From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Do our taxes pay for Internet?
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:20:38 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

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

I read it several times Michael and it's a real hoot. This guy is in need
of a clue very badly. It's rather like Dan Quayle talking about Murphy Brown
when he hadn't watched the show. I'd like to read the article he mentions,
it must be really bad.

>=======================================================================
> 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. 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.

Wrong. The Internet is very simple conceptually. It operates as a
distributed hierarchy. Don't think of the traditional branching tree with
a root at the top, branching down to ever-more child and grandchild nodes.
It's more like Kudzu, a buch of separate plants that grow together and 
interweave so that from a distance it looks like one plant. Nobody knows
everything about every part of the net since no one needs to know and
in fact knowing it would be burdensome and useless information anyway.

BITNET was very complex, as it linked only IBM mainframes and took
the approach that every host knew how to get to every other host.
This meant however that if you added a new BITNET node in Israel, every
other BITNET node had to add this information to their tables . For a 
large number of nodes this is unworkable due to errors in transmission,
and the sheer amount of changes you'd have to trasmit all the time.

The InterNet on the other hand operates much more simply on the basis
that each node only know what it must. The higest level nameservers
and routers at the biggest sites know that gatech.edu is 128.61.x.y and
any traffic bound for something ending in .gatech.edu should go "that-a-way".
Then the local site gateway knows (hopefully) how to deliver from
there, either direct to the host or to a subnet router like the one
for .cad.gatech.edu (my subnet). The fact that no central registry keeps
a total listing of all hosts is a GOOD THING since such a list
would be hopelessly large, always out of date, and give out wrong info.

Going in the other direction, sun1.cad.gatech.edu need only know
how to get information to cad.gatech.edu, and the router port that
connects our building LAN to the campus backbone. Each step up
or down the hierarchy makes it's own decisions based on a small and
hopefully accurate local picture. Routers make decisions and deliver
your packets based on an ever-changing picture. For instance, say
Kansas State links up to Indiana State via T1, and Indiana State
has one or more connections to other sites, like say the commercial
entity UUNET. Then machines at Kansas can now reach UUNET also by
routing thru Indiana. And if Kansas has two links instead of the one,
either route can be used according to which is the best path at that
moment. All without reconfiguring and re-tabling every damn machine!
Thusly your traffic may pass through many intermediate points to get
where it's going, and each decision is independent.

Rather like tossing a bottle into a river with an address written on
it, you depend on other people downstream being nice enough to pick
it up and toss it into a different river.

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

I hate it when writers cloud the issue with other complaints. If I write
a diatribe on something and then interrupt to talk about my thoughts
on abortion, I lose some readers who may have agreed with me before, but
can't stand my position on this other thing.

ARPAnet was the grand-daddy, but originally only connected big
supercomputers and "serious machines" at a very few sites. The ARPA
net was a good first try, but was abandoned over time since it for
instance only supported 256 hosts. The InterNet is just the weaving
together of regional networks, some of which are commercial, some
of which are educational. NFSNet forms one of the major backbones but is
hardly the whole of the network. When regional networks started connecting
tendrils to each other, folks figured out that to move data from one
regional net to the next both had to agree on protocol, and thus was
the InterNet Protocol Suite borne with much wailing and gnashing of
teeth. It didn't happen overnight you understand and is still being
upgraded and revised. Actually InterNet is a stupid name. You internetwork
LANs and WANs, you may run IP on your machine, but there is no single
"thing" called the InterNet. For instance, GT is a major site for
NSFNet, SuraNet, and PeachNet among others. Our regional nets in some way
connect to some other backbones. Since my machines run IP and can find
a pathway, they are "on the InterNet" in a very simple-minded sense.

>   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.

Money talks my friend, and while gov't waste does happen it's not general
policy. I have long distance on the phone in my office, should I invite
anyone to use it? Accounts on university machines are not given away
to non-GT folks for very obvious reason of limited resources. We can't
even supply the demands of all the students and researchers, and you ask
why the budget isn't bigger to support dialups for the general public
and uncontrolled accounts? If my long-distance bill showed 50 calls
to 976 numbers you can bet I'd be on the carpet doing some explaining.

>   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.
>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 ? And who 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 ? 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.

I know that UUNET, PSI, and CIX sell connections to their networks
and/or machines, which also have links to other networks. I don't
know the issues here but this seems to be a case more of the gov't
staying out of the picture, which I consider to be a "Good Thing (tm)".

The InterNet is probably the most unstructured and unmanaged
environment I've ever encountered. The only central control is the NIC
to assign domain names for sites and IP number ranges. Each site must
pay for it's own equipment and links out of it's own budget generally.
Here we shelled out tens of thousands to install our LAN. Then we pay
a communications surcharge to connect to a port on the router that
governs the campus backbone on this end of the campus. Now like any
department we operate on a fixed budget, so money spent for A is not
available for B. If the researchers didn't darn well consider the
ability to move information around so freely to be important, we wouldn't
be spending so much money on it. Networking is considered a necessary
part of the overhead and is included as such.

The folks who do the work are generally the same ones who make the
decisions when it comes to networking. My boss indicates what budget
limits we have, we work with users to draw up the plans for new equipment.
Then once *I* have decided what the best compromise is for a new hub,
like I'd love to have a Hughs and an SNMP agent but end up with a dumb
repeater instead since I know what the minimum we really need is, I request
it, install it, and run the cable myself.

Large-scale problems such as protocols and new developments are generally
handled over the network. Somebody says "hey we need to agree on how
multi-media e-mail should be done" and posts a Request For Comment on the net.
Eventually a lot of people hash it out via e-mail and news postings,
many patches and changes are applied and RFCxxx comes out. No big fat
guys with cigars in back rooms, just a bunch of underpaid computer geeks
solving an interesting problem.

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

I've seen it all before. UseNet News is often transferred over InterNet but
accounts for a small fraction of traffic. It's Dr. Ozbek moving his
data files back and forth to the Pittsburgh Cray that eat up bandwidth.
The university leases the T1 and T3 lines from the phone company just like
any private company. In what way are we competing with "private data
communications" companies?  If you want InterNet access, you pay for it
like we do. If you want your local site to offer it to you, pay them.
Always remember TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
Phone company expects bills to be paid on time every month, and the
more dialups Tech would support, the more of our budget would have to be
paid out for data-grade rotary phone lines.

>From sports discussions, to sex conferences, to
>trivia questions, to gab fests, Internet is an idea whose time has
>come and gone. This is welfare for the rich. My choice would be: Shut
>it down or sell it, but get government OUT of it.   Regards,   bmc.

Each site makes it's own decisions if and how to connect and spends
it's own money. There is no big universal thing to sell. Are you
proposing to force all universities and companies to shutdown their
equipment and start over? 

Subject: Re: Do our taxes pay for Internet?
Distribution: y

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. 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.
>    Internet, the article states, "began life as the 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
>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 !
>   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.
>   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.
>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 ? And who 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 ? 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.
>   And what does this service provide the long suffering taxpayer ? To
>the unwashed masses on the outside: nothing. 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.  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. From sports discussions, to sex conferences, to
>trivia questions, to gab fests, Internet is an idea whose time has
>come and gone. This is welfare for the rich. My choice would be: Shut
>it down or sell it, but get government OUT of it.   Regards,   bmc.
-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6238 comp.admin.policy:1192 alt.censorship:7827 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3036