On Mon, 7 Jun 1993 11:53:33 -0700 <Ben.Goren@ASU> said:
>I just had a few notes posted to one of my lists about a rumour that
>there's a plan to limit access to the Internet to only a few
>government-sponsored research institutions. I *hope* I stomped on it
>quickly enough, but I figured it would be best to warn the rest of you that
>there's another one about, and that it might be a good idea to try to limit
>the damage this one does. BTW: by "stomped," I mean that I sent a note telling
>everybody to drop the whole thing, including "me too's," unless you've got
>proof positive. I suppose if it gets out of hand, holding or moderating the
>list might be appropriate.
Here's what I've collected about the "future-of-the-Internet".
(Small apology for its length (500 lines), but this *is* the place for it.)
<clip>
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions,news.future,alt.online-service,
alt.internet.services,comp.mail.misc
From: [log in to unmask] (Daniel Kohn)
Subject: How Big Is the Internet?
Summary: How many people have e-mail access to the Internet?
Keywords: Internet,size,very big,RFC1296
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 05:13:02 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College
Actually, my question is: How many people can send e-mail to and
receive it from a fully connected Internet site?
I am not as naive as this question makes me sound. I have read RFC
1296 and updated it with figures from report-9304.doc located at
ftp.nisc.sri.com. The numbers from April say that there are 1,486,000 hosts
on the Internet. (Read RFC 1296 if you want to haggle about the technical
difficulties and imprecisions involved in this count.)
Now let's take an even bigger leap of faith and assume that there
are on average 10 users per host. This figure is suggested in
report-9301.doc, but I would love a better estimate if anyone thinks they
have a good reason for one. So, that brings us to an estimate of about 14
million people with TCP/IP access to the Internet in April 1993.
Unfortunately, that doesn't answer my question.
The problem is, we now need to estimate the number of people with
e-mail access to any network with an e-mail gateway to the Internet. So,
how many active subscribers does Compuserve have? How many active AppleLink
accounts are there? (At least we don't need to worry about Prodigy :-) But
I am looking for a serious answer. Can anyone suggest a way to estimate the
number of people with gateway access to Internet e-mail? Don't forget the
problem of double counting (e.g., I have Internet and AppleLink accounts).
Lastly, how can one estimate how many of those people are in the
U.S. and how many are international?
Please try to to keep flames to a minimum. I realize the
impossibility of doing an exact count, so all I'm looking for is a realistic,
order-of-magnitude estimate and a defendable methodology for reaching it.
If you have a guess at how to make that estimate, please do reply.
<clip>
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions,news.future,alt.internet.services,
comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: How Big Is the Internet?
From: [log in to unmask] (Anthony Rosati)
Date: 7 Jun 93 04:49:58 -0400
Daniel Kohn ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: Please try to to keep flames to a minimum. I realize the
: impossibility of doing an exact count, so all I'm looking for is a realistic,
: order-of-magnitude estimate and a defendible methodology for reaching it.
: If you have a guess at how to make that estimate, please do reply.
Let's be honest... you are asking very important questions, to which I too
would like answers. With both the NSF proposal and Title VI of Senate Bill 4
both advocating shunting the entire Internet to "commercial vendors" (nee:
"Baby Bells", as well as prohibitions against ANY governmental entity (federal,
state, or local) from running a network (claimed as "unfair competition"), we
must prepare for a heated battle. Already, the Baby bells and their commercial
provider colleagues have sneaked this legislative language into Senate Bill
4 without a floor debate. It is up to all of us to deluge our Senators &
Congressmen with faxes, phone calls and letters protesting this new shift
that would either isolate, fiscally disfranchise or significantly reduce the
traffic on the internet. It should be no surprise to anyone that the reason
the internet is as large as it is is because of the minimal intrusion of greed
or avarice into its operation.
This trend could cripple the entire network movement in America. With the way
the Bell companies traditionally deal with services and their attention to
fiscal balance, we will see the Internet as we know it disappear. Compuserve,
GEnie, America On-Line and the others have an infinitely small base more than
likely because they impose a fiscal barrier to involvement, whether it is
their hourly rates or their absence in many market areas. The Internet has
not only increased communication between people, but significantly improved
intellectual productivity in education and industry.
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Anthony V. Rosati | Information Exchange Coordinator and Member, The |
| Department of Chemistry | Board of Directors, The National Association of |
| Georgetown University | Graduate - Professional Students 1993-1994 |
| Washington, DC 20057 +---------------------------------------------------+
| (202) 687-5610 | **** Email 1: [log in to unmask] **** |
| (202) 298-9056 | **** Email 2: [log in to unmask] **** |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
<clip>
From: [log in to unmask] (Adam Cody Coggins)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions,news.future,alt.online-service,
alt.internet.services,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Repost of Internet threat info (was Re: How Big Is the Internet?)
Summary: long collection of posts
Date: 7 Jun 93 16:01:48 GMT
Warning: this account expires June 30
For those looking for more info, here is some that was forwarded to me.
Apologies if this is a rehash of things already seen here or if you
feel it is outside the group's charter; I rarely read this particular group.
<clip>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 09:39:31 EST
From: Carl Dassbach <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: threat to internet in America
Attached is the information that I have readily available. Sorry, I have
not been able to edit it. I have been swamped with requests.
<sub-clip>
From: "Martha E. Gimenez (303) 492-7080" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: THE FUTURE OF INTERNET/OUR FUTURE
X-Comment: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK
Dear PSNers:
So far, we have been enjoying the wonderful possibilities for exchanging ideas
and building communities offered by Internet without asking ourselves how it
is that we can actually avail ourselves of this technology. The time has come
to become aware of the dangers to our unrestrained use of Internet. In fact,
the future of PSN and countless other lists is in jeopardy. So far, Internet
has been subsidized by the government and is, for all practical purposes, a
public good which can be put to a variety of uses within and outside academia.
As the message forwarded below indicates, there is a bill in congress which is
intended to end government subsidies and give control of Internet to the
telephone companies. Internet will become a commodity, prices will rise, many
universities and colleges already constrained by budget cuts might give it up
while those that keep it will charge the users. This will keep students and
underpaid faculty without grants out of the networks and many academic and
political LISTSERVs like PSN might have to disappear in virtual space :-(
sigh....
So, if you enjoy PSN and other lists, please write to your representatives in
congress highlighting the importance of keeping Internet as a public good.
This is not only something useful for us, academics living in the wealthy
"North;" it helps keep progressive social thought alive in the poorer
countries and facilitates communications among workers organizations and
political activists (you might consider joining Labor-L for more information
about that) , something which is of vital importance at a time when regional
economic agreements like NAFTA are changing the economic and political space.
<sub-clip>
> Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 17:40:21 CDT
> Sender: Project Gutenberg Email List <[log in to unmask]>
> From: Keith Dennis <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Future of the Internet?
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Dear Professor Hart,
> you may wish to alert the readership of Gutenberg that the Internet as
> we know it may be shortly destroyed by our Congress. A bill written
> by Rep. Rick Boucher (D, Virginia), chair of the House Science
> Subcommittee will remove government subsidies and place control with
> the telephone companies. A likely consequence will be a substantial
> increase of cost to universities with the likelihood that some will
> drop out or charge for use by individuals. This not only threatens
> Project Gutenberg, but all other academic uses of the nets. Perhaps
> it is time to notify our representatives of the value of the
> Internet for educational, scientific, and other scholarly uses.
>
> Additional information can be found in "Colleges and Telephone
> Companies Battle over the Future of the Internet", page A25,
> The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 39 #37, May 19, 1993.
>
> Gustavo J. Llavaneras S. University of California - Berkeley
> [log in to unmask] Knowledge-Based Computer Aided Design
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask] Universidad Central de Venezuela - Caracas
<sub-clip>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 16:41:32 CDT
Sender: History of the Iberian Peninsula <[log in to unmask]>
From: LHNELSON --UKANVM <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Internet and Commerical Operators.
Thanks for the citation, Carl. I checked it and the follow-up article
(Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 May, p. A17, entitled "NSF releases long
awaited plan to reduce U.S. role in the Internet").
Basically, the National Science Foundation maintains the NSFNET, which is the
"trunk line" to which all of the regional networks are connected to form
Internet as a whole. The government provides $11.5 million annually to support
NSFnet, and another $7,000,000 to subsidize the local networks. The local
networks' other income comes from institutional fees (up to $40,000 per year
for a big school) that depend up the institution's size and not the volume of
Internet traffic that it generates.
