Re: One example of why I detest negative partisanship (quite long, but somewhat infomative)
- From: "coco" <aozotorp@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Apr 2006 13:38:55 -0700
Allan Smith (wherever) wrote:
For those who recignize the names Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, no
explanation is necessary. For those who don't, they are recognized as the to
most important contributors to what became the Internet. While the Internet
had no 'creator', these two men are recognized as the co-Fathers of the
Internet, for the creation if the Internet Protocol, and the Transmission
Control Protocol, now known simply as TCP/IP, that made communications
facilities usable and manageable. The following may be the briefest 35-year
history of what became the Internet that you'll ever see:
1961: Leonard Kleinrock writes the first paper on packet switched networks.
1962: J.C.R. Licklider of MIT writes a paper describing a globally connected
"Galactic Network" of computers.
1966: Larry Roberts proposes the ARPANET to the Defense Department's
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).
1968: ARPA issues Request for Quotations for the Interface Message
Processors (IMPs), which became the first routers.
1969: First IMP is installed at UCLA.
Early 1970s: Universities and defense agencies and contractors begin to
connect to ARPANET.
1973: Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf begin research into what eventually becomes
IP - the Internet Protocol and its companion, TCP - the Transmission Control
Protocol.
1973: Bob Metcalfe develops Ethernet, which had been the subject of his PhD
thesis, while working at Xerox.
Early 1980s: The Personal Computer revolution begins.
Mid 1980s: Local Area Networks (LANs) begin to flourish in business and
university environments. Campus area networks soon follow.
January 1, 1983: All "old-style" traffic on the ARPANET ceases, as TCP/IP
becomes the only protocol used. [Arguably, this is the date of the birth of
the Internet as a functioning, practical, production network, though still
limited to military and and research environments.]
1985: Dennis Jennings chooses TCP/IP as the protocol for the planned
National Science Foundation Network (NSFnet).
1986: Senator Al Gore of Tenessee begins lobbying Congress for a $10-million
Congressional appropriation to enable NSF to support a national 56Kbps
backbone network. That effort succeeds, and later becomes first 1.5
megabits, then 45 megabits in the early nineties.
1988: NSF sponsors a series of workshops at Harvard on the commercialization
and privatization of the Internet.
1988: Kahn et al. write a paper "Towards a National Research Network." This
report ushered in high speed networks that laid the networking foundation
for the future "information superhighway", a term coined by Sen. Gore in an
earlier speech before Congress comparing network backbone topology to the
Interstate Highway System.
1990: With assistance from his colleagues at CERN in Geneva, Tim Berners-Lee
conceives a worlwide web of accessible private 'sites', and develops HTML
(hypertext markup language), HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol) and URLs
(Universal Resource Locators).
1991: Sen. Gore's High-Performance Computing Act passes Congress, enabling
government funding of efforts to commercialize and privatize the NSFnet
backbone network, allowing NSF to focus on the effective and productive use
of the network technology in business and industry. The infant "Internet"
quickly becomes available to private citizens.
1991-1993: The concepts of a "Word Wide Web" are presented to their
professional peers by any number of researchers for the various computing
architectures. Proprietary for-fee alternatives to HTTP are developed and
sold.
1993: Forseeing serious interopeability issues on the WWW, CERN formally
declares that, unlike other languages and protocols, CERN's World Wide Web
(HTML and Port 80 HTTP)technology was to be usable by anyone, with no
licensing fees due to CERN. Exixting web sites quickly convert to HTTP, and
the single-standard World Wide Web is thus born.
Then, along came an election in 1999, and Al Gore said to Wolf Blitzer, "I
took the initiative in creating the Internet". Blitzer, knowing the issues
and the technology, made no particular note of that statement, which was
arugably a gaffe of over-simplification. But political rivals did, and
employed two of the most powerful of Political Weapons - "Misquotation", and
"Repetition Becomes Reality".
To those in the Internet Sciences Community, the resulting ridicule of a
good friend to all of Computing Science became unbearable, and in 2000, the
two most influental among them decided to something very rarley done by
scientists -- to speak publicly of politics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Al Gore and the Internet
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the
Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the
Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among
people in government and the university community. But as the two people who
designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the
Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a
Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role.
He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have
argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover,
there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving
Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and
promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is
timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed
telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement
of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the
potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just
improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten,
now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on
the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took
place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not
deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its
deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping
create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and
communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced
technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of
government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what
at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an
"Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in
Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of
the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore
Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative
that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond
the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as
well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies
that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for
continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector
initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending
access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of
our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed
political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time
arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth
since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for
its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking
technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in
helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice
President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the
councils of government and with the public at large.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed
computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent
articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and
industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now you know one reason why I detest negative partisan politics.
