien > technology" gift from an extraterrestrial civilization. > > Since I run my own DNS servers, I'm not in an immediate position to > rigorously test the real-world performance of Google's new DNS > service. > But I'd be interested in your reports about this, including as much > detail as you care to provide. > > DNS is, for better or worse, at the heart of today's Internet. It > will > be fascinating to see what Google's efforts in this area will bring > forth over time. > > --Lauren-- > > > -- > Powered by Movable Type > Version 2.64 > http://www.movabletype.org/ > ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_6w1KhfQ0VCrA+dIRSNRbYQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: lauren@vortex.com
Date: December 3, 20= 09 12:44:41 PM EST
To: lauren-= blog-notify@vortex.com
Subject: Lauren Weinstein= 's Blog Update: Google's New Public DNS Service -- and Data Retention= Issues

Lauren Weinstein's Blog Update: Google's New Pu= blic DNS Service -- and Data Retention Issues

         &nb= sp;           =      December 03, 2009


----------------------------------------= --------------------------------

http://lauren.v= ortex.com/archive/000645.html



-------------------------------------= -----------------------------------

= Greetings.  In a move potentially of significant importance to t= he vast
majority of Internet users who do not run the= ir own DNS servers to
resolve Internet site domain na= mes, Google <a
href=3D"http://go= oglecode.blogspot.com/2009/12/introducing-google-public-
dns-new-dns.html">has announced</a> their own pu= blicly accessible DNS
service.

Unlike some other publicly accessible DNS services that ma= y redirect
nonexistent domain queries for advertising= purposes, Google <a
href=3D"http://code.google.com= /speed/public-dns/docs/intro.html">explicit
ly= states</a> that "Google Public DNS never blocks, filters, or
redirects users."

Thi= s is a key point for users who by default are configured to resolve
their Internet DNS queries through sometimes restricti= ve ISP DNS
services that may redirect or even block s= ome DNS queries.

Using a different D= NS service is usually as "easy" as changing the IP
ad= dresses in your OS DNS settings, but note that if your ISP is<= br>actually diverting the TCP/IP ports that DNS uses to communi= cate, it
will be impossible for you to switch DNS ser= vers through normal
mechanisms.  (For more infor= mation on testing for this condition,
please see my &= lt;a
href=3D"http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000377.html">= ;Testing Your
Internet Connection for ISP DNS Diversi= ons</a> page.)

A concern that = frequently arises with DNS services is their logging
= policies.  A DNS server potentially can gather a great deal of
information about the Internet sites that you use. &nb= sp;Both some ISPs and
particular public DNS services = have been criticized for their DNS data
retention pol= icies, which sometimes provide for indefinite or long
retention of full DNS logging data.

Google has obviously recognized the sensitivity of this issue.  = ;  Their
<a href=3D"http://code.google.com/speed/= public-dns/privacy.html">separate
privacy poli= cy</a> for the Google Public DNS strikes me as utterlyreasonable, particularly given its very rapid (24-48 hours) d= eletion of
what I would consider to be the key privac= y-sensitive data.  

No doubt th= is won't satisfy some hard-core Google haters, who will
either suggest that Google shouldn't log any DNS query data even f= or a
very short period of time -- or will simply clai= m that Google is lying
about their privacy and data r= etention policies.

But I view gradu= ated "data destruction" policies such as this one
ann= ounced by Google as being completely appropriate to provide for
reasonable research purposes without unreasonably impactin= g user
privacy concerns.  I can't help those cri= tics who seem to cynically
assume that Google is a se= rial liar about their privacy or other
policies, or a= re convinced that integrated circuits were an "alien
= technology" gift from an extraterrestrial civilization.

Since I run my own DNS servers, I'm not in an imm= ediate position to
rigorously test the real-world per= formance of Google's new DNS service.
But I'd be int= erested in your reports about this, including as much
detail as you care to provide.

