Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/hold me in your arms/Michael Ney's Cyberculture/Cyberculture/INFOACTIVE #2

Text File | 1994-09-02 | 19KB | 390 lines

Topic 437       INFOACTIVE #2
web:msurman     cyberculture zone       12:55 PM  Aug 26, 1994


EXCERPTS from issue #2 (June 1994) of

INFOACTIVE: The Telecommunications Monthly for Nonprofits
---------------------------------------------------------

The Center for Media Education (CME) publishes _InfoActive:
The Telecommunications Monthly for Nonprofits_ . Selected articles
>from  the second issue, dated June 1994, appear below. Subscription
information appears at the bottom of this post.


InfoActive
----------
Table of Contents
(Stories marked with a "*" appears in this electronic post.)

Nonprofit Networking: Resources for the Rest of Us                      1
        (HandsNet; Institute for Global Communications; Free-Nets)
        References                                                      2
        HandsNet in Action                                              2
        For More Information                                            3
        Public CyberSpace: Recreating Main Street                       4

The Evolving Internet: From Freeway to Toll Road?                       1  *
        For More Information                                            9  *
        Organizations Working on Internet Policy Issues                 10 *

Grants: New Funding for Community Networking                            5
        (U.S. West Makes New Connections;
        CPBUs New Commitment to Public Networking)
        Recipients of CPB Community Networking Grants                   5

The Telecommunications Power Playes: The Administration                 6
        (Gore; Brown; Irving; Prabhakar; Katzen; Kalil; Nelson)

Washington Update                                                       8
        (Nonprofit Develop Plan for RPublic Space on Highway;
        H.R. 3636)
        Excerpt from May 12 Letter to Congress                          8

In Upcoming Issues                                                      12 *


---

THE EVOLVING INTERNET: FROM FREEWAY TO TOLL ROAD?

        Last month, InfoActive began a two-part series about the Internet
with an article describing how important this huge web of computer networks
has become for nonprofits.  In this second issue, we examine critical
policy questions that could determine the future of the Internet.

