From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Do our taxes pay for Internet?
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:41:46 GMT

In <9209301409.AA07044@lfkw1.bgm.link.com> u6a44@lfkw1.bgm.link.com (Michael Lurie) writes:
>There doesn't
>seem to be a lot of crossover between the newgroup and the PC-based BBS
>worlds, but I'll relay any replies to Bill McC.  tnx... mlurie@link.com

It would be interesting to hear any response he has after reading our
responses.  Please post any future messages on the subject which he would
like to share with us.  Others have already posted stating the major
misconceptions the author had of the network, but I thought a complete
examination of the article would help give a deeper understanding.

>From: BILL MCCARTY                 Refer#: NONE

>   Here are a few thoughts and opinions on Internet. Opposing views
>are welcomed. The October issue of Boardwatch Magazine has an article
>devoted to Internet.

While I'm sure that Boardwatch is a fine magazine in covering the BBS world,
and although I haven't read the article in question, I am very skeptical
about the accuracy of the article from this source, especially in light of
some of the 'facts' below which are in reality not exactly true.  Internet
is a large, and very complex beast, and is commonly misrepresented by
writers who have had only cursory exposure to it.  If you have seen the
Internet article in the recent Online Access magazine, it is VERY inaccurate
on several points.

>Like MANY things I've read about Internet, the
>article is vague and inconclusive.

This is probably because the author has not had sufficient exposure to
explain the Internet world.  There are a couple of books out which describe
the Internet, what it has to offer, and how to access it.  These books where
written by actual Internet users and/or admins of Internet systems.  And
until you actually use the net, it's difficult to grasp what it is all
about.  These magazines would have much more interesting and accurate
articles if they would get experienced and knowledgable network users to
write them.  Or at least use such a person as a major source to the articlem
including allowing the source to review drafts of the article for any
inaccuracies.

>I have come to believe FIRMLY that
>like many government programs run amuck, NO ONE fully understands this
>system any longer.

Woah!  Hold on a second!  Internet is NOT run by the US government.  Parts
of Internet are run by the US government, but this is less than a majority
of the network, and it's share is dwindling.  Also there are plenty of
people who understand the system.  It doesn't help your understanding of the
system based on an article in a BBS magazine.

>To get to the logical heart of any issue there must
>be logic there to begin with. The author of this article was clearly
>unable to find any. DEPOT File ZEN10.ZIP while interesting, confirms
>this absence of reason or rationale  behind Internet.

If you are to boil down the reason or rationale of the Internet to just one
reason, it is to be a state of the art method of communication.  Just as the
printing press, postal service, telegraph, telephone, and more recently the
fax machine and overnight delivery have all profoundly changed and improved
the way we work, the Internet achieves, or will achieve the same sort of
revolution.  In it's bare essence, it's just another communications method.
But the way it works is fundamentally different from anything before it.

>    Internet, the article states, "began life as the ARPA Internet",
>ARPA being the Advanced Research Projects Agency, A branch of the US
>government.

Well, I'm not sure it was called the ARPA *Internet*, but the modern
Internet did indeed evolve out of the ARPA network.  It was my understanding
that one of the early reasons the network was designed the way it was, was
for military application.  They wanted a communications system where if one
path ws cut off, communications could continue over a different path.  But
this is getting a bit off the subject...

>The article states that Internet is "now funded by the
>National Science Foundation", which means of course, funded by you and
>I.

Wrong.  NSFnet is funded by the NSF.  This is only one part of the Internet.
It was the first part, and was the only part for a while, but today it is
nothing but a major backbone service.  It's still an important part of the
net, but it is only one part.  In addition, this part of the net has a
policy which states that the network should only be used for research and
education purposes.  This of course only applies to their part of the net.
Other parts are free to do what tey want.

>The NSF, by the way, is a US government organization which has just
>announced they will no longer subsidize research organizations which
>do not have females on the research staff. Gender?  That's important.
>Quality of research ? Who cares !

Discrimination is in my opinion a very serious matter.  Although I am
sometimes skeptical of affirmative action programs, it seems to me that this
policy is fairly reasonable.  Any reasonably sized research organization
with NO women researchers doesn't seem to be trying very hard to be fair in
hiring.

>   In common with many government boondoggles, those who manage to
>feed at a particular public trough, (and I've fed at a few myself)
>guard it jealously and drive away anyone ELSE who dares stick his
>snout in that particular trough. Or to quote the magazine article:
>"They guard the palace gates like a junk yard dog and assume the
>mantel of guardian of the Internet and protector of the connected from
>the heathen". The metaphors may be mixed but the meaning is clear.

