Re: Cyber-Rights position on IPS charges


Sender: •••@••.••• (Marilyn Davis)

Charles Bell wrote to Richard K. Moore:

> It would be easier to gain the respectful attention of such people if you
> would avoid the use of inflammatory terms such as `monopolistic
> robber-baron capitalist.

Maybe Richard writes to only some of us.  He certainly reminds *me*
where my immediate duty lies.  We need to rewrite Richard, that's all.

And, being blinded by my vision, I can't stop my new-world-techno-
babble so my writing's not the best for general consumption either.

Someone please help here.

Here's the plan as I see it now:

1.  We collaborate on writing a press release from the Cyber-Rights
email list.

2.  In our press release, we issue our decision regarding appropriate
ISP charges: Richard's plan.

2.  We come to *consensus* on this plan.  "Are there any objections?"

3.  We release our statement to the press by email, explaining our
decision and our decision-making process.

4.  Contacts/live representatives for the plan can possibly be chosen
by consensus as well.  Richard is the natural to represent the plan,
if he will.  I am prepared to represent the process.

If we get the result in the papers, we begin our climb out of the
defensive and we establish a process for online groups to gain
political power.

Can we do it?  It's now or later.  Later, the climb out will be

As a first step, I offer this compilation of the facts to any authors
in the group in the hopes that someone will write a first draft:

The essence of the pricing scheme, Richard's words:

>         The best-possible world for us would be a flat, incremental charge
> for all communications transmissions, based on bandwidth-used, plus a
> surcharge for synchronous delivery.  And this best-world would also charge
> all users equally, without vertical-monopoly under-the-table discounts.
> Under such an ideal scheme (probably beyond achieving politically), and
> assuming video transmissions would be affordable to the masses, we'd be
> able to follow on the price-curve coattails and have _very_ affordable
> messaging connectivity (provided CDA allows us to say anything).

I think there needs to be some clarification:

In our scheme, is there no difference between personal use and
business use?

The scheme is for www and other high bandwidth applications only?

Email needs to be free for three (at least) reasons:

1.  We don't control whether or not email comes to us so it's not fair
to pay for it by the bit.

2.  It uses almost no resources: a trickle of bandwidth delivered at
the lowest priority.

3.  It's the vehicle for enhancing democracy.

Richard's "surcharge for synchronous delivery" is reinforced by the
NSF in their press release of March 14 where they announce their
support for the development of a new technology:

>         The technology will introduce the idea of prioritization to Internet
> traffic. For example, if planning to use the U.S. Postal Service to send a
> package, you have options: overnight mail, first-class service, or third-class
> service.  The rate of the package delivery is contingent on how it is
> designated.  Freeways around major cities often have either express toll roads
> or high-occupancy-vehicle lanes to bypass congested areas.  Similarly, NSF's
> connections program is expected to spur the development of switches and
> routers to help alleviate bottlenecks of information.


If someone would kindly write a first draft that embodied these ideas,
it would be a significant contribution to freedom.
Marilyn                               *
Marilyn Davis, Ph.D.-------------- * ---- eVote - online voting software
|                                 *       To participate in the beta
3790 El Camino Real, #147  *     *        write •••@••.•••
Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA     *   *
(415) 493-3631 ------------- * * -----

 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.