"Imminent Death of the Net is Predicted!"
                                    
   On September 15, 1993, the U.S. government issued the National
Information Infrastructure Agenda for Action (NII Agenda for
Action) as a plan to replace the NSF sponsored backbone of the
Internet with a private net. Will the US government succeed in its
efforts to dismantle the public research and education and science
net that has been developed over the past 25 years and replace it
with a private commercial net?

   In his work, Political Arithmetic, Sir William Petty, who has
been called the Father of the Science of Economics, explains why a
careful examination of the public interest is needed. Without such
it is easy to be immobilized because of an inaccurate assessment of
the situation. What is the public interest in the current battle
over the Net?

   The past 25 years have brought important technological and
social breakthroughs which have resulted in significant new
developments -- a computer users network has grown up and expanded
which connects computer users around the world and makes possible
scientific, technical, and social achievements never before
imagined.(See "From ARPANET to Usenet", this issue, p. 1)

   What are these developments? How have they been achieved? What
is their significance and potential?

   The creation of a working computer, then of timesharing (CTSS
and DTSS), then of the personal computer and of UNIX and the
ARPANET, and then the further development of these achievements to
create an extensive computer network that is worldwide in scope and
connects people not only to each other, but also to larger
groupings, has been a remarkable human achievement.

   This computer network is not only a means of interaction and
communication between computers and between people and computers
and between people and people. It is also a new stage of human
literacy where forms and substance not previously possible are now
available on a broad scale, broadcast worldwide to a massive
audience.

   The global computer network has made possible and is the product
of research in computer automation and software development. It
demonstrates that an open, cooperative, experimental environment
where participants support and help each other, an environment free
from market pressures, commercial time constraints, and `bottom
line' considerations, can produced an invaluable public and social
resource.

   The development of the Net was the result of a relatively small
number of computer pioneers from the academic and government and
research sectors working cooperatively to produce a significant
public resource. The creation and expansion of the global network
shows that the conditions under which production occurs, greatly
affects whether the production of social wealth will be encouraged
or impeded.

   The development and growth of the ARPANET and then the NSF
backbone of the Internet have been the result of public funds and
an Acceptable Use Policy, (AUP) that have governed those funds. The
current AUP governing the NSF backbone to the Internet is
reproduced elsewhere in this issue. (See "U.S. Government Plans and
Proposals on NSF backbone to the Internet")

   The AUP requires that the research carried out via the net be
open and available to others. Thus many benefit from the
contributions of others. Also, a high level of automation is used
which means that much labor is saved. The problems of automation
can be broadcast widely so they can be examined and solved. Posts
are donated, e-mail is donated, programs are donated, standards
work is donated.

   This open communication is necessary to produce the high tech
hardware and software that has been developed and nourished through
Usenet News and the Internet. Does the U.S. government's plan to
give the Net to private companies through the NII Agenda for Action
propose a helpful plan to encourage further network development?

   Unlike academic institutions functioning under the National
Science Foundation's AUP, private companies feel no obligation to
support their employees so they can contribute to Usenet or the
Global Internet. Such companies may even set up internal Usenet
groups, but hourly workers, at companies like Ford Motor Company,
continue to be denied access internally and externally. 

   Analyzing a similar situation that existed in the 1800s, John
Kells Ingram, in A History of Political Economy, describes how one
sector of the economy in Great Britain was held back and dependent
upon the forward moving sector to advance it. He writes:

   "The organization of agricultural industry could not at that
period make any marked progress, for the direction of its
operations was still in the hands of the feudal class, which could
not in general really learn the habits of industrial life, or place
itself in sufficient harmony with the workers on its domains. The
industry of the towns had to proceed that of the country, and the
latter had developed mainly by the action of the former."   
(Ingram, 1915, pp. 37-8)

   The Report on The National Information Infrastructure, Agenda
for Action (NII Agenda for Action), published on September 15, 1993
by the U.S. government, is based on the principle of subordinating
the advanced automated Net sector of the U.S. economy to the
development of the backward industrial sector, thus turning the
principle that the backward has to be subordinated to the advanced
on its head. The NII Agenda for Action proposes to give away the
public NSF backbone and put network development into private hands
subject to so called "market forces". The report contains no
examination of the great achievements represented by the past 25
years of network development. Nor does it analyze the factors that
made this achievement possible. It doesn't consider how those
developing the Global Network were free of market forces and under
regulatory obligation to be serving a public and scientific
purpose. For example, the NII Agenda for Action doesn't acknowledge
that the NSF backbone was open to other networks as long as what
they did was open in exchange and not proprietary. And the NII
Agenda for Action doesn't examine the benefits that came from
protection of freedom of speech, while commercial and public
relations usage were restricted under the Acceptable Use Policy.

   Instead of serving the public good to provide and encourage
automation and communications and thus to serve the well being of
the people as a goal, the NII Agenda for Action proposes increasing
"international competitiveness" as the new goal to be served by
network developments. It proposes to put network development into
private hands, giving away the public network and airwaves to the
highest bidders.

   Like the false and self serving economic arguments made by the
Mercantilists of the 1700s who argued that the interests of the
Merchants were the interests of the Sovereign and of the whole
country, the NII Agenda for Action claims that that which benefits
private entrepreneurs will benefit everyone. The record of achieve-
ment of the Global Network, however, demonstrates the opposite. It
demonstrates that only that which benefits the public, benefits
everyone. It has shown that only when there is a public purpose
that is mandated, and when commercial usage is restricted, will
network development be encouraged. (See "From ARPANET to Usenet")

   The policy of private corporate domination and private profit
making under the rubric of support for the so called "free market"
is now being presented as the policy for any future network
development by the Clinton and Gore administration in the U.S.
Mercantilism was based on a similar false theory that the workers
at home had to sacrifice for the Nation to benefit. But a Nation
that impoverishes its people is not prospering. The Committee to
oversee Network Development under the National Information
Infrastructure is under the control of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. It mandates the creation of a panel of those with private
interests to oversee its plans. But such interests can only be
hostile to further network development as their own private
purposes create a conflict of interest with the network expanding
to serve a larger public purpose.