There is no such guarding against new users joining the network community.
There is a problem of scarcity of access.  Most users get Internet access as
a perquisite for working for a connected company, or being a student at a
connected university.  The stated purpose of the NSFnet is for research and
education purposes.  General public access is not their charter.  However,
they will allow outside access through other providers if the subscriber is
qualified.  These providers tend to be geographically concentrated in
certain areas like the Silicon Valley/Bay Area, and larger cities.  This
scarcity is the only blockade for the average person getting access.  Email
access to Internet is widely avaible through other systems and networks,
including America Online, CompuServe, MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and many others,
including Fidonet systems, and public access unix systems.

>   As if it were not strange enough to have people saying the Govern-
>ment is not involved, when clearly it is, we now have the even more
>bizarre circumstance of people trying to SELL access to this govern-
>ment service to an unsuspecting public which has already PAID for it.

'We', as stated above, have only paid for part of it.  What people are
selling is access to the Internet.  Once on the Internet, accessing the
services thereon is the same, regardless of how you are connected.  Most of
the services are free.  Some services, such as supercomputer access requires
filling out a proposal stating what you want to do with it.  If approved,
you get a suitable amount of time, free.  You can also buy supercomputer
time for commercial purposes from some supercomputer centers.  For-pay
services are fairly rare currently, mostly because commercial use on
Internet is still something being worked on.  There are technical and social
problems which need to be resolved before commercial services will be widely
available on the network, but they are coming.

>Costs, according to the article, can range from $120 to $85,000
>dollars per year!

This is all very resonable when the costs involved are taken into account.
At the low end are services where you buy an account on a machine.  I'll use
Netcom as an example.  They charge around $18 a month and you get unlimited
access to the network, email, Usenet, etc.  You get 5 megabytes of disk
space, and a large number of hours you can call each month.  To provide
this, Netcom has an Internet link through BARRnet, a number of high speed
modems located at several locations in the Bay Area and one in Los Angeles,
and data lines to connect these locations to the main Netcom site.  Then
they have a number of multiuser systems, and a staff of people to run
things.  When you take this all into account, it's pretty amazing they can
charge this little and still make money.  This fee is hardly unreasonable.
It is on par with what most people pay for phone service or cable TV.  In
most places of the country, such rates are cause for much envy of the lucky
Bay Area residents.

Next up the scale is a Internet connection over dialup modem.   With this
type of connection, your system or network becomes an active part of the
Internet.  For this providers will typically have a specific high speed
modem and phone line dedicated to your Internet link.  Typically the
provider has a number of POPs (Points of Presence) around the country with
a number of high speed modems and leased lines connecting customers to each
other and the rest of the network.  Due to the amount of dedicated hardware
involved, typical costs are usually anywhere from $100 to $300 per month.
You can chose either flat rate, or be charged for the number of hours used.
This type of service is commonly reffered to as a SLIP line, as most of them
use the SLIP protocol over the modem line.

Next up the scale is leased lines.  Here you can chose among the various
speeds.  Most are either 56 kbps or 1.544 mbps, while some backbones are 45
mbps.  These are called DS0, T1, and T3, respectively.  For this, you have
to have a fairly expensive box on either end to interface (for example) from
ethernet to the leased line, and then back again.  These boxes are called
routers or gateways.  This is the type of lines used to connect large sites
to the network.  Even the cheapest 56kbps Internet link costs around $1500 a
month.  The line cost alone is around $500.  Going to T1 costs $1000 to
$1500 per month more.  (Note that you get more than 20 times the speed for
around twice the cost;  most sites are connected at T1 if they can afford
it.)  And the startup costs for each of these is significant.

But the point here for all of this is that by and large you are not paying
for something that the government is paying for.  You are paying your share
of what it costs to get hooked up.  It's important to realize this
fundamental point that you are buying connectivity.  You get access to other
sites as part of the bargain.  "OK, I'm connected now, but so what?" you
ask.  We'll get to that...

>Some very obvious questions come to mind.  Is
>there, as I believe, a main frame doing the housekeeping for the
>system ? And who pays for IT ?