DNS = is, for better or worse, at the heart of today's Internet.   &nb= sp;It will
be fascinating to see what Google's effort= s in this area will bring
forth over time.
=
--Lauren--


--
Powered by Movable Type
= Version 2.64
http://www.movabletype.org/

--Boundary_(ID_6w1KhfQ0VCrA+dIRSNRbYQ)--   From interesting-people-errors+interesting-people-2179+40archive+2Ewww+2Einteresting-people+2Eorg@www.interesting-people.org Fri Dec 4 08:04:16 2009 Return-Path: Received: from DD-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU400G01PMWSK@elistx.com> for interesting-people-2179@archive.www.interesting-people.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from D-IPEOPLE.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU400G01PMSSB@elistx.com> for interesting-people@direct.www.interesting-people.org (ORCPT interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org); Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:04:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) id <0KU300D018EK2T@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:54:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.3]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31779) with ESMTP id <0KU300BCA8EKNC@elistx.com> for interesting-people@www.interesting-people.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com [208.72.237.56]) by a-lb-ob-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9504BAC82F for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-lb-ex-quonix.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3999ABF74 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0546A60F5 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-vw0-f189.google.com (mail-vw0-f189.google.com [209.85.212.189]) by a-lb-mx-sd.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BCEA60F4 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:51:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by vws27 with SMTP id 27so709236vws.9 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.89.221 with SMTP id f29mr2348678vcm.61.1259862683420; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.205.110.183? (mobile-166-137-133-150.mycingular.net [166.137.133.150]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm4726174vws.2.2009.12.03.09.51.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:51:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:50:01 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: [IP] re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure To: ip Errors-to: Reply-to: dave@farber.net Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_JYdJDtRNrZrFrIv7mEcpSg)" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version :subject:date:references; bh=Tl109Bt0M1lI4YJM1PTvAO814V43CZa5wdO4wZNa/sE=; b=JCP/TKR4yFCmMwVGZnjs2CoZCiMyQCCfukKQpCcvZoEaaztXGFkDW856qh9/ecoh4k mUP3FH7ymFNBE5KOsaK7SOVKAEuRePjfLRNapBgCIRGQ+FA7P7g2Ibp00g9phjvAWy+m XlMT7wEcwHKWnCrYLaLS7CMkC7ip6sG7fokd4= X-Listbox-UUID: 7D5793F2-E034-11DE-81E1-919F3CF0B3F5 X-Listbox-List-ID: 247 References: <771474631.49627.1259856279873.JavaMail.root@vms228.mailsrvcs.net> List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: List-Id: List-Software: listbox.com v2.0 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:references; b=CWovgkWSAVPcThJFZEXPdg+gBTm8K7y5AGdrMOPfQei25QNV8eHnwkSE99cmQopmFs MIPFdFECuuheJEiG0YYgWSe+HlOVNjlRMHnB6jiiE1Tv43c4vbWjzckYPPQ5Jtg90RXh xUZ5ZADfESSeXQo828gfdkNcOBWfU8KaB9fa0= --Boundary_(ID_JYdJDtRNrZrFrIv7mEcpSg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Begin forwarded message: > From: Chuck Brownstein > Date: December 3, 2009 11:04:39 AM EST > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: Re: [IP] re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure > Reply-To: charles.brownstein@verizon.net > > Rick, > I believe the formal approval in 1991 was to link NSF and MCI mail > which also linked commercial and federal data networks. Vint and > Steve can fill in details. > > My point of view at the time was that it was not so much as a change > of acceptable use policy (a slippery construct that was mostly a > prophylactic against political mischief) but a positive federal > declaration of the linking of commercial and research networks- on > the road to moving out the the infrastructure supply business. > > Contrary to what some believed would happen, the world did not come > to an end when the memo was signed. Instead, we moved forward on > what had been intended for NSFNET from the time CISE was created at > NSF. > > There were a mixture of intentions. The obvious most easily > justifiable (if not totally uncontroversial ) one from inside of NSF > was to drive down the cost of S&T data communications by promoting > technical progress and the scale economies that could only come from > a commercial Internet so that it would be more accessable to > researchers . > > But S&T data comunications was also thought of as an entry point for > other beneficial uses of networking apart from profit per se. Hence > there was as much support as the budget would allow for > international networking, research projects into technology and > applications apart form scientific communications, and lots of joint > effort with allied agencies (DARPA, DOE, NASA in particular) where > there were equally motivated people. > > Chuck > > Dec 2, 2009 07:53:44 PM, dave@farber.net wrote: > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Rick Adams >> Date: December 2, 2009 7:26:01 PM EST >> To: dave@farber.net >> Subject: RE: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure >> > >> UUNET's first commercial