The current arrangements for the operation of the NSFnet come to an end on 30
April 1994, and NSF wants a much improved NSFnet with increases in
transmission speed of 300-500 %. It intends to let out contracts for the
establishment and the operation of NSFnet to private companies under
government contract and intends to end its subsidies to local networks over a
four-year period after that. The Clinton administration is reportedly in favor
of direct grants to schools to defray their expenses rather than doing so
indirectly through the local networks.
The communications companies wish to divorce NSFnet from other Internet
operations. Specifically, they want NSFnet to be reserved for high-speed
communications between the several super-computer sites that crunch data for
the sciences. They would be allowed to establish a privately controlled and
operated "trunk line" for other Internet uses and to charge local networks for
accessing that line.
EDUCOM, a consortium of educational telecommunication "consumers," estimate
that this arrangement would probably raise their costs from 10%-30%, but are
more apprehensive that the private owners would turn from flat rate fees to
charging either by traffic or on-line time. In point of fact, although not
mentioned in either article, divisions of the telephone company have tried to
establish traffic charges, in some states, based upon the volume of
information transferred. These proposals have been struck down on the basis
that the volume of traffic per unit time has no effect upon the companies'
costs and thus should have no effect upon their charges. If the companies
operate a trunk line designed for information transfer and can appeal to the
national rather than state governments, their requests might be viewed quite
differently. Such a development would affect the Internet and our use of it
quite dramatically.
NSF has announced its plans, but it is not clear what relationship there is
between these and the discussions in Congressional committees. At any rate,
Carl has brought up a serious and pressing issue, and I thank him for doing so.
Some of you, both users in the United States and those in other countries, may
wish to express your opinion of this situation. Fortunately, the White House
has just completed its e-mail system and has announced its wish that people
communicate with it. I will search out that announcement and post it later for
your information and for the e-addresses it contains.
Lynn Nelson, Department of History, University of Kansas
<sub-clip>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 15:37:17 -0600
Sender: [log in to unmask]
From: Stephen Wolff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: INTERNET
X-Comment: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
This is the response to my earlier posting from the responsible office
and person at NSF.
Okay, we all know that INTERNET was never really free but I can't help
observing that this sounds like bureaucratic "double talk" which is,
as we know "double plus ungood".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the responsible office in the NSF, and I am the responsible person.
There is no "plan to limit free use of INTERNET..."
In the first place, there is no such thing as "free use of INTERNET". Each
and every institution with Internet access pays a service provider real money
every year for the institution's connection. Most institutions do not
however trickle those charges down to users, but pay for them out of general
operating funds.
Service providers, most of whom serve a limited geographical area, attain
national and international coverage via the NSFNET BackBone Service, which
has hitherto been centrally funded by an award to Merit, Inc. and provided
to the regional service providers at no charge.
Since the beginning of the current NSFNET Backbone Service in 1987, a lively
and competitive commercial market in Internet carriage has emerged, with
multiple vendors offering robust, nationwide, commodity-level services.
Continued centralized funding of a Backbone Service by the Foundation is no
longer justified, as it would place the Federal government in direct
competition with the private sector.
Awards made under the currently active solicitation will include awards to
regional networks to purchase backbone service on the open market. That is,
the NSF will switch from supplier funding to user funding.
The NSF is committed to continuity of network service to the research and
education community; we will take whatever steps are necessary to assure it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SOME NAMES AND ADDRESSES AT THE NSF AS WELL AS A QUASI-OFFICIAL STATEMENT
FROM AN "INFORMED SOURCE" AT THE NSF.
8. National Science Foundation
A. Nico Habermann
Assistant Director of the National
Science Foundation for the Computer
and Information Science
Engineering Directorate
Chairperson
Federal Networking Council
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W., Room 306
Washington, DC 20550
Tel. No. 202/357-7936
Fax No. 202/357-0320
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Sherrye McGregor
Policy Office
grants@nsf
[log in to unmask]
Dr. Stephen S. Wolff
Director of the Divison of Networking
and Communications Research and
Infrastructure
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20550
Voice: (202) 357-9717
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Jane Caviness
Deputy Director
Washington, DC 20550
Division for Networking and
Communications
Research and Infrastructure
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, N.W.
Voice: (202) 357-9717
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports advanced fundamental research in
HPCC technologies and their application to science and engineering problems.
While coordinating the NREN component, NSF is upgrading NSFNET backbone
services, deploying networking information services, increasing network
connections, and expanding gigabit research and development.