        Every day more nonprofits are using the Internet because they have
learned how vital it can be. But the qualities of openness, accessibility and
affordability that have made it uniquely valuable may be endangered by
critical policy developments and economic pressures.
        Nurtured by Public Funding. The Internet was created by the federal
government and then nurtured by a combination of educational, research,
nonprofit, and government institutions. The Internet started in 1969 as
ARPANET, a network connecting a mere four computers and run by the
Advanced Research Projects Administration of the U. S. Defense Department.
As ARPANET was extended to various defense contractors, public and private
universities created their own independent networks for academic research.
When ARPANET's government funding dwindled in the mid-1980s, a "volunteer,
rag-tag" coalition of universities attempted to better link research networks
across the country, according to Stephen Wolff of the National Science
Foundation (NSF). This attempt was so successful that it failed: "The
system fell over from congestion in six months."
        In 1987, a coalition of Michigan universities called MERIT (Michigan
Educational Research Information Triad) entered into a cooperative agreement
with NSF to create and run NSFnet, which consists of several supercomputer
sites linked by a high-speed network. NSFnet became the "backbone" of the
Internet. Using the language and standards first developed for ARPANET, and
supplemented by a backbone and many regional networks funded by NSF, the
Internet grew into a powerful, sprawling communications network.
        Noncommercial Use. Created and funded by federal and state
government, the Internet's primary role was to help scientific, research,
educational and government organizations. NSF maintained an Acceptable Use
Policy (AUP), limiting use to research and education projects. Most
organizations that used the NSFnet itself or regional subnetworks were
charged either a flat monthly or annual fee for their connection. Once the
organization paid the flat fee, its users could explore the Internet as
much as they liked at no additional charge.
        The result was that the Internet provided a very friendly environment
for nonprofits and individuals.  Flat rate pricing made it easy for
nonprofits to distribute information quickly and widely.  Such pricing also
enabled users to take part in one of the most popular and important features
of the Internet: its thousands of online discussion groups. With flat rates
for access, nonprofit users could post or respond to as many messages on as
many discussion groups as they chose to at no additional charge. This made
it affordable for nonprofits to fully explore the possibilities of Internet.
        Growing Up Rapidly. This freedom is a primary reason that the Internet
is so attractive. Millions more people have gotten online in the last few
years, democratizing the Internet by expanding its reach from scientists
and academics to students and the general public. While such growth is
exciting, some Internet observers wonder if congestion could pose problems
in the future. This could be the case if there is a substantial increase
in the use of applications that require a large amount of bandwidth, such
as those that involve transmitting video, voice and graphics over the
network.  Professor Hal Varian, an economist at the University of Michigan,
nervously eyes the rising demand for multi-media services: "The supply of
bandwidth is increasing dramatically but so is the demand."
        An Adulthood in the Private Sector? As the demand for Internet access
increases, so do the commercial possibilities. In 1990, MERIT contracted out
its management of the NSFnet to Advanced Network Services (ANS), a not-for-
profit consortium funded by IBM and MCI. Noting the demand to connect to the
Internet, other corporations have set up their own private backbones to provide
high-speed Internet service to the commercial sector. Believing that the
Internet will be able to function without NSFnet, the federal government
is now beginning to phase out its NSF subsidy to the backbone and the
regional networks, funding which totaled $20 million last year. (Some
federal money will still assist the development of high-speed networks
and computer networking applications.) The government is decentralizing
networking responsibilities and distributing them to private regional
networks and newly-created Network Access Points, operated by
telephone companies.
        One result of this growing privatization is that the government's
Acceptable Use Policy has become moot, since the NSFnet is now privately
managed, and commercial traffic that is prohibited can bypass the NSF backbone
altogether. As a result, over 50 percent of the networks on the Internet are
now from the commercial sector.
        Users may notice an increasing business presence on the Net with
services like the Internet Shopping Network and the Electronic
Newsstand. Seeing an opportunity, Canadian entrepreneur Michael Strangelove
started up The Internet Business Journal, a bimonthly publication: he is
also coming out with a book on how to advertise on the Net.
        Warning Signs Ahead. No one is sure exactly what a privatized and
commercialized Internet will mean for nonprofits, but there are some clear
danger signs that have many worried. Eventually the regional telephone
companies, the long-distance providers and other companies will have much
more control over key components of the Internet.
        What do these corporations want? "The telephone companies see the
Internet both as a competitive threat and as a business opportunity," says a
consultant who works both with nonprofits and the telephone companies, or
"telcos."
        This, combined with the potential need to prevent congestion on the
Internet by slowing the growth in demand, could mean an end to flat-rate
pricing. This pricing structure has made key features of the Internet
accessible to public interest users of the network. "No one knows for sure
what will happen when the telephone companies become the owners of mechanisms
and facilities used to route Internet information," says James Love,
director of the Taxpayer Assets Project, one of the key groups working
on this issue. "What we do know is that the telcos hate flat-rate pricing."
        What Will the Telcos Do? According to Love, the telephone companies
much prefer metered pricingQcharging by the minute, by volume or by some
other measurement of use.  Supporters of flat-rate pricing point out
that when the telcos first introduced WATS service, it was flat rate.
However, it gradually became metered service.
        Telephone company representatives see changes in Internet pricing as
inevitable. Mahal Mohan, AT&T's government affairs director for technology and
infrastructure, says he "sympathizes with nonprofits wanting to have some
stability in their prices." But he says that the current situation of
widespread flat-rate pricing is due to a system of "cross subsidies"
that will not survive in the future competitive telecommunications marketplace.
        Mohan says nonprofits will either have to set up their own private
networks, like some corporations do now, or "there will have to be a subsidy
mechanism, a funding mechanism that identifies which specific groups are really
deserving of a flat rate." Mohan adds that the changes in pricing are happening
quickly. "I don't think we can sit and wait five or 10 years," he says.
        Jeff Ward, NYNEX's vice president for federal policy, says he doesn't
know if there will be a shift from flat-rate to measured-rate pricing.
"If there are customers out there who prefer a flat rate, people out
there will offer one," he says, adding that with increased competition,
he believes the rates for the use of networks will actually come down.
But in discussing pricing, he also says, "If [a nonprofit like] Children's
Defense Fund wants to consume 10 'donuts,' that should cost more than
consuming one. If it's not costing them more, it's costing someone.
If that's the taxpayer, that's not a good use of taxpayer funds."
        Metering Democratic Debate? Metered pricing could limit online
discussion groups and restrict E-mail, electronic publishing and even
database use on the Internet by making them prohibitively expensive for
most nonprofits and individuals. Many individuals and institutions may
no longer be able to afford to provide services they now offer on a
voluntary basis. Metered pricing is already in effect in some foreign
countries, where it has had "a noticeably chilling effect," according
to a report by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR).
        Faced with such worrisome possibilities, many in the nonprofit
community argue that the Clinton administration should rethink its commitment
to letting the market determine the Internet's future. "The lesson the Clinton
administration should learn from the evolution of the 'Net," says Marc
Rotenberg, former director of the Washington office of CPSR, "is that market
forces are not going to build the open communication network that developed
>from  government support for the Internet. The administration should
support a public national network."
        Is Government Needed? Some key nonprofits who work on Internet
issues are skeptical about continued government involvement and believe
regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other agencies
would be a big mistake.
        "Government funding of the Internet has done its job," says Danny
Weitzner of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He credits the growing
participation of private companies in Internet services with helping to expand
access dramatically since the late 1980s while keeping prices down. He also
believes continued government control might lead to limits on free
speech on the Internet.
        Anthony Rutkowski, executive director of the Internet Society, the
international organization that promotes global information exchange through
Internet technology, says, "It's really scary to think about having the
FCC regulate the Internet." It's scary, he contends, because it was precisely
the lack of a federal regulatory role that encouraged more private companies
to enter the Internet services market.  Rutkowski believes that competitive
pressures will tend to preserve flat-rate pricing and argues that
involving the FCC would slow or reverse these positive trends.
        Future Scenarios. The Clinton administration, for its part, doesn't
see a major threat to flat-rate pricing in the coming changes to the
Internet. "I think it would be tragic if flat-rate pricing were to go
away," says Stephen Wolff of NSFnet. "If that seemed to be a serious
possibility, I would certainly be working against it." He explains that
"the Internet access business is a very competitive marketplace." That
market, he says, "will support what users want, and they want flat-rate
pricing." But Wolff added that he is "very wary of the general evils that
can be produced by overregulation." And he's skeptical of some who bring
up the pricing issue. "Some of the worries that are expressed about
flat-rate pricing are ill-disguised requests for free access. I haven't
got a whole lot of sympathy for them, because communication does cost money."
        Love of the Taxpayer Assets Project believes that the problem of
congestion might well force some form of metered pricing to be enacted. Since
the government is backing away, he worries that the public might not
have a voice on this issue, thus making it more difficult to preserve
the democratic discussion and debate that is now widespread on the Net.
One possibility would be to prioritize various forms of usage, so that
regular E-mail and discussion groups would be part of a basic flat rate,
while more advanced and faster services were metered.
        The Need for Vigilance. In response to these concerns, Rep. Ron Wyden
(D-OR), a key member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, consulted with Love and others. He then
introduced an amendment to the telecommunications bill, HR 3636. It
calls on the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) to conduct an inquiry on enhancing "civic
participation through the Internet," focusing on the question of whether
the telephone companies should be required to provide citizens with
flat-rate fees for Internet access. The amendment has been approved by
the subcommittee and will probably be part of the final bill passed by
the House. Wyden is optimistic about the impact of privatization on Internet
affordability and accessibility but says that "we must continue to be
vigilant."
        That's good advice for nonprofits, too, according to Rotenberg of CPSR.
He credits Love for raising the alarm. "The biggest mistake the nonprofit
community could make," says Rotenberg, "would be to back off from the debate
or assume the pricing issue is out of their hands or predetermined."


