I suppose I helped start this thread, because I suggested: AM> While they all are unable to make much sense of the Internet, I AM> think the Internet will survive and thrive precisely because the AM> telcos will not be able to agree on an alternative. Nor could AM> their alternative have the dynamism of the net. They will be AM> reduced to the level of ordinary utilities, such as water or AM> electricity, useful , but no big deal. Richard and others disagree totally. Specifically, Richard says: AM> The question: Will open, Internet-style communications survive AM> the commercialization of cyberspace? AM> AM> I'm convinced survival is unlikely, not because the two AM> _couldn't_ co-exist, but because of strategic political AM> considerations AM> AM> Arun is confident that the future is too slippery and dynamic for AM> telco conglomerates or governments to pin down, and that Internet AM> will survive somehow -- perhaps by escaping to new transport AM> techologies. (I hope that's a fair characterization.) AM> ... AM> Who owns Iridium? If they have deep pockets, then won't AM> they play along with their natural monopolist colleagues? And if AM> they don't have deep pockets, then can't they be bought out as AM> soon as their product is proven? (Sorry it seems to quote from "AM" above: it should actually say "RKM") Richard summarises part of my argument above, let me amplify. Well, firstly, while Gilder is often criticized on this list, he does understand technology and write about it well. Specifically, I would suggest http://www.digicash.com/~nick/teledesic.gilder.html This nicely explains the significance of LEO satellites, as also points out that Iridium is far from the last word on the subject. So, Richard, it does not matter too much who owns Iridium, and how monopolistic they are -- there are others, and each one would like to prevent the other from getting a monopoly. So, the Internet model suits everybody, because it suits none of the "robber barons" that Richard hates. Oh, and if LEOs don't do the trick, there is packet radio, spread spectrum, etc. As I have pointed out in my Byte commentary, http://www.byte.com/art/9507/sec14/art1.htm regular geostationary (GEO) satellites could easily be used (and are) for one-way broadcast of Usenet, cost-effectively and virtually uncensorable. As Craig pointed out to me (press release of Planet 1, Comsat's new portable global personal communications system), GEO's could also offer services of the kind that LEOs plan to offer -- so there is no question of a monopoly here. The net changes with a speed that the telcos are not attuned to. These are slow, monopolistic organisations, and while some in the US might be fleet-footed enough to be cause for worry, most countries in the world, including in Europe and Japan, have telcos that are incapable of changing at any susbtantial speed. The Net is good business for telcos. It is growing at a dream rate, particularly the Web, which is a bandwidth hog. And so far, it is a bottomless pit too: You simply cannot throw enough bandwidth at it. Now, why would these capitalists want to fool around with such a good client, particularly when there is no alternative? Yes, they mourn the loss of the profits they have made in voice telephony, just as I'm sure some consumer giants aren't too happy that DVD will replace CD-ROMs and VCRs. However, rapid innovation is something that any industry that is invaded by computers has to learn to live with, and telcos are not the first. They lose voice, they gain other business. The quick ones do well, the slow ones suffer. Nothing new. Sure, they'd like a monopoly, but who's asking them? It is hard to retain a monopoly over a technology that is becoming cheaper and more widespread by the day, as IBM discovered. Lots of people are willing to fight for the Internet to stay the way it is. This includes the cypherpunks, the Joe Sheas (editor of American Reporter, who will break the black net censorship law the day it comes into force) and, I hope, most people on cyber-rights. If enough people show determination, can organise, are vocal and even willing to break the law, I don't see how those wimps in Congress are going to stop them. Yes, there are threats to freedom of the Net, such as the Compuserve action, or that of Netcom. Typically, governments are responsible, and I see a far greater threat coming from them than from the telcos. But let's face it: such censorship is already widespread on the net. If you count all the people who have e-mail only accounts (and can therefore receive c-r) as "on the Net", I'd say the percentage of people who have easy Usenet access is small. Each site decides for itself which newsgroups to carry, so if you work out how many newsgroups the average net user has access to, you'd have an embarassingly small number. This is why I like the idea of receiving all the newsgroups I want via satellite. In fact, my dream is the day when banned Usenet groups and anonymous remailers are hosted on servers located on satellites, where they are outside the jurisdiction of all governments. If things get tough here on earth, I'm sure that is what will happen. The purpose of this note is not to suggest that such attacks aren't serious, nor that we can sit back and rely on the famous ability of the net to "route around censorship." More than the IP routers, this ability rests on us. There is this lovely saying to the effect that all it takes for the victory of evil is for good folk to do nothing. On the contrary, I suggest we fight these encroachments, precisely because I think we can win. I've suggested on cpsr-global that we form an international organisation to coordinate such actions, modelled on a combination of Amnesty International and Green Peace, I'll try to write that down in another note. Arun Mehta, B-69 Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24, India. Phone 6841172,6849103 http://mahavir.doe.ernet.in/~pinaward/arun.htm •••@••.••• •••@••.••• •••@••.••• Bureaucrats find the anarchic Internet bewildering and threatening. They are uncomfortably aware that if they ever attempt a Tiananmen Square in cyberspace, the students will have the more powerful tanks...