It trivializes significa, and makes trivia significant.
It equally blinds the unsuspecting, and the willing.
Well then, we can atleast say Bush is trying hard to end Net
Neutrality!:
riday, April 14th, 2006
Part II: The End of the Internet? Net Neutrality Threatened by Cable,
Telecom Interests
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend
Purchase Video/CD
Both Congress and the FCC are currently considering a number of
proposals that will have far-reaching implications on the way the
Internet works and the vital concept of net neutrality - universal and
non-discriminatory to the Internet - is at risk. We speak with Jeff
Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy. [includes rush transcript]
We continue with Part II of our look at the future of the Internet.
Both Congress and the FCC are currently considering a number of
proposals that will have far-reaching implications on the way the
Internet works.
The vital issue at stake is something called "net neutrality" - it is
the concept that that everyone, everywhere, should have free, universal
and non-discriminatory access to all the Internet has to offer.
But last week the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications rejected an
amendment to a telecommunications overhaul bill that would have
strengthened provisions for net neutrality. The amendment was defeated
by a vote of 28 to 8. The six Democrats who voted against it were Eliot
Engel, Bart Stupak, Ed Towns, Al Wynn, Charlie Gonzales and Bobby Rush.
The principle of net neutrality has come under attack from cable and
telephone companies which provide over 90 percent of all high-speed
Internet service in the United States.
Phone and cable lobbyists are calling on the federal government to
permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications
services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental
oversight. They have poured millions of dollars into ad campaigns to
promote their cause. Here's one example:
Advertisement by the United States Telecom Association.
With these so-called "updated" laws, broadband providers are looking to
use new networking technologies to charge fees for almost every online
transaction. Some companies have already announced plans to to impose
fees on a sliding scale,
For example, America Online is adopting a new system called
"CertifiedEmail," where giant emailers could pay AOL a fee for
preferential service, effectively creating a two-tiered Internet . This
so-called "email-tax" would guarantee that messages from affluent
customers would bypass spam filters and go directly to AOL members"
inboxes. Those who did not pay the fee could increasingly be left
behind with unreliable service.
The effects of preferential control over the Internet may already be
coming to bear. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
America Online has blocked delivery to its customers of all emails that
include a link to a website called DearAOL.com, which is critical of
its CertifiedEmail system.
Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital
Democracy. He wrote an article in the Nation Magazine titled "The End
of the Internet?"
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us
provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV
broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: Phone and cable lobbyists are calling on the federal
government to permit them to operate internet and other digital
communication services as private networks, free of policy safeguards
or governmental oversight. They've poured millions of dollars into ad
campaigns to promote their cause. Here's one example:
ACTOR 1: Squire, deliver this urgent message to the queen.
ACTOR 2: Doesn't he know it's 2005?
ACTOR 1: Yes!
ACTOR 3: My lord?
NARRATOR: Why are telecom laws still stuck in the past? The old ways
are gone. So it's time Congress updated the laws to give consumers new
choices for entertainment and information.
ACTOR 1: Where is that young man?
ACTOR 4: Wanna text him?
NARRATOR: Updated telecom laws.
ACTOR 5: Yeah, it's hoof-to-hoof out here.
NARRATOR: Now, that's the future, faster.
AMY GOODMAN: An ad from U.S. Telecom. With these so-called updated
laws, broadband providers are looking to use new networking
technologies to charge fees for almost every online transaction. Some
companies have already announced plans to impose fees on a sliding
scale. For example, America Online's adopting a new system called
"CertifiedEmail" where giant emailers could pay A.O.L. a fee for
preferential service, effectively creating a two-tier internet. This
so-called "email tax" would guarantee messages from affluent
customers, would bypass spam filters and go directly to A.O.L. members'
inboxes. Those who did not pay the fee could increasingly be left
behind with unreliable service.
The effects of preferential control over the internet may already be
coming to bear. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
America Online has blocked delivery to its customers of all emails that
include a link to a website called "DearAOL.com", which is critical
of its CertifiedEmail system. For more on the latest, we turn to Part
Two of our conversation with Jeffrey Chester, Executive Director of the
Center for Digital Democracy. Co-host Juan Gonzalez and I asked Jeff
Chester yesterday about the issue of net neutrality.
JEFFREY CHESTER: Well, if we had network neutrality safeguards, then
there would be a right for other content providers, such as Democracy
Now! or other alternative providers, to be treated in the same way that
the phone and cable companies treat their own content or the content
coming from deep-pocketed media companies. Network neutrality would
prohibit the phone and cable companies, which are now providing more
than 90% of the U.S. public with broadband and will continue to be the
principal providers. A network neutrality safeguard simply would not
allow the phone and cable companies to discriminate against competing
content, and in that sense it would create a more level playing field.