---
FOR MORE INFORMATION

Mackie-Mason, Jeffrey K. and Hal Varian. "Economic FAQs About the
Internet."* The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 1994.

Department of Economics
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1220
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

*FAQ is an acronym for Frequently Asked Questions. This paper is
one of the most accessible guides to the inner workings of the Internet.

These two University of Michigan professors have placed this and
other materials at gopher.econ.lsa.umich.edu, and can be accessed
using ftp, gopher, or World Wide Web.


---
ORGANIZATIONS WORKING ON INTERNET POLICY ISSUES


Richard Civille
Director, Washington Office
Center for Civic Networking
P.O. Box 65272
Washington, DC  20035
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Nikki Drater
Communications Director
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
P.O. Box 717
Palo Alto, CA  94302-0717
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Stanton McCandlish
Online Activist
Electronic Frontier Foundation
1001 G Street, NW
Suite 950 East
Washington, DC  20001
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Anthony Rutkowski
Executive Director
The Internet Society
1895 Preston White Drive
Reston, VA  22091
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

James Love
Director
Taxpayers Assets Project
Box 19367
Washington, DC  20036
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]


---
IN UPCOMING ISSUES

The Future of Television: Are Nonprofits Interacting?

Take Five: A Roundup of The Major Commercial Online Services

Who is King of the Hill? The Telecommunications Power Players in Congress

Profile: Laura Breeden, The AdministrationUs New Million Dollar Grantmaker

The New FCC

Getting Grants From a Gopher

New Funding Opportunities

Washington Update


---
InfoActive: The Telecommunications Monthly for Nonprofits

Publisher               Kathryn C. Montgomery
Editor-in-Chief         Jeffrey A. Chester
Associate Editor        Anthony E. Wright
Editor-at-Large         Peter Broderick
Senior Writer           Jeffrey D Porro
Copy Editor             Barbara Disckind
Design                  Magnet Design and Communications, Inc.

The views expressed in InfoActive are solely those of the
Center for Media Education. Copyright 1994. Please repost this
file where appropiate.

Center for Media Education
1511 K Street, NW
Suite 518
Washington, DC  20005
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]


---
Don't miss a single issue: ORDER NOW!

-- YES! I would like to receive a year (10 issues) subscription to
    _INFOACTIVE: THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY FOR NONPROFITS_.

        -- $35 (for individuals, nonprofits, and government institutions)

        -- $100 (for corporations and other for-profit firms)

Name:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone/Fax Numbers:
Internet Address:

Send check or money order to:
                                        InfoActive
                                        1511 K Street, NW
                                        Suite 518
                                        Washington, DC  20005

--
Anthony E. Wright                       [e-mail]
Coordinator, Future of Media Project    Center for Media Education