TCP/IP service over leased lines was >> running in November 1988. >> AUP (Appropriate Use Policy) compliant traffic was exchanged with >> NSFNET. Non-AUP compliant traffic was not. >> Much of Europe's email came over this link for years. >> >> UUNET and PSINet both started actively selling TCP/IP in January >> 1990. >> >> I don't understand the reference to "Why 1991? That's when NSFNet >> modified its Acceptable Use Policy >> to permit commercial TCP/IP services to interconnect with NSFNet". >> >> As I remember, NSF cared if the entity abided by the AUP, not the >> legal status of the corporate entity or its service provider. >> >> UUNET was certainly exchanging packets between NSFNET and AUP >> compliant research groups in 1988 (with the explicit approval of >> Steve Wolff. His guideline was "is it to support research and >> scholarly pursuits?" but he personally approved each organization.) >> >> It really ramped up in 1989 and UUNET was frequently asking NSF to >> clarify what was and wasn't appropriate use. >> A key question in 1989 was if UUNET could gateway email between >> CompuServe and the NSFNET. >> >> I believe that in early 1990 NSF stopped explicitly approving each >> US network, but continued closely monitoring international >> connections (I don't want to put words into Steve Wolff's mouth) >> Export control issues were still a concern. >> >> In March 1991, NSFNET began permitting "Eastern Bloc" countries >> (Soviet Union, Hungary and Czechoslovakia as they were know at the >> time) to connect to the NSFNET >> >> From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:43 PM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure >> >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: "John S. Quarterman" >>> Date: December 2, 2009 5:12:17 PM EST >>> To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >>> Subject: Re: A Ridiculous Failure of Critical Infrastructure >>> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet >> > >>> >> >>> Shane, >>> >>> UUNET dates to 1987 as a dialup provider. >>> The World was the first commercial dialup ISP to offer Internet >>> access, >>> in 1989. >>> CERFNet and NEARNet already existed in their NSFNet regional forms >>> by around 1989. >>> UUNET and PSINet started offering commercial Internet access in >>> 1991. >>> >>> If I've got any of those dates wrong, I'm sure someone will >>> correct me, >>> and all the principals are still alive and on the Internet, so you >>> can >>> ask them. >>> >>> Why 1991? That's when NSFNet modified its Acceptable Use Policy >>> to permit commercial TCP/IP services to interconnect with NSFNet. >>> >>> http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_nsfnet.htm >>> >>> Not that UUNET (AlterNet) and PSINet waited for the official >>> starting pistol. >>> >>> I think the only point on which you and I differ is that if I >>> understand >>> you correctly you seem to think NSFNet did nothing to promote >>> privatization >>> before that date. It's my memory that NSF insisted on technology >>> transfer >>> long before then, because Congress insisted on it. It wasn't an >>> accident >>> that CERFNet, NEARNet, and other commercial entitites forked off >>> from >>> NSFNet regionals. That was always one of the likely outcomes >>> because >>> of technology transfer. >>> >>> "The networks of Stages 2 and 3 will be implemented and operated so >>> that they can become commercialized; industry will then be able to >>> supplant the government in supplying these network services." -- >>> Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee, Program Plan for >>> the National Research and Education Network, May 23, 1989, pp. 4-5. >>> >>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1192.html >>> >>> And it would appear the feds knew some of the likely effects >>> of what they were doing: >>> >>> "The NREN should be the prototype of a new national information >>> infrastructure which could be available to every home, office and >>> factory. Wherever information is used, from manufacturing to >>> high- >>> definition home video entertainment, and most particularly in >>> education, the country will benefit from deployment of this >>> technology.... The corresponding ease of inter-computer >>> communication will then provide the benefits associated with the >>> NREN >>> to the entire nation, improving the productivity of all >>> information- >>> handling activities. To achieve this end, the deployment of the >>> Stage 3 NREN will include a specific, structured process >>> resulting in >>> transition of the network from a government operation a commercial >>> service." -- Office of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal >>> High Performance Computing Program, September 8, 1989, pp. 32, 35. >>> >>> This was the formalization of technology transfer resulting in >>> commercialization and privatization. >>> >>> As RFC1192 (see above URL) notes, much privatization had already >>> occured by November 1990: >>> >>> "In some respects, the Internet is already >>> substantially privatized. The physical circuits are owned by the >>> private sector, and the logical networks are usually managed and >>> operated by the private sector. The nonprofit regional networks >>> of >>> the NSFNET increasingly contract out routine operations, including >>> network information centers, while retaining control of policy and >>> planning functions. This helps develop expertise, resources, and >>> competition in the private sector and so facilitates the >>> development >>> of similar commercial services. >>> >>> "In the case of NSFNET, the annual