The phone and cable companies want to impose a kind of pay-as-you-go
toll-road on the whole digital distribution system. I mean, the system
is likely to be highly commercialized, regardless of whether we have
network neutrality. But unless we have safeguards that ensure that
competing alternative content has a chance to reach viewers and
listeners in a fair way, then those voices, including, for example, the
programming you produce, could be pushed further to the margins.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, for instance, are you talking about how the
airlines run their operations with first class, business class and
coach?
JEFFREY CHESTER: That's a great analogy, Juan, because the way the
broadband internet is going to work is this: the phone and cable
companies now have the technology to know exactly what's coming into
your P.C., to your personal computer, or eventually your interactive
television or your mobile device. They know what kind of content, what
you're getting. And they can make decisions to slow certain content up,
and speed certain content -- speed or slow certain content up. And that
will depend ultimately on whether or not you pay them, unless we have
these network neutrality safeguards. So they can do all kinds of things
to, as they term it, "monetize" the internet unless we have some
rules that keep the pipeline as open and fair as possible.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Chester, can you talk about who's making these
decisions in Congress, and one of the chief decision makers,
Congressmember Joe Barton of Texas, and where their money is coming
from?
JEFFREY CHESTER: Well, the phone and cable industry have given, you
know, millions of dollars, and are spending literally hundreds of
millions of dollars lobbying. What's happening now, many of your
listeners and viewers know that in 1996, Congress passed the infamous
Telecommunications Act that was a huge giveaway back then. Well, the
same --
AMY GOODMAN: And this was under Clinton and Gore.
JEFFREY CHESTER: It was under Clinton and Gore, and ultimately they
supported that legislation. It's happening again. Each industry is
jockeying for favorable position, and they're spending literally
hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby the U.S. Congress, because at
stake -- and why we, the public, and your listeners and viewers in
particular really have to speak out now, because decisions made today
will affect the future of television and the internet, our entire
digital landscape in the United States.
I mean, we have a chance now with the internet to have a more open,
diverse system, to redress what we don't have with today's media, such
as more news programs like Democracy Now! and investigative programs,
more content owned by persons of color and women. If we don't have some
rules put in place now, some safeguards, we're likely to see the people
in charge of today's media system in the United States be in charge of
tomorrow's system, with the phone and cable companies being everyone's
not-so-silent partner.
So they've given a lot of money. They've given about $3 million
dollars, the phone and cable industry, to members of the Senate and
House Commerce Committee over the last two or three years, although
that's a drop in the bucket. They have the Republicans on their side.
Unfortunately, they have many Democrats. A majority of the Democrats in
the House Telecommunications Subcommittee last week voted against
network neutrality safeguards. So the phone and cable lobby is very
formidable. They're spending a lot of money. They have the backing of
the Bush administration and the G.O.P. congressional leadership, and
it's likely this legislation will go through the House and the Senate
without any kind of safeguards for the future of the internet.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And what about the coverage of this issue by the
mainstream media or the corporate media? Is it a replay of the battle
over the F.C.C.'s ownership changes?
JEFFREY CHESTER: I think, well, it's a little bit different. You know,
media that don't have direct internet interests such as -- even though
--that's not true. The New York Times has internet interest, but the
New York Times has editorialized recently, as the Los Angeles Times
has, and that's owned by Tribune and they also have internet interests,
they've editorialized for network neutrality, and NBC Evening News
did some coverage.
But, by and large, there's not this kind of coverage. They claim it's
because it's a technical issue, but, in fact, all the big media
companies are involved one way or another in this decision. And
companies like Disney, ABC and CBS, for example, are negotiating with
the phone and cable industry. They have a stake, in a sense, in a
closed internet, because their content will be placed in a preferential
manner. So it's not getting the kind of coverage it deserves.
And right now, I understand, Congress is not hearing from the public
that they are concerned about open internet, which we have to use the
term network neutrality for now. So I hope that your listeners and
viewers will call their members of Congress and say, "We want
legislation on network neutrality." Look, it's not going to be the
answer for all the problems we're going to have, but at least it will
prevent for now the phone and cable companies from having a tight grip
over the way the broadband digital media evolves in the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: A 'bad' leak is a fireable offense
- Next by Date: The warming up of global cooling... one British view
- Previous by thread: Re: One example of why I detest negative partisanship (quite long, but somewhat infomative)
- Next by thread: Re: One example of why I detest negative partisanship (quite long, but somewhat infomative)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