NSF super-computer centers are collaborating towards a "meta-center."
NSF enables coordinated approaches to Grand Challenge problems, and addresses
algorithm and software technology issues. Expanded IITA research includes
distributed databases and digital libraries, multimedia computing and
visualization, and image recognition.
The NSF still sees these needs in the networking community: providing a
national routing authority, providing a set of network access point, and
assistant with inter-regional traffic.
NSF will support mid-levels, but will push for them to become self-supporting.
NSF will continue to work toward a network for research and education.
<sub-clip>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 03:37:12 EST
From: Ellie Valentine <[log in to unmask]>
NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR NSF NETWORK SERVICE CENTER
July 8, 1992 NNSC Section 6.2, Page 4
NNSC - NSF Network Service Center
Address:
NNSC
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
Systems and Technologies Division
10 Moulton Street, Mail Stop 6/3B
Cambridge, MA 02138
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: (617) 873-3400
FAX: (617) 873-5620
Description
The NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) is sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (NSF). The purpose of the NNSC
is to collect, maintain and distribute information about
NSFNET and provide assistance to NSFNET end-users. The
objective of the NNSC project is to make general information
<sub-clip>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 10:10:11 CDT
Sender: HTECH-L History of Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
From: Stuart Feffer <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: INTERNET
DIAMOND argues, in favor of a shift of the Internet backbone to the private
sector, that the private sector has greater incentive to cut costs than does
a government provider of services. He also questions the propriety of
taxpayer subsidies of frivolous traffic over the network.
It is also true, however, that the private sector has a *much* greater
incentive to raise *revenues*, and this is the source of the potential
down-side for users of the network. The fear is that private service
providers will want to begin billing by the message-unit, even though the
cost of operating the backbone is *not* proportional to usage -- the
marginal cost of one more e-mail message being effectively zero.
That virtually all of the costs of operating the network are fixed, also
means that the argument about taxpayer subsidies of non-essential uses is
spurious. The bandwidth is *already* there, and needed to handle peak usage
requirements and the requirements of the heaviest users. But there is still
bandwidth leftover for low priority traffic -- allowing users like use to
piggyback (effectively) for free.
A private operator will naturally want to squeeze every dime of revenue out
of every possible source, and that will almost definitely include uses like
ours which add effectively nothing to costs.
<sub-clip>
The NSF solicitation for private organizations to run INTERNET is
can be found at the following address:
GOPHER.NSF.GOV. - LOGIN "public"
NSF document number - NSF9352
Papers on the privatization of INTERNET are available via
anonymous FTP from:
GOPHER.ECON.LSA.UMICH.EDU
in: /pub/Papers
**********************************************************************
* Carl H.A. Dassbach BITNET: DASSBACH@MTUS5 *
* Dept. of Social Sciences INTERNET: [log in to unmask] *
* Michigan Technological Univ. PHONE: (906)487-2115 *
* Houghton, MI 49931 FAX: (906)487-2468 *
* U.S.A. *
**********************************************************************
<clip>
From: [log in to unmask] (Jim Carroll)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions,news.future,alt.online-service,
alt.internet.services,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: How Big Is the Internet?
Keywords: Internet,size,very big,RFC1296
Date: 7 Jun 93 14:21:6 GMT
Organization: JACC
Look for the publication "EMMS", Electronic Mail and MicroSystems, which
summarizes the numbers of commercial vendors and other mail types, many
of which are accessible from Internet mail.
Note that EMMS is asking the same question (in their last issue)
and promises to summarize the responses they get.
I can give you a contact number for the publication if you require.
I estimate 50million if you factor in all commercial systems, and the
companies that are plugged into them....even if for some the addressing
is a challenge.
<clip>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 13:59:15 ET
Sender: Bitnet/Internet Help Resource <[log in to unmask]>
From: Marcelle McGhee <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Free Internet Threatened
A friend of mine sent me a hardcopy memo she received on the TQM list.
It was posted by someone on the CIRCPLUS list. To summarize, the memo
says that the NSF is receiving pressure from large telecommunications
interests to limit the "free" access to the internet, to
"scientists transmitting huge files of data" and to begin charging others
who use the Internet for e-mail etc... purposes.
Has anyone heard about this, or is it just another rumor? I would be
interested in finding out more about it. I am trying to find out the
source of the memo and will post any info I receive that seems credible.
<clip>
|
