As David Wiley put it ... in the spirit of good-spirited discussion ...
(In other words: Jerry - get the gasoline!  ;-)   )

How is it that what students are doing with Napster / Gnutella is
*orthogonal* to what the University is about?

Just what is the University about?
Might it also be about learning how to learn, about leaving home,
discovering who we are, doing the social thing, discovering and pursuing
previously unknown interests, yes partying too, ...      Remember Dead
Poet's Society?  Great movie.
The day that Stanford and Princeton and Harvard hand out diplomas for
on-line programs, supposing they will be cheaper than actually attending the
local / state U, why would I go anywhere else?  Or why would I choose a
local / state University over MicrosoftU or CiscoU?


Also I think that some of the original Internet philosophies are being
erroded with time (for better or for worse - up to you).  Below is most of
the second page of the Forward of "NETHEADS VERSUS BELLHEADS, RESEARCH INTO
EMERGING POLICY ISSUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF INTERNET
PROTOCOLS FINAL REPORT, For the Federal Department of Industry Contract
Number U4525-9-0038, T.M.DENTON CONSULTANTS, OTTAWA WITH FRANÇOIS MÉNARD AND
DAVID ISENBERG"

It is slightly off topic but gives a certain perspective on the "Internet
model".
Excellent document BTW even if 2 years old.  I will be happy to forward the
PDF to those interested.

"A second major implication of the Nethead view is that the end-to-end
Internet
model promises to do away with the idea that anyone would have a monopoly in
the
definition of services. If the Internet open-architecture model prevails, a
telephone
company of the future will still be able to define services, but so will
every other user of
the communications system capable of writing good code. The challenge posed
by the
Internet model to the telephone system is much more than a change of
pricing, or a
change of service definitions. It promises a vast enlargement of who it is
that is able to
define what services will be. In short, the relevant remaining monopoly lies
not in the
possession of facilities, but in the exclusive ability to define services.
Some of these services will be inferior, from the point of view of a
Bellhead.
They will satisfy consumer wants, nevertheless. This is why Netheads do not
treat quality
of service as the be-all and end-all of what they get out of the Internet,
any more than
Microsoft, for instance, concerns itself whether your system enters a
"general protection
fault" and freezes.

A third major implication of the Internet model is that value is not created
in the
network, but at the edges, by users. This means that new applications, new
value, can be
created at the edge of the network, without the permission, control, or
involvement of the
network owner. And when network ownership is de-coupled from value creation,
carriers derive no benefit from this new value beyond the new traffic it
spawns. For this
reason, the Bellheads will fight the Internet vision with all their
strength.
Whether network architectures will evolve or be pushed towards a broader
conception of who can define services is the key issue for the Next
Generation Internet.
Such a result might occur through the actions of government, mandating new
forms of
unbundling and interconnection with the PSTN, or it might come about from
changed
facts. Optical fiber planted in municipal rights of way will soon be used to
avoid the last-mile
local loop and bypass the PSTN altogether. This would herald a complete
undermining of the ability of incumbents to impose restrictive network
architectures.
It is therefore essential that those who regulate the telecommunications
system
and those who advise upon its structure be aware that the broadening of who
may define
services is at stake in the development of the next generation Internet.  "



-rene