HR1757 Does NOT Remove Govt $ from Net Despite Chronicle's Assertion -- three messages

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

To: com-priv () psi com
Subject:  HR1757 Does NOT Remove Govt $ from Net Despite Chronicle's Assertion

I am surprised that no one has commented on Thomas de Loughry's article
"Colleges and Telephone Companies Battle Over the Future of the Internet,"
published in the May 19, 1993 Chronicle of Higher Education.

In the assumption UNDERLYING its key findings the article is **grossly
inaccurate.**

It describes Boucher's HR1757 and states that while college officials support
the goals of the bill to extend network access to education, medicine and
other areas, "they are disturbed by the bill's requirement that the government
turn over to the private sector -- within 18 months of the bill's enactment --
any functions that companies can perform."  

Mike Roberts is then quoted as saying that Educom feels the government is
moving too quickly in this area and cites a "strong current of anxiety" in the
community.

The next step in the article's unwarrented chain of reasoning is the "prospect
that a telephone company may charge the regional networks higher fees for
connecting them together."

Then we get Laura Breeden worrying that a "colleges connect costs could rise
by as much as 50% if the regional networks collapsed."

Now I will agree that there is plenty to be worried about.  But I will flat
state that none of it is in the points of the Boucher bill that the Chronicle
covers.

This chain of reasoning (the regionals may suffer because Boucher is going to
deprive them of federal funding) is absolutely false.  Apparently the reporter
never checked the most critical source:  the paragraph of HR1757 that every
one bemoans.  If he had, he would have seen that it talks about *TEST BED*
networks and not about the NSFnet backbone or anything remotely affecting the
general NSFnet user community!

How did folk get so badly lost???  In part because Mr Tauke, who has testified
twice before Boucher this year, is a very poor witness who knows very little
about the Internet, NSFnet or regionals.  

Let's see how he got things off track:  according to the Chronicle he called
upon Congress to "remove government subsidies from the internet and to make
sure that only traffic of an experimental nature is carried on the NREN"
[Chronicle summary].  "The government should not build or operate networks
which provide commercial services and thereby compete with private industry,"
he said [direct Tuake quote according to Chronicle].

For sure, Tauke took a very telephone industry  "centric" point of view --
often coming across with an attitude of here's a piece of the pie:  see that
WE get it to eat.

Lets look at the oral transcript, the raw stenograhic minutes.  Page 52 - line
1242 to 1249:

Tauke:  "What is of concern to us is section 102(d) is limited only to the
NSFnet backbone, but there is much additional funding in the legislation that
provides for the potential building or subsidizing of networks.  We believe
that what is in 102(d) should be expanded to cover the building and
subsidizing of mid-level networks as well, so that we can clarify what the
role of government is in relation to the building and subsidizing and
operation of networks."

Now in fairness to Tauke I must say that I have heard that he has modified
these opinions to some extent.  Whether or not this is so, the most serious
error is that section 102(d)  **DOES NOT DO WHAT HE CLAIMS IT DOES!**  Problem
is that no one has checked and now everyone is saying HR1757 is going to
remove all our subsidies.  

WRONG.  

Mr Tauke evidently confused the NSFnet backbone with the continuation of
gigabit-like TESTBED Networks!

Lets see what HR1757 actually says.  Section 102 is on NREN.  Subsection a
states:  the network program shall consist of the following components:
.."(1) research and development of networking software and hardware required
for the transmission of data at a speed of one gigabit per second or greater.
.."(2) experimental test bed networks for-
   "(a) developing and demonstrating advanced networking technologies
resulting from the activities described in paragraph (1); and
   "(b) providing connections for purposes consistent with this act which
require levels of network performance not available from privately operated
commercial networks.
  "(3) provision of support for researchers, educators, and students to obtain
access to and use of the internet to allow for communication with other
individuals in the research and education communities and to allow for access
to high-performance computing systems, electronic information resources, other
research facilities, and libraries."  (pages 26-27 of bill).

Now for the INFAMOUS Section 102(d)!!!!!!!  Page 29.

  "(d) restriction on use of test bed networks.-(1) the test bed networks
shall not be used to provide services that could otherwise be provided
satisfactorily using privately operated commercial networks.
  "(2) this subsection shall take effect 18 months after the date of enactment
of the high performance computing and high speed networking applications act
of 1993."

Now Tauke may have **WANTED** to extend this prohibition to the rest of NREN.
But that was his desire and NOT the LANGUAGE of HR1757!

So despite the rumors reported by the Chronicle, HR1757 does NOT remove
government funds from the NSFnet backbone, and regular operational parts of
the network.  (Whether it SHOULD do so or not is a different question.)

_______________________________________________________________
Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher:  COOK Report on Internet -> NREN
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618
cook () path net                                        (609) 882-2572
_______________________________________________________________

Date: Sun, 30 May 1993 00:41:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins () access digex net>
Subject: Re: HR1757 Does NOT Remove Govt $ from Net Despite Chronicle's 
Assertion
To: Gordon Cook <cook () path net>


On Sat, 29 May 1993, Gordon Cook wrote:

> I am surprised that no one has commented on Thomas de Loughry's article
> "Colleges and Telephone Companies Battle Over the Future of the Internet,"
> published in the May 19, 1993 Chronicle of Higher Education.
>
> In the assumption UNDERLYING its key findings the article is **grossly
> inaccurate.**

  Gordon, it appears that it is your own conclusions, which are
inaccurate. To make matters quite clear the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation has approved a substitute to S. 4.  Language
has been added to the section on high-performance computing, "to clarify
that the Federal program will not subsidize government networks that might
compete with private commercial networks."


From: cook () path net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 22:02:51 PDT
To: fins () access digex net, com-priv () psi com
Subject: Re: HR1757 Does NOT Remove Govt $ from Net Despite Chronicle's 
And furthermore absent any CONTEXT in which to place it, the phrasing you
cite from S-4 could mean either that the gov't shall not subsidize anything,
OR - in parallel with HR1757 that it shall not subsidise TEST BEDS.