The only thing close to what you describe is nic.ddn.mil.  They act as
mainly a registry.  You go there to get network numbers, domain names, etc.
The network itself has no global control.  Each part of the net pays for and
takes care of its own part.  Although the registry functions at nic.ddn.mil
are crucial, their expense is small, and is piggybacked on the main function
of that facility which is operation of th defense data network.

>Who pays for the cost of telephone
>services needed to link the 81 countries around the world which have
>managed to tie into the system ?

Whoever wanted the connection is who pays for it.  By and large, these
connections are paid by the peopleon the other end of the pipe.  Some are
paid for via cooperative methods where each end pays for part of it.  But
there is no free lunch on most connections.  The connections which are paid
for by NSF are those which are for a specific research and education
purpose.

>Is there, as I believe, a sizable
>bureaucracy in Washington complete with divisions and subdivisions,
>yea unto the third deputy assistant director for plans and programs
>complete with HIS public relations officer and equal employment
>opportunity official ? The purpose of the aforementioned would of
>course be to "manage" the private contractor who actually does the
>work.

There is no doubt some amount of bureaucracy involved, but I don't think it
is very extensive.  The private contrractor who actually does all the work
is primarily who keeps the NSFnet running.

>   And what does this service provide the long suffering taxpayer ? To
>the unwashed masses on the outside: nothing.

This argument can be made for many if not most government programs.
Ultimately, it serves a purpose even if the majority is not directly
involved.  The Internet, and NSFnet in particular is a tremendous tool for
the thousands of researchers connected together over it.  The results of
this research could be what sets us ahead of other countries.  It is
undeniably a tool which makes many areas of research much more efficient,
and timely.  Through the typical journal publication method, the peer review
process takes months or years.  On the network, researchers can collaborate
and share new discoveries or theories informally, bringing the peer review
process down to mere days or even hours.  This isn't just some
pie-in-the-sky fantasyy.  It happens.  I've witnessed it myself innumerable
times.  It is incalculably valuable to be able to contact hundreds or
thousands of your peers simultaneously in a matter of minutes or hours
without any formal meeting being set up.  And these peers can comment back
on the same time scale.  New discoveries can result from this process in an
extremely short time.

>To those on the inside,
>nothing that could not be handled by a private data communications
>network at, it's safe to say, far less cost. 

Private network providers are an intrinsic part of todays network.  It's
incomprehensible that this service could be achieved for less cost without
the hardware and line costs plunging dramatically.

>Indeed, it would very
>logically show a positive tax benefit. There are many things govern-
>ment should be involved in, but competing with private enterprise is
>not one of them.

In general, I agree.  However, this is not the case.  As I pointed out
above, the NSFnet has gone to great pains to not provide services which
could be better provided by others.  In addition, when the net started out,
there was no such drive for networking in the private sector, so no
competition was there.  In fact, I woud argue that if NSFnet had NOT started
the Internet that it wouldn't exist today.  In essence, they have created
the network marketplace, by my argument.  I doubt any business would have
done anything like the Internet if it had not already existed.  There are
networks like Telenet, but they are fundamentally different, and in my
opinion much less valuable.

>From sports discussions, to sex conferences, to
>trivia questions, to gab fests, Internet is an idea whose time has
>come and gone. 

You are primarily describing USENET here.  Although USENET is often
transmitted over Internet, it is not the Internet.  Theres an immense amount
of traffic over Internet, and USENET is just a fraction.  The network
traffic statistics will clearly show this.

>This is welfare for the rich. My choice would be: Shut
>it down or sell it, but get government OUT of it.   Regards,   bmc.

Without full understanding of the network, justifying such a position is
difficult.  In light of what I have stated previously in this article, it is
pretty clear that this position was based on incorrect information.  It is
clear that the government has had a clearly open role in developing the
network.  In addition, from the NREN proposal for the future of the network,
it looks like the network will be even more open.  The driving force of
government's role in the network is through pushing the envelope in
networking technology, and connecting together government funded research
centers.  Other providers have been free to use this technology in hooking
others up.  In my opinion, the benefits of the network have been tremendous.
Such networking is what the future is all about.

                            Jim Lick		       
Work: University of California	| Play: 1236 Camino Meleno
      Santa Barbara		|       Santa Barbara, CA 93111-1007
      Dept. of Mechanical Engr. |	(805) 964-2088 voice/msg
      2311 Engr II Building     |	(805) MUD-SPY1 data
      (805) 893-4113            |       jim@tcp.com
      jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu	| This space intentionally left blank
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.sys.mac.advocacy