From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Do our taxes pay for Internet?
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:17:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct5.161734.4011
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <9209301409.AA07044@lfkw1.bgm.link.com> u6a44@lfkw1.bgm.link.com (Michael Lurie) writes:

> 
>Dear Folks...  The following was posted in the 'INTERNET' thread on the
>BBS that I operate (The Depot +1.717.853.3599) and I was hoping that, if
>at all possible, someone here in eff-talk might respond.  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
>=======================================================================
> BBS: The Depot
>Date: 09-29-92 (01:26)             Number: 3356
>>From: BILL MCCARTY                 Refer#: NONE
>  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO  
>Subj: INTERNET                       Conf: (1) MAIN
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   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. Like MANY things I've read about Internet, the
>article is vague and inconclusive. I have come to believe FIRMLY that
>like many government programs run amuck, NO ONE fully understands this
>system any longer. 

Well, Internet isn't a "government program", so I'm left feeling that
Mr. McCarty should read a few more of those "vague and inconclusive"
articles he appears to deride.

>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.

One is left wondering just what this 'interesting' file is that
'confirms' these things.

>    Internet, the article states, "began life as the ARPA Internet",

ARPAnet, I believe, not "ARPA Internet".

>ARPA being the Advanced Research Projects Agency, A branch of the US
>government. The article states that Internet is "now funded by the
>National Science Foundation", which means of course, funded by you and

The backbone sites are on NSFnet, which is so funded.  the great
majority of the net is funded by the organizations that are connected
to it.

>I. 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 !

One is left feeling that this guy must think he's Rush Limbaugh or
something.  While I can't say that I agree 100% with such a
restriction, it hardly implies that no one cares about 'quality of
research'.  It is also in accord with government rules on practically
everything else they provide funding for.  If an organizations doesn't
like the strings that come with Federal money, they don't have to cash
the check. 

>   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.

Who is this mysterious 'they'?  One assumes from the wording that it
is NSF, but this certainly doesn't seem in accord with the facts.
It's a lovely, emotional paragraph, but insofar as meaning goes it
seems to be semantically null.  It certainly doesn't seem to reflect
any reality *I* have ever seen.

>   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.

Uh, excuse me?  Just a few facts.  Except for some of the backbone
sites in the U.S., the government really ISN'T involved.  The public
hasn't "already PAID for it", even if there WERE government funding
involved.  There are quite well-defined costs associated with
providing a hook-up point (a la UUNET) for people into Internet.

>Costs, according to the article, can range from $120 to $85,000
>dollars per year !  Some very obvious questions come to mind.  Is
>there, as I believe, a main frame doing the housekeeping for the
>system ? 

He believes wrong.  No mainframe doing 'housekeeping', and in fact, no
'system' as such at all.  Someone should explain to Mr McCarty that
Internet is simply a collection of various networks, all of whom have
agreed to use the same sorts of protocols so that they can interchange
information. 

>And who pays for IT ?  

No 'IT', so nobody pays for it.

>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 ? 

The people who use those links pay for them.  One of the costs of
wanting to hook up is the cost of providing a link to the system.

>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 ? 

Once again Mr. McCarty appears to have beliefs which aren't in exact
accord with reality.  The phrase 'totally clueless' comes to mind.
Since the government doesn't run Internet, there is no such
bureaucracy. 

>The purpose of the aforementioned would of
>course be to "manage" the private contractor who actually does the
>work.

No bureaucracy, no private contractor (other than the commercial
organizations that provide Internet access), and apparently still no
clue on Mr. McCarty's part.

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

Which is only fair, since, other than the NSFnet sites (for which
there is indeed a "positive tax benefit") and other government
networks that have attached themselves to Internet, the taxpayer isn't
paying for it.

>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.  

Well, there's no 'inside' or 'outside' that I can discern.  Other than
backbone routing, there are no services for commercial groups (I think
NSFnet gets a bit stuffy about that), and there's no taxpayer cost
that I can think of over and above the costs of the various government
networks which would exist in any case.

>Indeed, it would very
>logically show a positive tax benefit. 

Indeed it does, since I think most of the folks using the net are
paying for it one way or another.

>There are many things govern-
>ment should be involved in, but competing with private enterprise is
>not one of them. 

Interesting, but not germane to the discussion at hand, since it isn't
doing that. 

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

There, but for the last two words, go I.

>This is welfare for the rich. 

Really?  Nice libertarian sentiment, but it would be nice if there
were a little fact involved.

>My choice would be: Shut
>it down or sell it, but get government OUT of it.   

Well, looks like Mr. McCarty gets the wish he expresses at the end of
his tirade, since the government doesn't own it, doesn't operate it,
and doesn't pay (so far as I know of) anything more than its share for
using it.

In other words, Mr. McCarty has launched into a beautiful tirade which
just happens to be pretty much fact-free.  

Totally clueless.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk