The Net and the Future of Politics: The Ascendency of the Commons By Michael Hauben "What democracy requires is public debate, and not information. Of course, it needs information, too, but the kind of information it needs can be generated only by vigorous popular debate. We do not know what we need to know until we ask the right questions, and we can identify the right questions only by subjecting our own ideas about the world to the test of public controversy. . . ." (Christopher Lasch, "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument,"in Media Studies Journal Winter 1995 Vol 9 No 1, pg. 81) "Throughout American history, the town meeting has been the premier, and often the only, example of 'direct democracy.'...The issue of whether the town meeting can be redesigned to empower ordinary citizens, as it was intended to do, is of vital concern for the future." (Jeffrey B. Abramson, "Electronic Town Meetings: Proposals for Democracy's Future," Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program) I. Introduction Democracy, or rule by the people, is inherently a popular form of government. Writers throughout the ages have thought about democracy, and understood the limitations imposed by various factors. Today, computer communications networks, such as the Internet, are technical innovations which make moving towards a true participatory democracy seem more realistic. James Mill, a political theorist from the early nineteenth century, wrote about democracy in his 1825 essay on "Government" for a Supplement for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Mill argues that democracy is the only governmental form that is fair to the society as a whole. He does not trust representative government, as seen when he wrote: "Whenever the powers of Government are placed in any hands other than those of the community, whether those of one man, of a few, or of several, those principles of human nature which imply that Government is at all necessary, imply that those persons will make use of them to defeat the very end for which Government exists." (pg. 8) Democracy is a desirable form of government, but Mill found it to be impossible to maintain. Mill lists two practical obstacles in his essay. First, he finds it impossible for the whole people to assemble to perform the duties of government. Citizens would have to leave their normal jobs on a regular basis to help govern the community. Second, Mill argues that an assembled body of differing interests would find it impossible to come to any agreements. Mill speaks to this point in his essay: "In an assembly, every thing must be done by speaking and assenting. But where the assembly is numerous, so many persons desire to speak, and feelings, by mutual inflammation, become so violent, that calm and effectual deliberation is impossible." (pg. 6) In lieu of participatory democracies, republics have arisen as the actual form of government. Mill recognizes that an elected body of representatives serve to facilitate the role of governing society in the interests of the body politic. However, that representative body needs to be overseen so as to not abuse its powers. Mill writes: "That whether Government is entrusted to one or a few, they have not only motives opposite to those ends, but motives which will carry them, if unchecked, to inflict the greatest evils...." (pg. 13) A more recent scholar, the late Professor Christopher Lasch of University of Rochester, also has qualms with representative government. In his essay, "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument" (1), Lasch argues that any form of democracy requires discourse and debate to properly function. His article is critical of modern journalism failing in its role as a public forum to help raise the needed questions of our society. Lasch recommends the recreation of direct democracy when he writes: "Instead of dismissing direct democracy as irrelevant to modern conditions, we need to recreate it on a large scale. And from this point of view, the press serves as the equivalent of the town meeting." (pg. 89) But the traditional town meeting had its limitations. Everyone should be allowed to speak, as long as they share a genuine common interest in the well-being of the whole community, rather than in any particular part. (2) The twenty-six year development of the Internet and the sixteen year development of Usenet News is an investment in a strong force towards making direct democracy a reality. Mill's observations of the obstacles preventing the implementation of direct democracy have a chance of being overcome using these new technologies. On-line communication forums also make possible Lasch's desire to see the discussion necessary to identify today's fundamental questions. Mill could not foresee the successful assembly of the body politic in person at one time. The Net (3) allows for a meeting which takes place on people's own time, rather than in real time. Usenet newsgroups are discussion forums where questions are raised, and people can leave comments when and how they wish, rather than in a particular time and place. As a computer discussion forum, individuals can connect from their own computers, or publicly accessible computers from across the nation to participate in a particular debate. The effect is a discussion taking place in one concrete time and place, while the discussants can be dispersed. Current Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists prove that citizens can both do their daily jobs and participate in discussions that interest them on their own time. Mill's second observation was that people would not be able to communicate peacefully after being successfully assembled. Online discussions do not have the same characteristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to the discussion forum when they wish, and when they have time, they can be thoughtful as to their responses to the discussion. Whereas in a regular meeting, participants have to think quicker to make responses. In addition, on-line discussions allow everyone to have a say, whereas finite length meetings only allow a certain number of people to have their say. Online meetings allow for everyone to contribute their thoughts in a message, which is then accessible to whomever else is reading and participating in the discussion. These new communication technologies hold the germ for the implementation of direct democracy in a country as long as the necessary computer and communications infrastructure are installed. Future advancement towards a more responsible government is possible with these new technologies. While the future is discussed and planned for, it will also be possible to use the currently installed technologies to assist in the current American political system. Netizens (4) are watching various government institutions on various newsgroups and mailing lists throughout the global computer communications network. People's thoughts about and criticisms of their respective governments are being aired on the currently uncensored networks. These networks can revitalize the concept of a democratic "Town Meeting" via on-line communication and discussion. Discussions involve people interacting with others. Voting involves the isolated thoughts of an individual on an issue, and then his or her cementing those thoughts in a private vote. In a society where people live together, it is important for people to communicate to each other about their situations to best understand the world from the broadest possible viewpoint. Public and open discussions and debates are grass-roots, bottom-up situations which best enable people to participate in democracy and raise enthusiasm and interest more so than straight voting would ever do. Of course, at some point or other, votes might be taken, but only after time has been given to air an issue in the commons. II. The NTIA Virtual Conference A recent example and prototype of this public and open discussion was the Virtual Conference on Universal Service and Open Access to the Telecommunications Network in late November 1994. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a branch of the US Department of Commerce sponsored this e-mail conference and encouraged public access sites to allow broad-based discussion. Several public libraries across the nation provided the most visible public sites on the archives of the conference. This NTIA online conference is an example of what I am looking for in terms of an on-line "town meeting." This prototype of what the technology facilitates also demonstrated some of the problems inherent in non-moderated computer communication. The NTIA conference was a new social form made possible by the net and actually occurred as a prototype of one form of citizen on-line discussion. It demonstrated an example of citizen-government interaction through citizen debate over important public questions held in a public forum with the support of public institutions. This is a viable attempt to revitalize the democratic definition of government of and by the people. This particular two-week forum displayed the following points: 1) Public debate and its release of beforehand unheard voices 2) A new form of politics involving the people in the real questions of society 3) The clarification of a public question 4) The testing of new technological means to move society forward Following is a case study of the archives of this prototype conference, including some analysis for the future. David J. Barram, the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, closed the National Telecommunications and Informa- tion Administration's (NTIA) (5) Virtual Conference on Universal and Service and Open Access by stating the conference was: "...a tremendous example of how our information infrastruc- ture can allow greater citizen participation in the develop- ment of government policies." To hear such a comment from a representative of the federal government is important. Such a statement indicates that many users of the Net have demonstrated to the Federal Government that they oppose the recent conversion of the communications-based Internet into the commerce-based National Information Infrastructure. The goals of the two-week conference, as stated in the Welcoming Statement, also by David Barram, were as follows: 1) Garner opinions and views on universal telecommunications service that may shape the legislative and regulatory de- bate. 2) Demonstrate how networking technology can broaden partic- ipation in the development of government policies, specifi- cally, universal service telecommunications policy. 3) Illustrate the potential for using the NII to create an electronic commons. 4) Create a network of individuals and institutions that will continue the dialog started by the conference, once the formal sponsorship is over. The Welcoming Statement also highlighted the importance placed in the active two-way process of communication by ending: "This conference is an experiment in a new form of dialogue among citizens and with their government. The conference is not a one-way, top down approach, it is a conversation. It holds the promise of reworking the compact between citizens and their government." Open discussion is powerful. Such exchange is much more convincing then any propaganda. The forums on "availability and affordability" and " Redefining Universal Service and Open Access" demonstrated that the solution of the "free market" is not a correct solution. Otherwise unheard voices sounded loud and clear; there is a strong need for the government to assure that on-line access is equally available to rural, disabled or poor citizens and to everyone else. The government must step in to cover non- profitable situations that the "free market" would not touch. Non- governmental and non-profit organizations along with community representatives, college students, normal everyday people and others made this clear in their contributions to the discussion. The NTIA Virtual Conference was not advertised broadly enough, but the organizers did establish 80 public access points across the nation in places like public libraries and community centers. This helped to include the opinions of people in the discussion who might not have been heard otherwise. A. Importance of Internet to our society. ----------------------------------------- The Internet and Usenet News represent important developments in technology which will have a profound effect on human society and intellectual development. We are in an early stage of the development and distribution of these technologies, and it is important to look towards the future. Some areas of human society which these new communications technologies are likely to further develop include government, human communication and community formation. Democracy is government by the people, and both Usenet News and mailing lists allow everyone to speak their voice without fear of not getting a chance to speak. Individuals can still be uncooperative, but these new communications technologies make it possible to have one's voice presented equally. These technologies could be integrated with other on-line information and communication technologies to work towards a true participatory democracy. This promise excited several of the participants. Many participants in the NTIA virtual conference recognized the value inherent in these new communication technologies and discussed the need for universal access to the technology. The Internet was identified to be a "public good," worthy and necessary to be accessible throughout the American population. This led to the understanding that it was important to make access equal across all stations of society. It was deemed important that citizens living in rural areas, people with various handicaps, or of low-income have equal opportunity with everyone else to access and utilize the Internet. These particular cases were described and explored as being marginal, and with particular circumstances that would prove unprofitable for businesses to provide equal access for equal payment. Businesses make profits off of the mass production of like goods or services. Parts of society which cannot use the common product wind up paying extra. This was seem as discriminatory by various participants. The details described included the high prices involved with long distance phone rates which most rural inhabitants need to pay to access most other people. These rates would have to be paid to connect to the most likely closest Internet access phone number. Rural access would be costly, as would access from territories such as the Virgin Islands. People with handicaps would need to purchase expensive input/output devices in order to facilitate their individual disadvantage. Access is expensive, but so are computers and training. Participants felt it important to make access to Internet accounts and computers easily available. The number of subscribers averaged about 400 people per conference. The conferences sponsored a debate on the issues, and people of different ideas talked. However, there was a clear cry by participants that the US government should stay involved with the US backbone of the Internet to best provide equal access and service to individuals throughout US society. One of the arguments behind this understanding was that it was important for the Internet as a medium to function to have representatives of all walks of life and bodies of knowledge represented and available as a resource. The question was raised by one participant whether we as a society could afford being split into two distinct societies - those online and those not. From: Sean Subject: Re: [AVAIL:41] my question Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:33:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199411160841.AAA27213@virtconf.digex.net> The backbone of the net should be retained by the government. The cost is relatively inexpensive and the benefits are grand. Paying large fees (some plans call for charges based on the amount of data consumed and others by time spent net-surfing) defeats the nature of the net. We have possibilities for direct democracy. At the very least, for representation of mentally distinct groups as opposed to physical. Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 09:49:40 -0500 (EST) From: James McDonough Subject: Re: [AVAIL:42] Re: my question Message-Id: I want to add my voice to those favoring greater, not less, government intervention in the development of the NII (or GII) to protect the interest of the people against the narrow sectarian interests of large telecommunications industries. Why the federal government gave up it part ownership in the Internet backbone is a mystery to me. An active, interventionist government is essential to assure universal access at affordable prices from people living in heart of the cities or in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:27:51 -0500 From: Randolph Langley Message-Id: <199411171427.AA91585@dirac.scri.fsu.edu> Subject: [AVAIL:57] Re: my question I agree wholeheartedly - the Internet costs so little, and benefits so many. As with the interstate highway system, it is a proper and effective activity for the federal government. I believe most of the citizenry would not care to see the interstate system given over to a few large toll companies, and I believe the Internet will be on the scale of economic and cultural benefit as the interstate system. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:27:09 -0500 From: bsummers@vt.edu (Bob Summers) Message-Id: <199411180135.RAA07684@virtconf.digex.net> Subject: Re: [AVAIL:96] Re: my question In order for the nation to access a common pool of information, such as the library of congress, an efficient system must be in place to handle the load of thousands of library's and other users to access the information. Yes, I believe that there will have to be an outlay of funds to provide such a system, not to mention the cost of putting the information online. These funds must come from the Federal government, since it is for the public. Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 09:10:21 EST From: "W. Curtiss Priest" Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:189] REDEFUS digest 29 Message-Id: <199411211811.KAA17129@virtconf.digex.net> Government should supply/support activities where there are public goods (public information) and when the benefits of this support exceeds the cost to we taxpayers. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:17:11 -0500 From: wc_resa@server.greatlakes.k12.mi.us (Wayne County RESA) Message-Id: <9411141918.AA07357@server.greatlakes.k12.mi.us> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Access The net is certainly not free, I agree. We all pay to a certain degree for it. I am a little concerned about the commercialism aspect of it, though. I think if it is privatized we will see more ads. Seems logical. Why would someone pay good money to be on the net and not advertise their wares.I imagine it is inevitable but I would like the inevitable forestalled or better yet somehow modified so that information and the kinds of information is not compromised. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:20:01 +0001 (EST) From: BNN Television Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:37] Re: Public Access Message-Id: Public access is a 'public good', not only because it allows people from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to use new technology, but also because it increases the collective pool of information from which even newer technology is born. Analyze this increase from a business perspective if you must-I'll keep on rooting for the future of my species. Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:22:46 -0500 (EST) From: Brent Wall Message-Id: The draft financial plan for the Leon County Free-Net project, while proposing a number of different financial opportunities to make universal service a reality to the community, will emphasize an old notion practiced for years in this and other countries: cross-subsidies. Based on the view that citizen communication and education are public goods and should not be constrained by cost of service pricing mechanisms, the financial plan proposes that business uses and enhanced services shall be charged a fee that underwrites the first Amendment communication functions of the net as well as its educational employment. This entire argument hinges on defining communication and education (and I recognize that there are grey areas that would need to be ironed out) as PUBLIC GOODS. This is not, in my judgement simply a matter of determining whether net communication is "divisible" etc. as the economic profession would tend to analyze the problem. It deals with fundamental philosophies of the social value of education and communication in a democracy. If, to email my County Commissioners on a topic that affects me, I have to pay a charge that I really can't afford, while Mr. Thickwallet has no such impediment, then this means something to democratic participation in an electronic world. This is nothing new: witness C-Span, local access channels, and the like. If we adopt a concept and policy like the above, more and more citizens, over time, would be able to join the virtual community as a full member. To have this membership driven by one's personal income will surely result in two societies that are separate and unequal. Can we afford this future? Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:07:24 -0800 From: sbrenner@efn.org (Stephen Brenner) Message-Id: <9411161210.AA17284@efn.efn.org> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:31] Re: Public Access We are dealing with a major paradigm shift when it comes to this lateral flow of communication and the kinds of community building processes and empowerment that this can catalyze. We need to put some thought into how a real democracy could function, given these new communication tools. From: "Lew McDaniel" Organization: WVU Computing Services Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:55:34 EST Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:15] Pilot Projects Message-ID: <3A45E1049AE@wvuadmin3.csc.wvu.edu> In my opinion, information access is sufficiently important to be a guaranteed right. By guaranteed information access, I mean for K-12, adult education, health services, and government access. Movies on demand, games, and electronic shopping (ala the shopping channels) should be charged at an additional rate. I find it hard to believe a state can function in the 21st century without a solid information infrastructure and citizens with enough technological savvy to use it. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:12:54 -0800 Message-Id: <199411142212.AA12401@ednet1.osl.or.gov> From: dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Dave W Mitchell) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:22] Re: Pilot Projects I agree that the knowledge base of a society and the ability of its citizens to use it will determine the ultimate survival of free peoples. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:11:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199411172211.OAA24888@ix.ix.netcom.com> From: danlie@ix.netcom.com (Daniel Lieberman) Subject: Competency and access We are looking towards the future. Anyone who hopes to participate in the society will need to have access. Banking,schooling,books, its all coming very fast. Just think of the rate of change in the last five years or the last six months on the WWW. Voters handbooks,policy papers etc. How can one hope to be a knowledgeable citizen without access. The hardware will trickle down like automobiles. But the communication links must be available. From: Sean Subject: A Plea Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 23:00:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199411180708.XAA21950@virtconf.digex.net> The Internet offers a chance for us to follow through on a promise of democracy that was betrayed over two hundred years ago. Our Constitution, clever as it may be, was written to *prevent* civic action. [Jefferson] was the first to recommend public education, because he knew that it was vital to a healthy democracy. We must all be informed and capable of contributing to the governing of our country. The public does not have the means to act in concert and it is not the interest of the current power players to afford us those means. The Internet ... is a means to create vocal, active, communities that transcend race, geography, and wealth. It is entirely necessary that we recognize this fact and make a stand now to maintain this highway to real Democracy. Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 09:30:16 -0800 From: Colette Brooks Message-Id: <199411191730.JAA19829@well.sf.ca.us> Subject: my 2$ And many of us feel that the Infobahnis not primarily a private preserve but a national/world resource which should be extended to all, for reasons already explored in other posts this week. From: Bill Russell Message-Id: <2ed3a9cf.ext23@ext23.OES.ORST.EDU> Date: 23 Nov 94 12:45:00 Subject: Re[2]: [REDEFUS:68] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference ...what the federal government should do to redefine universal access. What SERVICES should be guarenteed to every citizen. The old definition of universal service has been called POTS: Plain Old Telephone Service. As I understand it, the NEED for this service was so great that it is public policy that every one (hence universal) should have it. It has been also called "life line service." IMHO universal service needs to be defined as a set of SERVICES that are so important to our civilization that they should be made universally available. Foremost amoung them is POTS. Next is access to a network that provides at least an e-mail bridge to the worldwide Internet at an equitable price. It is just plain not fair for urban cybernauts to pay zero while rural cybernauts pay ten cents per minute for telephone connection to the net. The cry for equal access and universal access ------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:00:24 -0500 (EST) From: Brent Wall To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-Id: An early post to this group from an individual from the Anneberg NPR group suggested that, as a beginning, universal access, as defined from the consumer's and not the supplier's viewpoint, merely entails, at present, a phone line to every home. The implicit definition of availability in the Leon County library Tallahassee Fre-Net grants adds one important dimension on top of the phone line notion. It is the expansion to as many homes as possible of the communication and educational benefits of a community net over the phone lines. Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:27:42 GMT From: ab368@virgin.uvi.edu (Bruce Potter) Message-ID: <1994Nov15.002742.7646@virgin.uvi.edu> Subject: Need for Federal Oversight of Access and Availability And THE INTERNET IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT to areas with limited access to technical and scientific rerources. As one of the leading non-profit eduational foundations devoted to the environmental problems of small tropical islands, we (Island Resources Foundation) are amazed at the richness of the Internet resource, and terribly concerned that our constituents throughout all of the world's oceans are going to closed out >from access to this resource because of monopoly pricing policies. To the NTIA, we ask careful attention to the equity issues of access, and a federal guarantee of access and availability. Island Resources Foundation iresource@aol.com Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:18:52 -0500 (EST) From: HARVEY GOODSTEIN Subject: Universal Service definition Message-id: <01HJL7LBBLQQ01ERLS@GALLUA.BITNET> taking into consideration the needs and rights of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in particular (and individuals with disabilities in general). That is, federal regulations on minimum standards are necessary to enhance equal access for all ... Thus, universal service provisions should not discriminate against individuals with disabilities (irrespective of their financial status) who invariably would have to pay abnormally high costs for technical connectivity. Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:36:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Cynthia S. Terwilliger" Subject: Re: [AVAIL:32] Re: Key Issues of Affordability and Availability I'l like to hear more from the Oregon edge of the world. Being from a small, rural library in the Upper Penisula of Michigan, with a very small tax base...faced with geographical isolation and no clout...how do we get our voices heard and assure our partrons equal and universal access to these new and wonderful services...we have no local nodes...every hook up is a long distance call. What are you doing over there? Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 22:09:22 -0600 (CST) From: Ellen Davis Burnham Subject: Re: [AVAIL:124] AVAIL digest 29 Message-ID: People in Mississippi NEED the Internet just like everyone, probably more so than people who live in large areas with ready access to libraries or any form of research. Should we teach just **SOME** of our children to read, maybe just a few should learn Algebra, and heaven knows no one needs to know grammar rules. We can't pick and choose who is allowed access we live in a democratic society that says everyone is equal and should receive equal access to schooling among other inalienable rights. Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 22:09:22 -0600 (CST) From: Ellen Davis Burnham Subject: Re: [AVAIL:124] AVAIL digest 29 Message-ID: This whole segment of the conference is about "Availability and Affordability" to all NOT just some that live in a largely populated area. People in Mississippi NEED the Internet just like everyone, probably more so than people who live in large areas with ready access to libraries or any form of research. Should we teach just **SOME** of our children to read, maybe just a few should learn Algebra, and heaven knows no one needs to know grammar rules. We can't pick and choose who is allowed access we live in a democratic society that says everyone is equal and should receive equal access to schooling among other inalienable rights. The rural area should be addressed first because we have such a hard time to find access (affordable access). If you could just go into a school one day and help students who are struggling to find the needed 12 sources for a research paper, students who know what they need is out there SOMEWHERE if only they had access to it. YES, WE MUST PROVIDE INTERNET ACCESS TO **EVERYONE**, not just to those who are easy to put on-line. The competition may be greater in larger cities BUT the need is not. I don't mean to berate anyone but if you could only see first hand the great need in our schools you would understand. I teach in a school that has only 3700 books total in the library. Our situation is extreme because the school burned a couple of years ago. I try to help the students by hunting for needed items on the Internet. Until I began teaching there this year *ONLY* one student knew about the Superhighway. What about ... the children who have parents that have never heard of the Internet either. We have to start somewhere and I believe the population of America as a whole is as good a place to begin as any. From: LucyCo@aol.com Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 15:09:31 -0500 Message-Id: <941120150557_3543309@aol.com> Subject: Re: [AVAIL:137] AVAIL digest 37 Hearing the real-life experiences of people like Ellen Davis Burnham, who wrote of introducing school children in rural Mississippi to the Internet -- is one of the best aspects of this conference. Helps ward off the tendency to discuss concepts such as "availability" as though they were theoretical only. Keep up the good work, Ellen -- and don't apologize for your "preaching." B. Government as Producer and disseminator of Information ---------------------------------------------------------- The US federal government is a major producer of information in American society, most of which is public and printed on paper. As a distributor of that information, the government would save money if it distributed it electronically and let the user decide whether or not to print that information. By handing over the Internet backbone to commercial operations, the US government no longer has the capability to distribute that information without needing to add to some companies' profit margins. A US government-run backbone would have allowed the effecient distribution of governmental information without the paying of profits. US citizens will now have to pay a profit-making company overhead to access the very information we pay for with our taxes. In any case, if the US government works towards providing governmental information and services online, more incentive will exist for more of the US population to get connected to the Internet. Date: Sun, 20 Nov 94 18:52:16 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411210252.AA20328@slick.chage.com> Subject: Glasnost for the Information Age Because the government would be the main beneficiaries of an *information* infrastructure. The government is a major producer and consumer of information, most of which is inaccessable to the public in practise. which the public at large can access any public information without charge (other than low network charges). That means every public library, school, government office, business or home could have access to everything. From: Chloe Lewis Message-Id: <9411222159.AA07745@netmail2.microsoft.com> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 14:00:29 TZ Subject: the Internet's other ancestor We might legislate that all public gov't information - stuff that The Public has already paid for and usually has a right to, if near enough a G-Doc depository - be made available to anyone with email. This will, if done with common sense, reduce the expenses of both the government agencies involved and of anyone who needs frequent access to government publications. This is an obvious reason for schools and libraries to have Internet access, and a reason for citizens and businesses to acquire it. The US has been subsidizing access to paper information, for the sake of knowledge and self-government; we have found a more efficient way to provide this information; where possible, we should subsidize this more efficient way instead. It isn't as whizbang attractive as giving everyone realtime video, but it would be useful immediately. Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 05:21:42 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411151321.AA18686@slick.chage.com> Subject: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access The largest single producer of information is the federal government, most of which is public. Although these days virtually all documents are produced in electronic form on a word processor, etc., very little of the information is available in electronic form. Nearly all information is distributed in paper form, typically obtained by calling over a telephone. A similar case can be made for state and local governments. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:52:01 -0600 Message-Id: <199411172052.OAA23573@mail.utexas.edu> From: shadden@mail.utexas.edu (Susan Hadden) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:128] REDEFUS digest 14 If the federal and state government would announce a policy of making their services available in electronic form there would be a package of stuff ... that should make the net worthwhile to most people. (Examples: Renewing drivers' license, hunting licenses, finding the right official for your problem the first time, getting on-line help on your income tax where you didn't just talk to someone but showed them the calculations in real time, etc.) C. Necessary for knowledge of why this is all important. ---------------------------------------------------------- Early in the "redefining universal service" segment of the virtual conference, people started discussing how to determine access rates. One participant, Bob Johnson, thought it more important to figure out first why it was important for people to have Internet access. His point is important, and others echoed it throughout the conference. It is necessary to understand why it is important for both individuals and organizations in our society to have access to the Internet for both its information and communication benefits. Another participant, Carly Henderson, raised a parallel rhetorical question asking why access to public libraries are important. Part of the debate which was taking place publicly was the difference in understandings that the USA is a democracy where everyone is equal and should receive equal opportunities with the understanding that the USA is a nation where the individual is honored and those who strive for access should receive it. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 22:04:12 -0800 From: Bob Jacobson Message-Id: <9411150604.AA25921@stein1.u.washington.edu> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss An appropriate question is not how much a particular individual or organization should pay for access to the Internet or its successors, but why they should have access, individually and collectively? Once you figure this out, and define access to suit, you can figure on pricing. Everything else is premature, unless people get out their basic premises on which they are operating. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:36:33 -0800 (PST) From: Carly Henderson Message-Id: I agree with Bob; this is a very important question that deserves a well thought out answer. Why should people have access to the Internet? In response, I pose the question, why should every community have a library and allow its citizens access to all that it contains? Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 11:11:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert J. Berrington III" Subject: Public awareness Message-Id: But what I'm willing to bet is that most of the people that were talking about providing a service to haven't the slightest clue as to what the Internet is. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500 From: mkessel@world.std.com (Martin Kessel) Message-Id: <199411232029.AA16911@world.std.com> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access A final requirement for universal access is that people need to understand what the Information Highway can do for them -- how it can benefit their lives. D. What the Internet can do for people ---------------------------------------- The signficance of Internet access for all in society is not obvious because it is a new way to think about communication between people. Before the Internet and Usenet News, most broadcast forms of communication were owned and operated by large companies. Other more democratic forms of broadcast, one-to-many communication exists for small segments of the population in particular regions: public access cable, various self-produced newsletters or zines, "pirate" radio and so on. The Internet breaks through corporate ownership of the means of communication and allows a grass-roots communication from the many to the many. As it has taken a struggle for an individual to be seen as a information provider, it is not obvious to the ordinary consciousness that it is possible to speak out and have your voice heard by many people. It is also important that people could express their views and be in touch with others around the world expressing their views. Participants were active in defining their interest in keeping the Internet separate from commercial interests. Commercial information and communication is vastly different from personal information and communication. Participants recognized this differnce, and voiced their opinion on how it is important to keep the Net as an open channel for non-commercial voices. The picture of the Internet painted by the federal government has been one of an "information superhighway" or "information infrastructure" where people could connect, download some data or purchase some goods and then disconnect. This vision is one that is very different from the current co-operative communications forums where everyone can contribute. Even worse has been the description by much of the new media where people's contributions are issolated to be pornography or otherwise vice-related, such as bomb production or drug-related. The Internet and Usenet is a place where people can share ideas, observations and questions. The transfer of information is secondary. Message-Id: <199411172209.OAA20275@virtconf.digex.net> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 14:00:16 EST From: Subject: universal access but not ubiquitous use Overlooked in the current free market vs regulated access debate is any argument convincing me why the average American will want access to the net. Apart from the "information elite" (most already on the net), I don't know too many people interested in communications capability not already available using existing infrastructures. How many people do you know, not associated with research or education,who care about access to government information repositories? Or virtual conferences? From: "Dr. Robert LaRose" Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:03:37 EST Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:123] universal access but not ubiquitous use Message-ID: <224FE632CC5@tc.msu.edu> In response to Woody Dowling's comment that the average American is not interested in advanced communications infrastructure, at least not those who don't already have it. Not so. We did a national survey a couple of years ago and asked about interest in videotex, ISDN, etc., found interest levels far beyond those of then-current penetration levels. Found the most intense interest among low income homes, in fact, suggesting that it is cost and not interest that holds them back. Want a killer application for low income households? Email. Many can't afford long distance rates, some move too often or have no home, can't keep a phone line. . . The applications already exist, but the people who need them most can't afford them -- or don't constitute an attractive enough market. From: evote@netcom.com (Marilyn Davis) Message-Id: <199411150111.RAA27335@netcom12.netcom.com> Subject: Not Information ---> COMMUNICATION To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:11:07 -0800 (PST) Downstream bandwidth is just another broadcast medium. Upstream bandwidth is power for the people. From: howland@nsipo.nasa.gov Received: by noc2.arc.nasa.gov (8.6.8/1.5T) id TAA11501; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:19:23 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:19:23 -0800 Message-Id: <199411170319.TAA11501@noc2.arc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:67] Re: Public Access While the inverse relation between cost and pervasiveness is certainly true, I must take issue with comparing the Net to TV. Such comparisons allow for the taking of information, but not for the tremendos possibilities involved with ease of *providing* info. There is no reason to think that a future Stephen Hawkings isn't sitting right now in front of a boob-tube sucking down Mighty Morhpin Power Rangers because there is no way for his ideas to be expressed. Without the facility to put ideas out, with each person acting as a information provider assumed from the outset, we are doing ourselves a great dis-service. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:25:42 -500 (EST) From: Don Evans Subject: Universal Access... Message-ID: A two way street for all Americans. not only should they be able to receive from the net, but they also must be able to provide their unique information. Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 01:54:36 -0500 From: Michael Hauben Message-Id: <199411220654.AA28036@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu> Subject: Need to stress concept of active communication and interconnection I. Universal Access Basic Principles In order for communications networks to be as useful as possible, it is necessary for it both to A) Connect every possible resource and opinion, B) Make this connection available to all who desire it. A and B call for Universal Interconnection, rather than Universal Access. The usage of "interconnection" highlights the importance and role of every user also being an information provider. The term "access" stresses the status-quo understanding of one-way communication, the user accesses information that other "authorized" information providers make available. This is the old model. The new model is of interconnection of many different types of people, information, and ideas. The new model stresses the breakdown of old definitions of communication and information. Diversity allows for both the increasing speed in the formation of new ideas, and the ability for previously unauthorized ideas to have the airing and consideration they rightfully deserve. II. Definition of "Services" to be available on this Universal Interconnection The new era of interconnection and many-to-many communication afforded by Netnews and Mailing lists (among other technologies) brings to the forefront a model of bottom-up rather than top-down communication and information. It is time to reexamine society and welcome the democratizing trends of many-to-many communication over the one-to-many models as represented by broadcast television, radio, newspapers and other media. . . As such, I would say it would be important to highlight, discuss and make available interactive modes of communication over the passive transfer of information. Thus I am suggesting emphasizing of forms of multiple way of communication and broadcasting. Forms currently defined by newsgroups, mailing lists, talk sessions, IRC sessions, MOO experiences, and other forms of sharing and collaboration. These type of forums are where this new technology excels. Plenty of media exist which facilitates the passive transfer of information and goods. (Such as mail-order, stores, telephone orders, etc) It would be best to explore and develop the new forms of communication which this new media facilitates, and which was less possible and present in the past. From: BHARRIS@ntia.doc.gov Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 16:04:59 -0500 Subject: Interim Summary for Availability List Summary of the Affordability and Availability Conference The Internet and the Global Computer Network are providing a very important means for the people of our society to have an ability to speak for themselves and to fight their own battles to better the society. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:50:03 -0800 From: rehm@zso.dec.com Message-Id: <9411142150.AA09999@slugbt.zso.dec.com> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:22] Re: Pilot Projects conception of access, I would posit, demands a much more interactive use of the medium and perhaps the bandwidth needs are more balanced: This example can then be extended to any number of community organizations with members as avid information producers. In other words, basic service based on enabling "many producers" might actually prompt a larger share to be allocated to bandwidth OUT of the home than that invisaged by the Baby Bells and cable companies. It seems to me, in rural America, there would be even more fear of not having ample "basic" bandwidth to be a producer because the distance to such an "access point" might be enough to effectively deny community production. Eric Rehm Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility / Seattle E. Efficiency of Email vs Video, etc -------------------------------------- In the discussion about universal and equal access to the Internet, access to live video and the problems it creates was introduced. Some participants argued that "video on demand" would be a resource hog, and again introduce inequality into the online world based on who could pay, and also creating a different priority in use of network bandwidth. One participant contributed a message titled "Net Economics 101" which gave tables showing the relative sizes of different forms of data. Carl Hage made his comparisons clear by writing, "A single video movie is equivalent to 6 million people sending a one page email message." He concluded his message by writing, "Why should we provide subsidized video access to a few when we could use those resources to provide textual information to millions?" One participant differed and stated that providing video is important so that access can be offered to the percentage of the US population which is illiterate. A couple of other participants stated that video has enormous educational expressive potential. It was important that the virtual conference allowed for the presentation of different points of views, as that assists in figuring out the best way forward. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:17:18 -0500 (EST) From: debbie Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:40] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address Message-Id: On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Richard Civille wrote: > > At 2:26 PM 11/14/94 -0800, Michael Strait wrote: > > >I think the simple answer to that is: single-line telephone > >service capable of supporting touch tone and computer modem exchange. > >Tomorrow is something else, but that should be the minimum today. > > What would a basic basket of services be in five years? In ten? And, by > what process do we change our minds and expand our definition? Whatever the basket will be in 5, 10, etc years, it should not include Al Gore's idea of video on demand...unless it is for educational uses--if you want to see a movie, go to your nearest movie theater or rent a video >from Blockbuster. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:30:11 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert J. Berrington III" Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:115] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address Message-Id: I agree with Debbie. At the current date, we don't have the technology to support such things. It may be 50 years down the road before that technology is available. Why clutter up a system that can't handle such a load. From: Rey Barry Message-Id: <199411172219.RAA15419@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:133] REDEFUS digest 15 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:19:34 -0500 (EST) > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:56:57 CDT > From: gunzerat@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu > To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov > 2) To debbie: I think it's shortsighted to equate "video on demand," or > video in any form in the new age with what we can presently pick up at > Blockbuster. For that matter, to think in terms of video as a passive, > "something to watch" form seems to me to ignore its potential. > > That's why I don't think it's right at this point to dismiss Al Gore; video > has the potential to allow for perhaps even greater educational and > expressive possibilities than text. To limit ourselves at the outset could > mean missing out on the greatest possibilities. Creative video is a neat concept. Thanks for bringing that up. The fear that Gore is bursting with desire to sell out to commercial interests is the opposite of what comes through when you talk to him or look at the work he focused his life on. From: "Dr. Robert LaRose" Organization: ITS Lab Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 10:25:42 EST Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:156] Net Economics 101 Message-ID: <2385CE854C9@tc.msu.edu> Why is video access important? Because 20 percent of the US adult population is functionally illiterate, that's why. You forgot to add the cost of supporting a permanent underclass into you economic calculations. To complete your calculations, you need to multiply that (about 35 million people) by the lifetime cost of income maintenance and other social programs targeted to that group, plus the opportunity cost of losing productive citizens to our information economy. From: Ron Choura 517-334-6240 Subject: NARUC Comments D.J Miller Posting-date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Advanced telecommunications services should not be legislatively mandated for inclusion in the definition of universal service. Universal service funding of such services is not appropriate unless and until a critical mass of demand develops. Inclusion of such services in the definition would yield anticompetitive results, since services typically included in universal service do not have all relevant costs allocated to them. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 14:41:39 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Hage Subject: What happens when usage expands? Message-ID: One thing to keep in mind is that digital transmission of text, e.g. email is very efficient. For each user who sends email instead of fax or telephone call, hundreds of additional users can send email in the transmission resource saved. Access of gopher or www text is similar to email in effiency. Pictures, voice/audio and video are, of course, much more expensive. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 16:33:17 -0800 From: hage@netcom.com (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <199411240033.QAA24975@netcom13.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Comments to C. Hage concerns But according to the polls, the public is skeptical about the ways in which the industry is touting the NII and they see other more important uses. With the focus on video entertainment, my fear is that the less glitzy uses will be delayed and left out. Also, the focus towards high-end technology is a diversion of resources which could be used to privide low end data communications to all instead of video for a few. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 19:31:52 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411180331.AA19584@slick.chage.com> Subject: Net Economics 101 Here are some tables showing the relative sizes of data in different forms: The following table gives a comparision of a page of text (obtained from an OTA report on the NII) in various forms, either in compressed or uncompressed ASCII text (averaged), as a page of fax, voice where the text was read aloud, or in video form where the speaker read the information aloud. Text Type Pages MB Compressed Text 1 0.0011 Uncompressed Text 3 0.003 Fax 40 0.04 Compressed Voice (2:1) 800 0.8 Voice Telephone (64Kb) 1600 1.6 Low Quality VideoPhone (H.320) 3200 3.2 Commercial VideoConf 6400 6.4 High Q VideoConf (H.120 1.5Mb/s) 37000 37.5 Broadcast Video 167000 167 Many people fail to realize that broadcast video consumes more than 100,000 times the resources require to represent a written transcript of spoken text. An ordinary voice telephone call consumes more than 3000 times the data inside an email message (calls use 64Kb in two directions). Email is 40 times more efficient than fax. Comparisons of 1GB of Digital Information Number/GB 1 page documents 1000000 100 page documents 10000 Kodak Photo-CD pictures 1000 JPEG Images (640x480 @ 10:1) 10000 Minutes of Voice Telephone 400 1.44MB Diskette 700 CD-ROM 1.5 2 Hour Movies 0.2 Purchase cost of hard disk $500 Purchase cost of floppy disks $250 Equivalent of a 2 Hour Digital Video Movie ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 page documents 6000000 100 page documents 60000 Kodak Photo-CD pictures 6000 JPEG Images (640x480 @ 10:1) 60000 Minutes of Voice Telephone 2600 Hours of Voice Telephone 43 1.44MB Diskettes 4200 CD-ROMs 10 GigaBytes 6 A single video movie is equivalent to 6 million people sending a one page email message. Why should we provide subsidized video access to a few when we could use those resources to provide textual information to millions? For example, we could make the federal register and congressional record available to everyone for free rather than have to pay $375 per person/year to access any part. F. Libraries as Points of Public Access? ----------------------------------------- Libraries were discussed as being a central public location where people could gain access to the Internet. This would especially be helpful to those who cannot currently afford to buy a computer. It was also discussed that the role of libraries might change from a location where information is stored, to one where information access is facilitated through training and individual help from librarians. There were problems inherent in suggesting libraries be the public access point. First, library hours would limit when access would be available for those without computers and Internet accounts, and libraries might provide limited access to the Internet - say if they could only afford the cheapest modems. Another participant mentioned that his local library did not receive their latest funding, because the bond was voted down. This brings to question the fact that funding would be necessary for libraries to take on the role of Internet provider. Another participant brought up the fact that many communities do not have a local library, thus those communities would be bypassed. A: PROS ------- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:03:22 -0600 Subject: Universal access & libraries From: bloomber@eagle.sangamon.edu (Kathleen L. Bloomberg) Libraries are universal access points to information for school students, faculty at higher education institutions, and the general public. Not everyone will have a microcomputer and modem at home in the future just like everyone doesn't have plain old telephone service now. Librarians are trained in facilitating access to information and are an integral part of the emerging information superhighway. According to a recent survey by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 21% of the public libraries in the United States are accessing the Internet now. That number is growing monthly. Most academic libraries and many school and special libraries also are using the Internet regularly to meet their patrons' needs. Kathleen Bloomberg Illinois State Library Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:51:04 -0800 (PST) From: Solomon Philip Hill Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Accesss Message-ID: Until the time comes when everyone can afford a personal terminal of some sort, I think that the community center or library model of access works pretty well. This leaves open the question of training which seems to be the least talked about, but possibly most important aspect here. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 08:17:20 -0800 Message-Id: <199411141617.AA25971@ednet1.osl.or.gov> From: dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Dave W Mitchell) Subject: Statement It is indeed true that the public library model provides a philosophical and structural underpinning, yet the immense popularity of talk radio (for example) shows a strong underlying hunger for communication of individual reactivity and creativity. In its satisfaction may lie the tool wherein we redefine the compact with one another on which this society was founded. From: msyssft!microsys!susang@uu6.psi.com Date: 16-Nov-94 11:35 Message-Id: E0E6C92E01B361E1 I agree -- the public library is definitely a good place to start for public access. It isn't the only solution, but there is rarely just one good answer to a complex problem. Rather multiple good answers. Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 18:43:35 -0600 (CST) From: San Francisco Public Library <"SFPL::NTIA_PUB"@DRANET.DRA.COM> Message-Id: <941116184335.20212906@DRANET.DRA.COM> Subject: NTIA Public Comment i am sitting in the corner of the card catalogue room at the san francisco main library, blasted with heat from the oft-unused ven- tilator, doing what i hope i will be able to do for the rest of my years: use computers freely. internet, on-line discourse, rather, is invaluable; the role of the computer-friendly mind is becoming ever greater and the need to communicate within this medium needs to remain open to all. if not, we will fall into the abyss of the isolated world so heralded by the fearful critics of the first personal computers. we could become isolated humans in a cubicle existing only through our computer, it is true, but only if we choose this. i would choose otherwise. keep computers part of the schools and libraries, and definitely make internet free to any who wish to use it. otherwise we are doomed. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 14:14:54 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411172214.AA19457@slick.chage.com> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss Currently libraries pay substantial fees to obtain reference material in print or microfilm form. Actually, due to budget problems, many libraries, including my own, are cutting back on this material. If this material were available electronically, then purchases of microfilm, etc. could be discontinued and the money saved could be used for hardware and network access fees. I believe that better dissemination of information could be used to provide more cost effective access for libraries, where the equipment, software, and methods of access can be tailored to the needs for libraries. From: "Lew McDaniel" To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 08:40:12 EST Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:139] REDEFUS digest 16 Message-ID: <3FE206E223A@wvuadmin3.csc.wvu.edu> > I believe that better dissemination of information could be used > to provide more cost effective access for libraries The ideas which follow the above are good ones. To me, they show the concept of "library" evolving from common source of information and repository to "facilitator of access" in addition to today's functions. Particularly if all the have-nots are going to head for the library I-way access point. I see libraries, K-12, and higher education all becoming significantly more competitive, more virtual, and less corporeal if the I-way reaches fruition. Even though each provides a great deal of value inappropriate to a telecommunications line - social interaction, community cohesiveness, etc. From: Sean Subject: Re: [AVAIL:41] my question Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:33:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199411160841.AAA27213@virtconf.digex.net> If things go as it looks like they are going now, libraries will lose out to business in the war for the net. Yes, this means that we will be drowning in a deluge of what big business tells us we want to hear and the magic of the net will vanish in a poof of monied interests. B: CONS ------- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:39:33 -0600 Message-Id: From: mtn@mtn.org (MTN) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss Much as I'd like to believe it, I do not feel that libraries solve the access problem. First, access is already limited by the hours of the library. In a world where success and (em)power(ment) may hinge upon immediate access to information, it's tough to assume that people who must schlep over to the library and wait in line for a 1200 baud (when I last checked) modem and terminal are on an equal footing. Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:07:24 -0800 From: sbrenner@efn.org (Stephen Brenner) Message-Id: <9411161210.AA17284@efn.efn.org> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:31] Re: Public Accesss I like the library model as well. Unfortunately, our library bond went down to defeat in the last election and they aren't likely to take on this role without funding. In the meantime, providing free access to the Internet, including public access terminals, is part of Oregon Public Network's charter. Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:33:14 -700 (MST) From: Carol Deering Subject: rural areas Message-ID: I just wanted to mention the large Indian reservation which surrounds our town. A great many people who live there have no telephones and some even no TV. I have seen mention in this conference of other rural situations, but I wanted to be sure to include this type of rural instance. There is no library service to this area, either. Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 07:52:32 -0600 (CST) From: Marilyn Letitia Korhonen Subject: Re: [AVAIL:100] Re: Rural areas Message-ID: I agree to the extent that schools and libraries will allow this. We do not have a library in my local phone exchange, so that wouldn't serve my area and many others. The schools would be an answer for some, but the school in my district is not interested, even if I'll write grants for them. They do not trust it, they can not see the usefulness in their day-to-day lives, and they are simply not interested. G. Debate over free market ---------------------------- A strong debate took place on both conferences over how Internet access could be best deployed throughout American society. Some people argued the market would provide the best quality service to most people, while most said that it was important for the US government to play a strong role in making access available universally. Those encouraging a governmental role understood that the market would not work towards providing access to those living in areas where access would be harder to bring, or those with special needs. Government: From: Ron Choura 517-334-6240 Subject: NARUC Comments D.J Miller Posting-date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT) AFFORDABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE Reflections of Commissioner Dean J. (Joe) Miller, Commissioner Chair, NARUC Committee on Communications Now, however, there is near universal consensus that opening up these markets to competition will lead to enhanced benefit for most consumers. But, can we be sure that market forces alone will achieve the goal of widely available, affordable services for all Americans? Is action by state and federal governments needed? What should be done? [...] o States must have the ability to ensure that high quality service is provided in markets that are less competitive or attractive for investment. From: (Whittle, Frank ) Message-Id: <9411150254.AA51246@admaix.sunydutchess.edu> Date: Mon Nov 14 21:53:09 1994 The term "economic development" has become prominent in state telecommunication policy during the last ten years as the states battle to retain and attract industry. It appears from the preliminary research that the issue of providing universal access (services) has become less prominent in policy documents. Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:39:09 -0500 (EST) From: Brent Wall Subject: Universal Access--an Equivocation Message-Id: If one reads the testimony given at the hearings conducted on the NII and the global infrastructure by the Dept. of Commerce, one can detect two sense of the terms "universal access" at work. The Mororolas, with their pleas for a wireless world, and cable companies with their arguments for phone service, and phone companies with their exhortations for delivering cable service, one comes away with a sense that universal access means: supply access--or the ability of service providers to access the NII (whatever infrastructure this may turn out to be) and sell their wares. Yet, there is a second sense ascribed to these terms, one often advocated by community-based advocates, almost invisible in the national dialogues of service purveyors. And this is that universal access refers to access to the net by all, rich and poor. Given the tenor of the NII discussions I have monitored, there is a threat that the latter meaning is being absorbed by the former. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500 From: Henry Huang Message-Id: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference) The idea that the "free market" is going to solve all our problems is a MYTH. Go back and look over the history of most of the major on-line providers PRIOR to the recent big Internet expansion, and consider their current policies regarding Net access. No one who values their time, money, or access would seriously consider getting on the Internet through ANY of the major services, be it Compu$erve, Delphi, Prodigy (HA!), or America Online. The reason for this is simple: each one of these services has either restricted the Net services available (hence restricting your access), and/or charges you way too much for it compared to some of the other access providers currently around. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:17:11 -0500 From: wc_resa@server.greatlakes.k12.mi.us (Wayne County RESA) Message-Id: <9411141918.AA07357@server.greatlakes.k12.mi.us> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Accesss The net is certainly not free, I agree. We all pay to a certain degree for it. I am a little concerned about the commericialism aspect of it, though. I think if it is privatized we will see more ads. Seems logical. Why would someone pay good money to be on the net and not advertize their wares.I imagine it is inevitable but I would like the inevitable forestalled or better yet somehow modified so that information and the kinds of information is not compromised. From: Rey Barry Message-Id: <199411172219.RAA15419@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:133] REDEFUS digest 15 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:19:34 -0500 (EST) Provide any sort of datahighway with near-universal access and people will spend money developing ways to make a living from it. The glory of the system. Tailor the highway to commercial interests from the start and you surely build in roadblocks to pro bono services, the danger of the system. Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 13:31:46 -0600 From: "Weismantel, Paul" Message-Id: Organization: NEC America Inc Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:80] Re: NTIA Virt Dr. Priest's observation regarding the Advisory Council is clear. The business in general is frightened by the very underpinnings of Universal Access, because it amounts to a mandate, which is usually a drain on profits. Unless we can approach the discussion so as to fit into the business scheme (and that does not necessarily mean full recovery of investment in all cases), some members of the council will prevail in pushing off this issue by a lowest common denominator solution. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500 From: mkessel@world.std.com (Martin Kessel) Message-Id: <199411232029.AA16911@world.std.com> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access There was strong sentiment that the competitive market alone will not serve the nation's needs. As Steve Miller said, "The free market is like a ship with 100 sails blowing full blast and no rudder. Public policy provides the rudder." Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:16:08 -0800 From: RICHARD M KENSHALO Subject: Universal Service Message-id: <01HJI2DC28PIHSJAJE@UA.ORCA.ALASKA.EDU> We can't be led to believe that market forces will eventually provide for the investments necessary for rural America, where loop costs remain extremely high. Without existing (and probably re-defined) price support structures, and an expanded definition of Universal Service to include guaranteed information access, we will truly develop a society of information "haves" and "have-nots". Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 12:22:53 +0001 (EST) From: BNN Television Subject: Community Centers Message-Id: We would like to urge the administration and congress to pass legislation which mandates the setting up of community sites where citizens of all ages, etc. can have access provided. This will mean that funding will need to be available for setting up such centers with the technology that is needed to be on-line and that universal access will need to be built into any proposals, such as was done for universal access to the telephone. Subsidies may be a "dirty" word in D.C. at this moment, but they will be necessary if we are to include all of our citizens in the technology of the future. Sincerely, Jeanne Gallo, Program Education Coordinator, Veronese Community Education Resource Center, Wellspring House, Inc., Gloucester MA. From: BHARRIS@ntia.doc.gov Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 16:04:59 -0500 Subject: Interim Summary for Availability List Summary of the Affordability and Availability Conference The territories are not naive in insisting that the information infrastructure must accomodate both access and low rates. Without both, the territories will receive no benefit and will in fact find their needs increasingly marginalized. General summary: Several people expressed concern that the development of the NII has focussed on business interests and economic development rather than on ensuring access for all Americans. The theme the economic development will not by itself bring universal service to reality surfaced repeatedly. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 18:27:53 -0800 From: hage@netcom.com (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <199411240227.SAA08168@netcom13.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference) I certainly agree with your point, and I would use these examples as proof that a free market does not exist. I don't think most people fail to value thier money, just that the big advertizing machines, and the PC magazine-industrial complex have duped an uneducated public, and an uneducated government. Yes, the free market will *not* provide equal access to rural areas, etc. However, the solutions for rural areas might be radically different. It is least likely that there will be much of any competitve market in rural areas, so co-ops, monopolies, etc. might be required. PRO MARKET ----------- From: Viraj Jha Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 09:48:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:37] Re: Public Accesss Message-Id: > >> - While 'public access' is sometimes considered either a necessity or >> a public good, what effects will the above choices make on a market >> that is still in the early stages of development? Specifically, will >> public access stunt market and technological development in the long >> term? > >What does "stunt" mean in this case? By 'stunt' I probably more accurately meant 'distort' -- in other words, would the rate of technological development be slowed by such a policy? Certainly industry leaders fear that strict regulation would hinder their profit- maximizing activities; in high competition technology markets these profits are often linked to innovation. Congressman Boucher in'92 agreed with Bell Atlantic that its deployment time for fiber optic lines could be halved absent stringent line of business regulation. Might similar regulations/subsidies for universal access not cause technological stagnation? Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:28:56 -0900 (AST) From: Christine Weiss Subject: Who will fund? Message-Id: Another viewpoint to add to the discussion comes from John Browning in an article from the Sept. '94 issue of WIRED: "...universal service is a 1930's solution to a 21st century problem. ...the solution is Open Access." In a nutshell, it seems that Open Access would ensure a competetive marketplace, that would in turn keep costs low. Another option, for what its worth... Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 12:23:44 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411172023.AA19431@slick.chage.com> Subject: Re: Cheap Public Access I believe we can use the free market and competition to significantly lower the cost to access the net and provide a wide variety of options. There are a number of things that the government could do to enhance the competition and available services which would cost very little. Date: 18 Nov 94 02:33:42 EST From: Stan Witnov <74543.720@compuserve.com> Subject: FOUR DAY CONFERENCE THOTS Message-ID: <941118073341_74543.720_EHH62-2@CompuServe.COM> Dear Conferees, Why are so many participants against unleashing American business (AND it's stereotypical greed)in order to let the invisible hand lead us to the most efficient use of resources. I certainly trust that our government regulators and court system will move in at the appropriate time and correct some of the "wrongs" which are inevitable (whether we're under a government OR private enterprise umbrella). I believe our great advantage here is to let venture capital risk itself for a profit but in so doing create and market services which increase user knowledge, accessability, and the population of users. Subject: Re: Need for Federal Oversight of Access and Availability From: bazyar@netcom.com (Jawaid Bazyar) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:34:41 GMT Lines: 26 ab368@virgin.uvi.edu (Bruce Potter) writes: >To the NTIA, we ask careful attention to the equity issues of access, and >a federal guarantee of access and availability. Oh my, it looks like the Socialists have grabbed onto the Internet as their next great crusade. . . . If you choose to live on an island in the middle of the ocean with a small population, you can expect to pay a lot for high-tech services. From: howland@nsipo.nasa.gov Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 19:35:33 -0800 Message-Id: <199411240335.TAA13844@noc.arc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:253] REDEFUS digest 56 There are left only the people making Universal Access in one form or another happen, and those that just talk, begging the Big Friendly Government to wait on them hand and foot. H. NTIA Conference as prototype for future democracy ------------------------------------------------------- Some participants understood that the conference they were participating in could be seen as a model of citizen participation in government. They were thus thoughtful in thinking about the future and how these technologies could be used. Someone at BNN was thoughtful when they suggested it was important that permanent public access sites be established in order for any policy decisions to happen. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500 From: mkessel@world.std.com (Martin Kessel) Message-Id: <199411232029.AA16911@world.std.com> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access Some participants questioned whether it will be truly feasible to put a computer terminal in every home. However, there was strong agreement that access should be available at public sites, such as libraries, schools, and other community places. This would be an extension of the model used by the NTIA in holding this Virtual Conference, noted Michelle Johnson, a reporter for the Boston Globe. Federal help is needed to provide libraries with resources and technical expertise. Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 05:21:42 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411151321.AA18686@slick.chage.com> Subject: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion, and provide my input into the shaping of the future information age in America. I believe that using the Internet offers the potential to obtain high quality information needed for proper decision making, as well as improving the access of the government to the public. Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:20:11 +0001 (EST) From: BNN Television Subject: Need for on-going public access sites Message-Id: Reading the dicussion of the past two days about redefining universal access has confirmed our conviction that public access sites are not just important for this virtual conference but are needed as a permanent aspect of the development of the NII. Typically, only universities and certain businesses have Internet access. For the average American, these forms of access are far too limited. Consequently, citizens have little experience with the net and understanding of what is at stake in its development. Also, basic computer skills--even as simple as logging on and typing a message--are lacking for most Americans. What is needed in our opinion is on-going, institutionalized public access sites. We think these should be based in a variety of community based institutions, including the public libraries, public schools, and public access cable centers. These sites need equipment, Internet connection, staffing, and basic operating support. And, of course, these sites need funding. . . . If we as a country do not develop a permanent, institutionalized and consistently supported system of public access sites, the NII will develop quickly among the current information "haves" but will totally leave behind the vast majority of Americans who are information "have nots". Facing this same situation concerning literacy in the early part of the 19th century, the response by public spirited Bostonians was the development of funding for the first public schools and public library in America. Soon, these institutions were quickly adopted by every city and town in America. Now, with a new technology and a new type of literacy, we as Americans should strive to expand our democracy by developing public access sites on the NII. Hubert Jessup, General Manager Boston Neighborhood Network T.V. I. Importance of need for time to learn at own pace. ----------------------------------------------------- Paying for access limits what someone will do online. First it limits how much an individual can care to learn, as the time spent will be costly; people will be selective in what they attempt to learn. Second, it is hard for people to take the time to be helpful to others when they are paying by the hour. The Internet and Usenet have grown to be such a cooperative community because there was no price tag on the cooperation. It will be a step backward to have to pay to access these communities. Individuals should be honored for their contributions to the Net, and not expected to pay. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:46:30 -0800 (PST) From: Affordabilty and Availability Subject: Affordability Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Obviously, SCN (Seatle Community Network) has been wonderful, since it has allowed me to learn at my own (slow!) pace, without worrying about "wasting money". I am presently on NW Nexus, since I purchased the Internet Starter Kit which came with a coupon for 2 free weeks. I am continuing to pay for it, for a while, because it allows so much m more opportunity to learn all the plusses of the Internet. . . . I am willing to pay the monthly fee for a short time, but unfortunately, I am not in a financial position to be able to continue at this rate for very long. It seems a shame that those of us who are not "well off" cannot reap the benefit of the whole Internet. I am grateful that SCN is there for us. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500 From: Henry Huang Message-Id: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference) Hence, in limiting my time, you limit the quality of my posts, and hence the general quality of the discussion. many of the people who would want or NEED such free/cheap access are newbies -- and hence EXACTLY the sort of people who WOULDN'T have the experience, knowledge, or time necessary to overcome the limits on their access. The less access you provide a person with, the more trouble that person has to go through JUST to get UP to a sufficiently useful level. From: Sean Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:155] REDEFUS digest 20 Message-Id: <199411182309.PAA21212@virtconf.digex.net> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 15:01:16 -0500 (EST) an open communication infrastructure will allow children ample opportunity to explore and increase their knowledge at a pace with which they are comfortable. J. Need for openness because of development via open and free standards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Internet has developed out of connecting networks together based on open and available standards. These protocols were developed by many people over the ARPANET and Internet. Commercial development is usually propritary and closed. The Internet will develop much slower if the push towards commercialism is allowed to overcome the push towards openness. Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:04:37 -0500 From: Henry Huang Message-Id: <199411160304.WAA57037@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: [AVAIL:1] NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address The NII is NOT a harbringer of change ... the Internet WAS -- hence this conference (run using list server software on a UNIX box, and sent mostly over Internet links). Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500 From: Henry Huang Message-Id: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference) Now look at the development of the Internet. Even with the astonishing growth of the World Wide Web and Mosaic (and perhaps soon Netscape), much of the Net is STILL ruled by text-based standards first set down perhaps a decade or more ago. The vast majority of E-mail is STILL text . . . In fact, E-mail and News are often cited as two of the most useful services offered by the Net, despite their clunkiness. As quirky and outdated as they are, they still WORK -- more to the point, everyone HAS them. If everyone had a different format for E-mail messages, no one could communicate with anyone else -- thus defeating the very purpose of E-mail! Even more important, many of the standards adopted by the Internet are OPEN standards, freely available to anyone who's interested in modifying or improving them. Compare this to companies which charge you an arm and a leg for their proprietary code. Now, which one do YOU think people will be more willing to work with, and improve? What no one seems to realize is that the Net is anything BUT a commodity -- it's a means to an end. And that end is not profit, but *GLOBAL COMMUNITY*. If we treat the Net as a commodity, then inevitably that's what it's bound to become -- a balkanized, divided, proprietary collection of private networks which neither know nor care about the existence of the others. It would be like a giant version of Compu$erve, only many times worse. And in the end, by putting walls and barriers between the very users who need to communicate with each other, they will have eliminated the sole reason for their own existence -- as a means to COMMUNICATE, quickly and efficiently. And when that happens, either they will die, or the future which they (and all of US) sought to promote will be relegated to obscurity. And that would be an absolute shame. -H Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 23:00:22 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411180700.AA19595@slick.chage.com> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Comments on Susan G. Hadden Essay How can we devise incentives for investment in technologies for the "last mile" to the home? The key to an investment in products needed and availability at a mass produced low price, is the establishment of standards and a detailed goal. If there is an agreed upon standard and a large market, then a number of companies will build very low cost products designed for high volume sales. If the standard is not agreed upon, and/or deployment is uncertain, then there may not be cost effective products available. The best way to establish standards and then insure there is a rich market of supporting products is to have open, public domain standards, with public domain reference implementations and test software. The Internet standards established by the IETF are a good example. All the specifications are available electronically and free to the public. In order to be adopted, there must be a working implementation, and typically there was a public domain version available as a starting point and as a comparison. Part of the research money for the NII could go toward producing some competing designs for these technologies, which could result in a public version of the specifications, and a sample reference design. Also, research money could go to produce testing software and an interoperability laboratory. Vendors who produce chipsets and boards can take the standards and reference implementation and use that as a basis for a specific product, and could then make use of the test suites and interoperability laboratory. Public funding for the establishment of the standards, reference implementation, and test suite would eliminate many interoperability problems, and would yield low cost products very quickly, as each vendor would not need to duplicate this basic research. The money saved in lower cost product availability for the government's internal use would more than pay for the investment in a publicly available technology. ================================================================= III. Conclusion The debate on the NTIA conference meant that many points of view were heard. Prominent tradeoff concerns were that of so-called economic development versus universal service and "free market" versus government regulation. Another issue which was brought up was the importance of understanding that the NII will be an extension of the Internet and not something completely new. As such, it is important to acknowledge the origin and significance of the Internet, and to properly study and understand the contribution the current global computer communications network represents for society. The last concern I will point out was the hope that the government would be helpful to society at large in providing access to these networks to all who would desire this access. On May 1, 1995 the NSFnet (National Science Foundation Network) was put to death quietly. Users only heard about the shut down in an indirect manner. Universities and other providers who depended on the NSFnet might have reported service disruptions the week or two beforehand while they re-established their network providers and routing tables. No larger announcements were made about the transfer from a publicly subsidized US Internet backbone to a commercial backbone. The switch signaled a change in priorities of what the Internet will be used for. May 1, 1995 was also the start date of a national electronic open meeting sponsored by the US government on "People and their Governments in the Information Age." Apparently the US government is sponsoring this on-line meeting from various public access sites, and paying commercial providers in the process. Something is deeply ironic in this predicament. In addition, on May 1, 1995, I volunteered my time at a New York Public Library branch library to co-present "Researching the Net: A talk on the Evolution of Usenet News and the significance of the Global Network." My talk focused on the value of the Internet and Usenet as a cooperative network where people could air their individual voices and connect up with people around the world. The Internet and Usenet have been networks where new voices were heard and the other voices of society could not be overwehleming. This May First, traditionally a people's holiday around the world, the domain of the commons was opened up to the commercial world. This is a shame, because the commercial world already has a strong hold on all other broadcast mediums, and the Internet has been a social treasure for people in the USA and around the world. It is important to value this treasure and protect it from commercial interests. As such, this move by the Clinton and Gore Administration is confusing, especially considering the testimony I have presented of many Internet and Usenet users who participated in the November 1994 NTIA Virtual Conference on Universal Service and Open Access to the Telecommunications Network. In order to make any socially useful policy concerning the National Information Infrastructure (NII), it is necessary to bring the greatest possible number of people into the process of discussion and debate. (6) If the NTIA online conference is seen as a prototype of possible future online meetings leading to direct democracy, there are several steps that need to be taken. First, of all, it would be necessary to make access easily available, including establishing permanent public Internet access computer locations throughout the country along with local phone numbers to allow citizens to connect their personal computers to the Net. Secondly, it is wrong to encourage people to participate in on-line discussions about government, and then ask them to pay for that participation. Rather, it would be important to be able to figure out some system of paying people who participate in their government. Payment for participation is not an easy issue to decide, but it is necessary step forward in order to facilitate more participation by people. In this recent virtual conference, one participant Marilyn Davis stated the following: "NOT JUST INFORMATION ---> COMMUNICATION" She asked the Federal Government to promote a "Communications Superhighway" rather than an "information superhighway." While I don't agree in the "superhighway" metaphor, I do feel it is important to have a wide ranging and open discussion about these issues to best decide what will happen, rather than letting interests other than the people take control of the future of the Net. While it is important to have the most accurate information available, it is both 1) hard to tell the accuracy of that information and, 2) useless without discussion and debate, to place that information in a broader context. The archives of the NTIA virtual conference make for very important reading. (7) It would be valuable if it was available in print form and available to those involved with policy decisions on the NII and for people around the USA and world who are interested in the future of the Net. This virtual conference was an important landmark in the study towards the development of the NII. However, it should not stand only as a landmark, rather it should set a precedent for future conferences which will hopefully start as the basis of a new social contract between the American people and government. [DATE OF PAPER, May 9, 1995] END-NOTES ------------ 1) Media Studies Journal, Winter 1995 2) In Jeffrey B. Abramson's "Electronic Town Meetings: Proposals for Democracy's Future." "And one well-known study of a surviving small Vermont town meeting traces the breaking apart of the deliberative ideal once developers catering to tourism bought property in a farming community; the farmers and developers had such opposed interests about zoning ordnances that debate collapsed into angry shouting matches. In the presence of such actual conflicts of interest, face-to-face deliberation should not be idealized as a cure all for conflict." 3) The Net being the Internet, Usenet News, Mailing Lists, etc. 4) See the Netizens Netbook 5) The NTIA virtual conference was co-sponsored sponsored by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), as part of the Administration's National Information Infrastructure initiative. 6) See the opening speech by C.P. Snow in "Management and the Computer of the Future." MIT PRESS 1962. 7) The NTIA Virtual Archives are available via the World Wide Web at http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/11s/virtual BIBLIOGRAPHY -------------- Abramson, Jeffrey B. "Electronic Town Meetings: Proposals for Democracy's Future." Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program Greenberger, Martin ed. "Management and the Computer of the Future" M.I.T. Press. Cambridge, MA, 1962. Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben. "The Netizens and the Wonderful World of the Net: On the History and the Impact of the Internet and Usenet News." Unpublished manuscript available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/project_book.html Kahin, B. "Commercialization of the Internet: Summary Report" Internet Request for Comments 1192. November 1990. Lasch, Christopher. "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument." Media Studies Journal Winter 1995 Vol 9 No 1, pg. 81 Lasch, Christopher. The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1995. Mill, James. "Essays on Government, Jurisprudence, Liberty of the Press and Law of Nations." Kelley Publishers, NY, 1986. Proceedings of the NTIA Virtual Conference. Available via the World Wide Web at http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/11s/virtual APPENDIX --------- Following is a discussion about how Usenet users learn how to distinguish useful online material. Article: 3872 of alt.amateur-comp From: ron@canuck.com (Ron Hill) Newsgroups:alt.amateur-comp,alt.culture.usenet,alt.culture.internet, soc.history.science Subject: Re: Impact of the Net on Society Date: 2 Mar 1995 13:48:26 GMT Message-ID: <3j4iba$k2a@mp.canuck.com> Gadfly (gadfly@absinthe.ih.att.com.) wrote: : In article <3ioin0$57@mp.canuck.com>, Ron Hill quotes me: : >: Since much bandwidth has been consumed predicting the net's imminent self- : >: destruction, I suppose it's inevitable that there should be considerable :>: sound and fury comparing it to the Philosopher's Stone. I've seen computer :>:networks touted as the cure for most of the world's ills and the common cold : >: to boot. Alas, if there's one thing any of us should have learned here in : >: cyberspace it's how easy it is to take ourselves too seriously. : >Well put. I sometimes wonder, though, if the 'net is less effective than : >it might be, simply because we don't take the potential impact of our : >words seriously enough. : What exactly do you see as that potential impact? Outside of brief but : effective havoc from phone and letter campaigns against unscrupulous : merchants, I don't see much. Where else is there any commonality of : interest? It's probably *very* rare for a single post to produce an "Aha!" which irrevocably changes the reader's life. I also doubt that there will be many large scale shifts in patterns of thinking for large groups of people. The impact of a post is usually more of a gentle nudge. Each post isn't much in itself, but a whole pile of nudges in the same direction can produce a lot of momentum. In my reading, I find that Usenet communication works best when the author takes the time to discuss difficult concepts with patience and clarity, when encouragement is offered, when gentle correction is given. That's impact. A small impact, to be sure, but it can produce real change, provided all those small impacts don't become Brownian motion in a conceptual phase space. You seem to be thinking in terms of The Big Event, the colossal project that we'll all want to work on together. That'd be nice, but I've never seen it work that way. Mind you, I don't hang around gnu.* or the EFF groups. You may see more commonality of interest if you pay close attention to the interplay between netizens and American legislators as the current crackdown on 'net traffic proceeds through Congress. I don't understand why you require a commonality of interest in the first place and I'd like to see some expansion on that topic. I suspect that fragmentation is inevitable. The newsgroup structure, coupled with the volume of material, guarantees it. This is not a monolithic culture; the fragmentation of interests is simply a reflection of what exists in realspace. I can't speak for anyone else; the 'net (and Usenet especially) provides me with a window into the ideas of others, and places to go for supplementary material which expands those ideas. It's not producing big changes in my life, but I'm continually re-evaluating my own positions on a broad variety of social and technical issues, as a direct result of the opinions and facts presented here. I suspect that there will be cumulative changes is my patterns of thought and modes of expression, but it's a little early to tell how effective those changes will be or how long they will take. Your posts contribute to that process. I hope that you were thinking of the potential impact of your words while you were writing. : >: A medium in and of itself has no intrinsic value; you have to use it. :>:For the net to effect fundamental changes in society presumes (a) a message, : >: (b) an audience, and (c) a fundamental consensus on action. We are not : >: a community; we are a multinational elite typing our individual thoughts :>: from the privacy of our own, separate offices or homes. There is no ethos, : >: only bits on a wire. : >I regard an ethos as an emergent property of a culture. The Great Pentium : >Fiasco of 1994 may serve as an example of an emerging 'net ethos. The : >entire battle was fought here; : Well, that was my single counterexample--the unscrupulous merchant, and : here the vendor of the very computer equipment that makes the vast facility : of the net possible. So, what else do we have in common? More important, : what else do we even *want* to have in common? Excellent questions! If you take a look at the fragmentation in North American culture (and I hope the discussion will be expanded by responses >from the rest of the world) there is precious little commonality of interest. Patriotism in general seems to be on the decline because people are identifying more with a particular sub-culture than with the culture as a whole. It could be said that there is no mainstream culture anymore; just countless tributaries. (a cultural bayou, perhaps?) It seems to me that what many people want to find here is other people who share their own worldview(s). For me, that's too much navel-gazing. I enjoy seeing the contrasts. If discussion is handled with civility, threads of rare beauty can be created. I think that there are enough people here who like examining other ways of thinking, that Usenet won't collapse into endless introspection. I certainly *hope* it won't. I hope that we *want* to at least try to come to grips with diversity, to examine unfamiliar points of view. : > ... The battle was fought with rapid exchanges of : >high quality information, and with devastating sarcasm. : Well, as the old song goes, "...the union makes us strong." Sure. Solidarity forever. Occasionally. When it suits us. : > It's easy to : >account for the informational aspect; that's what the 'net is good at. : >The sarcasm is another matter. I suppose it just indicates how many : >netwits(TM) there are around here. : As you would expect when the barriers to use are so low. Before the : printing press, any idea you wanted to preserve for publicity or : posterity had to be pretty damned important. And telephones were : originally