federal investment covers only a >>> minor part of the backbone and the regional networks. Although >>> the >>> NSFNET backbone is operated as a cooperative agreement between NSF >>> and Merit, the Michigan higher education network, NSF contributes >>> less than $3 million of approximately $10 million in annual costs. >>> The State of Michigan Strategic Fund contributes $1 million and >>> the >>> balance is covered by contributed services from the >>> subcontractors to >>> Merit, IBM and MCI." >>> >>> The RFC goes on to note that the NSFNet regionals were even less >>> supported >>> by the feds. >>> >>> The participants in the workshop that RFC writes up included >>> Rick Adams (UUNET), Bill Schrader (PSI), and Stephen Wolff (NSF). >>> The existing commercial outfits weren't waiting for the feds to >>> change >>> their policies: they were actively working with the feds towards >>> that >>> goal, and already selling commercial services at the same time. >>> >>> You wonder why more such outfits didn't spring up? First of all, >>> remember how much smaller the Internet community was back then. >>> I can dig up the numbers, if you like, but it wasn't until DNS >>> was deployed that exponential growth of the Internet really took >>> off, and that wasn't until the last 1980s. In 1991 there were >>> only a few million Internet users in the entire world. It was >>> still a smallish market, and there weren't all that many >>> entrepeneurs >>> willing to bet on it. 1995 was the year the Internet became trendy, >>> because of Mosaic fronting the brand-new World Wide Web. Pictures! >>> And soon, banner ads! >>> >>> That there were even two companies willing to make a successful >>> go at commercial Internet access back in the tiny and antique >>> world of the late 1980s is the surprising part. >>> >>> Risky as a commerical proposition? UUNET was a commercial success >>> from >>> dialup access. PSI had a captive market in NYSerNet. >>> >>> UUNET and PSI originally occupied relatively small niches. Once >>> UUNET >>> got going it was harder for competitors to go head to head with >>> them, >>> and the PSI protagonists were the only ones who were willing to quit >>> their NSFNet regional and offer their services back to it, which >>> was a >>> rather controversial move at the time. >>> >>> I don't find it so surprising that there were only two. I find it >>> more surprising that there were as many as two, each finding a >>> different approach to commercial viability. >>> >>> Back in the 1980s commercialization of the Internet was not a >>> certain outcome. >>> There were vociferous opponents of any commercial use of the >>> Internet, >>> some of them in very influential positions. And there were >>> commercial >>> private gardens that considered the academic networks more or less >>> irrelevant >>> (remember CompuServe? Prodigy?). Plus the dialup BBS community. >>> >>> This is why I brought up com-priv: all these issues were hashed >>> out at >>> great length on that list. Probably somebody has archives of it. >>> >>> Other countries had their own peculiar policies. France had Minitel >>> and thought it was best. Japan didn't allow private commercial >>> data interconnections until 1994. Etc. >>> >>> Interestingly, although there are quite a few books about the >>> early days of the ARPANET and of the Internet (I wrote one of them), >>> so far as I know nobody has yet written a book about this critical >>> period of commercialization and privatization. It's not clear to me >>> there'd be much of a market for such a book, unfortunately. >>> >>> Anyway, there are people on Cybertelecom-L who were involved in all >>> these things. Most of the rest of the major players are on the >>> net and >>> answer their mail. Many of them are on Facebook, for that matter. >>> I know you know some of them. And you've probably noticed that >>> everybody has a point of view.... >>> >>> As far as the idea of renationalizing the Internet, I think it >>> would be even more useful to look at the state of commercialization >>> and privatization in those countries that have fast, affordable, >>> ubiquitous Internet access, such as Japan, Korea, Finland, etc. >>> They all have multiple competing private providers. Multiple as >>> in multiple in any given location, unlike the U.S. duopoly of >>> cableco and telco. And they all have government regulations >>> of that competition. "Robust open access policies", as this >>> report calls them: >>> >>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5751#penetration >>> >>> -jsq >>> >>> >>>> John, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> A very fair point. And well taken. There were spinoffs, you are >>>> quite right, >>> >>>> and from some very smart people. And it is possible to trace some >>>> benefits to >>> >>>> the US economy directly from those spinoffs. Looking back, the >>>> interesting >>> >>>> question is about timing. More PSI's did not spring up in 1989. >>>> UUNet comes >>> >>>> to mind, and some dial-up ISPs, but a lot less than I would later >>>> events >>> >>>> would lead one to expect (albeit, with the benefit of hindsight). I >>> >>>> conjecture (as an outsider) that most waited until NSF >>>> privatization >>> >>>> plan was put into place, simply because doing anything before >>>> than was >>> >>>> incredibly risky as a commercial proposition. Is that right? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Shane >> Archives > Archives ------------------------------------------- --Boundary_(ID_JYdJDtRNrZrFrIv7mEcpSg) Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE




Begin= forwarded message:

Fr= om: Chuck Brownstein <charles.brownstein@verizon.net>
Date: Dece= mber 3, 2009 11:04:39 AM EST
To: dave@farber.netSubject: Re: [IP] re:  A Ridiculous Failure of Criti= cal Infrastructure
Reply-To: charles.brownstein@verizon.net

Rick,
I believe the formal approval in 1991 was to link NSF and MCI ma= il which also linked commercial and federal data networks. Vint and S= teve can fill in details.
 
My point of view at the time was that it was not so much as a ch= ange of acceptable use policy (a slippery construct that was mostly a= prophylactic against political mischief) but a positive federal decl= aration of the linking of commercial and research networks- on the ro= ad to moving out the the infrastructure supply business.
 
Contrary to what some believed would happen, the world did not c= ome to an end when the memo was signed. Instead,  we m= oved forward on what had been intended for NSFNET from the = time CISE was created at NSF.
 
There were a mixture of intentions. The obvious most easily= justifiable (if not totally uncontroversial ) one from inside of NSF= was to drive down the cost of S&T data communications by promoti= ng technical progress and the scale economies that could only co= me from a commercial Internet so that it would be more accessable to = researchers . 
 
But S&T data comunications was also thought of as an entry p= oint for other beneficial uses of networking apart from profit per se= . Hence there was as much support as the budget would allow for = international networking, research projects into technology and appli= cations apart form scientific communications, and lots of joint effor= t with allied agencies (DARPA, DOE, NASA in particular) where there w= ere equally motivated people.  
 
Chuck
 
Dec 2, 2009 07:53:44 PM, dave@farber.net wrote:




Begin forwarded message:

From: Rick Adams <Rick.Adams@Cello.Net>
Da= te: December 2, 2009 7:26:01 PM EST
To: dave@fa= rber.net
Subject: RE: [IP] A Ridiculous Failure = of Critical Infrastructure

UUNET's first commercial TCP/IP = service over leased lines was running in November 1988.=
AUP (Appropriate Use Policy) com= pliant traffic was exchanged with NSFNET. Non-AUP compliant traffic w= as not.
Much of Europe's email came over= this link for years.
 
UUNET and PSINet both started ac= tively selling TCP/IP in January 1990.
 
I don't understand the reference= to "Why= 1991?  That's when NSFNet modified its Acceptable Use Policy
to permit commercial TCP/IP services to interconnect wi= th NSFNet".