   What is needed is a public investigation with on-line access by
the networking community so any committee conducting the
investigation can appropriately be open to comments, contributions
and debate over what problems further network development has to
solve. Instead, the NII Agenda for Action is proposing to impose a
false history and a false future on network developments. The
Report proposes to give away the public network to private
entrepreneurs and then to have the government pay dearly to use
what has already been paid for by public funds. The U.S. taxpayers
will have to pay high rates to private companies for the increased
access to e-mail and the means to automate public services that the
U.S. government has put on the public agenda. At the same time, the
U.S. government is giving away the Net that has been built with
taxpayer money.

   After several articles by Brock Meeks were published in
Communications Daily (on February 4, 1992, February 6, 1992, and
February 21, 1992), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va) held a Congressional
hearing on March 12, 1992 of the House Subcommittee on Science,
Research and Technology to examine serious irregularities in the
administration and oversight of the NSFNet by the National Science
Foundation. After the hearing, the Inspector General of the U.S.
for the NSF was asked to conduct an investigation into the
unresolved questions. While the investigation was ongoing,
Boucher's Committee changed the law regulating the obligations of
the NSF rather than waiting for the report and recommendations of
the Inspector General's Office, thereby undermining the very
oversight process the Committee had set in motion. There is no sign
of any implementation of the recommendations of the report. The NSF
is now funding business uses of the Net, like putting the Security
and Exchange Commission's data online. And the science and research
obligations of the National Science Foundation have been
subordinated to those of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

   The Review of the NSFNet from the Office of the Inspector
General of the NSF which was issued in April 1993, demonstrates the
problems which occur when private entities are charged with
oversight of a public network. Inevitable conflicts of interest
develop. Thus the thrust of the NII Agenda for Action is to
encourage conflict of interest and proprietary profit making with
regard to the development of the Net, in place of further expansion
for the public benefit.

  If the U.S. government succeeds in giving the Net away to private
proprietary companies, automation and technological development in
the U.S. will be retarded.

   Netizens, however, have access to computer communications and
automation and the ability to discuss and debate issues. (See The
Net and Netizens) The strength and resources of the net community
is not to be underestimated nor taken for granted. There is a real
battle ahead.

   The problem for the Net is not that it is in public hands, in a
not-for-profit environment. Nor is the problem that there aren't
commercials online or enough high priced access available for
commercial entities. To the contrary, these have been the great
strength and encouragement of development of the Net. The problem
is that the noncommercial principles need to be recognized and
encouraged, not undermined and attacked, as the U.S. Congress and
some U.S. government officials are doing. The AUP needs to be
strengthened and the active vigilance of those online to help en-
force it needs to be expanded. The problem with the Net is that
there needs to be more free or very low cost access available to
more of the public. Lessons have been learned by the Usenet
community for spreading the Net. One needs to be able to get a free
feed and therefore be obligated to help to spread the net in return
by making the feed available to others. Also commercial uses have
to be restricted or forbidden as they make the Net too expensive to
transport and are also a violation of the academic obligation to
serve one's community. The problem for the Net community and our
society is that these lessons are being abandoned in the shadow of
U.S. government actions to commercialize and privatize the Net.

   The development and the expansion of the Net and of automation
require an increasing number of people who know UNIX and who have
access to Usenet for support in their work. The cost saving that
increased government use of e-mail and other expanded government
uses of the net will achieve will more than compensate for the
costs of continuing the expansion of the net under a National
Science Foundation subsidy for the backbone. There is a need for
stricter regulation of network usage to coincide with the NSF AUP
obligations that prohibit commercial usage. Ways are needed to
enforce the AUP restrictions and penalize those who violate it.
Government officials on the com-priv@psi.com list who are in charge
of such enforcement encourage commercial usage and counsel
commercial vendors how to evade the obligations of the AUP. But
participants in other newsgroups have flamed commercial posters and
even gotten apologies from a U.S. government official who is
vigorously promoting commercialization and privatization of the
net. Many netizens have taken up to condemn commercial usage of the
net and to try to do something to stop it from spreading. Only by
such actions can there be more public or educational access
available and can the scientific and research purposes be
protected.

   The obligation to contribute to the Net if one is on it and to
flame and discourage illegitimate and commercial activity on the
Net continues. The lessons from the Net's development need to be
applied to further plans and proposals to expand it. Also the
lessons from the development of the Net need to be applied to the
rest of the U.S. economy. Instead, private profiteers are being
given the fruits of the millions of dollars of public investment
and research and they will then become a force to protect their
profits and thus freeze any further development or innovation. The
U.S. Department of Commerce should be removed from any role in
network development and the NSF required to uphold its mandate to
provide for continuing network development in accord with its
agency obligations.

   Increasing vigilance and action are needed if the Net
Commonwealth is to continue to expand and flourish. The NII Agenda
for Action has predicted the death of the scientific, research, and
education network, proposing to subsume it into a privately owned
and operated so called "infrastructure" to serve business. Many
times before the death of the net has been threatened. In the past,
netizens have taken such challenges seriously and have taken up to
deal with the problems, thus defending and protecting the Net
Commonwealth. A Wall Street Journal article on Sept. 16, 1993 shows
that such a battle is on again today. (See "The Soul of the
Internet")

   "Imminent death of the Net is predicted. Films at 11:00." :-)

Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist vol. 5 no. 3/4
Summer/Fall 1993 Issue