Winter/Spring 1996 Netizens and Online Access Volume 7 No 1

“People need communication to represent themselves, and e-mail for that reason, as well as Netnews.”

from a post at the San Francisco Public Library during the NTIA online conference, Nov. 14-21, 1994

Will Access to the Net

Be a Privilege or a Right?

This issue of the Amateur Computerist is on the

subject of Netizens and Online Access. The issue dis-

cusses both the cooperative online community and the

effort to extend access to the online community. We have

included articles about the development of the online

Usenet community and about the challenges it faces.

Also, this issue contains articles about efforts to extend

access to the Net (to Usenet, e-mail and a text based

browser like lynx), to those who are not yet online but

who want to contribute to the Net.

From the earliest days of networking developments,

the vision guiding networking pioneers was of a com-

puter utility that everyone would have access to. What

is now becoming clear, however, is that for networking

access to be ubiquitous it has to be available free or at

its actual low cost (i.e. $4 to $8 per year per person).

Such access should not be limited by geographical or

Table of Contents

Net Access: A Privilege or a Right?. . . . . . . . . Page 1

Canadian Community Networking. . . . . . . . . . Page 2

Netizens and Community Networks. . . . . . . . . Page 5

Letter to the Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

Access For All FAQ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

The Future of Democracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12

Old Freedoms and New Technologies.. . . . . . Page 16

Forming the Usenet Online Community. . . . . Page 21

History of Cleveland Free-Net.. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24

Universal Access to E-Mail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 26

Prototype for Policy Decisions.. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 27

In Honor of ‘Doc’ Wilson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 37

income factors.

The right of all to have access to the Net is not only

an important concern for the individuals involved, it is

also a concern for those online who will benefit from

the broadest participation of all and their contributions

to the online community. Those who have to pay by the

hour or by the amount of data they use, are limited in

what they are able or willing to contribute. Also, com-

mercial profit oriented access has led to abuse of

Usenet. While those connecting from academic or

community networking sites must often agree to act

according to acceptable use policies which prohibit

advertising, chain letters, pyramid schemes, etc, some

commercial sites have been less willing to enforce

acceptable use policies to prevent such abuse.

In August of last year, the Telecommunities ’95

Conference was held in Victoria, British Columbia. The

slogan of the conference was “Equity on the Internet.”

The conference set as a goal, access of all in Canada to

Usenet and e-mail and local community information by

the year 2000. The commitment was stressed at the

conference that there was a need to protect the public

online space. “Cyberspace *Is* public space.... We each

have a RIGHT to be there,” one of the speakers at the

conference emphasized.

A similar sentiment had been expressed in the US

in November, 1994 during the online public hearing

held by the National Telecommunications Information

Administration under the U.S. Department of Com-

merce. The online conference requested citizen input

into what should be the future of the National Science

Foundation (NSF) backbone to the Internet. Many par-

ticipants at the online conference expressed the impor-

tance of having e-mail and Usenet access available for

all and there was a concern that the so called “free

market” policy of networking development would only

exclude important sectors of U.S. society from access

to these important new communication resources.

In the early days of Usenet and the ARPAnet, there

Page 1

was an ARPAnet Mailing List known as Human-Nets.

Those contributing to Human-Nets recognized the

importance of their participation in a new form of

communication. A goal of those on Human-Nets was to

create a World-Net, a worldwide computer and com-

munications network. Today that goal of a world-wide

computer and communications network has become a

goal within reach, but the question of how to make

access to it available to all is still an unsolved public

policy dilemma.

This issue of the Amateur Computerist is dedicated

to examining some of the efforts to take up this pubic

policy goal, by examining the creation of Cleveland Free-

Net, reporting on the Community networking movement

in Canada and including the Access For All FAQ sent

to us from Germany. We hope this will provide a broader

view of the issues involved in developing the Internet

than the limited commercial view that dominates media

attention in countries like the U.S. We also look at how

the early days of Usenet took on the problem of having

a democratic foundation as a basis for the creation of an

ever growing and expanding online community. In

addition, we have included articles in this issue about the

potential of the Net to make direct democracy feasible

and available.

Crucial to the health of not only the online com-

munity, but also the future of our society is the need to

have the cooperative contributions to the Net. These are

only possible by having a healthy social policy toward

networking development and access. Though the U.S.

government is not currently pursuing this goal, there is

a broad sentiment within the U.S. and elsewhere that this

is a crucial public policy issue and these voices need to

find a way to influence public policy both on and off the

Net.

[Editor’s Note: The U.S. Telecommunications Act of

1996 was passed while this issue of the Amateur Com-

puterist was going to press. The law ignores the Freenet

and community networking movement and lacks any

historical perspective of how the Net has developed and

spread. For a future issue we invite comments on the new

law and views about what it is necessary to do to influ-

ence what the U.S. government will do to implement the

universal service provisions of the new law.]

Canadian Community

Networking Report From

Telecommunities’95

Conference

by Jay Hauben

[email protected]

Something big is happening in the world. There is

rapid development and deployment of new technology

making possible an incredibly inexpensive global com-

munications system. This is a report about a grassroots

effort across Canada that is attempting to insure partici-

pation in the development and use of this technology by

community level people. The organization formed to

coordinate this Canadian community network move-

ment is called Telecommunities Canada.

In February, 1995, a conference announcement ap-

peared on electronic mailing lists and Usenet news-

groups. It began, “Telecommunities Canada is pleased

to extend an invitation to Free and Community Net-

works across Canada and around the world to attend the

International Community Networking Conference and

First Annual General Meeting of Telecommunities

Canada.” The announcement encouraged the widest

possible attendance from participants in Freenets,

Community Networks and other forms of electronic

community based activities with the hope it would lead

to the founding of an International Telecommunities

Organization to encourage the development of commu-

nity networking around the world. It also pointed to

their vision of ubiquitous access to electronic communi-

cations for all Canadians by the year 2000.

The conference took place from Aug. 19–23, 1995

in Victoria, British Columbia. Over 300 people attended

the four days of tutorials, speeches, concurrent sessions

and a barbeque. Most of the participants were Canadi-

ans, but also present were community networking

people from the U.S., England, Australia, and a few

other countries. Most of the more than 30 operating

Canadian community networks were represented as

were many of the 70 or so community networks that are

in various stages of organization. Since the first Cana-

dian community network, Victoria Free-Net, came

online in November, 1992, over 200,000 Canadians or

a little less than 1% of the Canadian population has

gained free or very low cost access to the Net via such

Page 2

networks.

The conference sessions were for the most part

serious and many pressing issues were discussed and

debated. This report covers a few.

All Canadian community networks are staffed most-

ly by volunteers, sometimes numbering in the hundreds.

Most of the work of figuring out, setting up and main-

taining these networks is done by volunteers from the

communities or cities involved. In fact, one of the major

purposes of these community networks is to provide

training for local community people in electronic com-

munications technology and network management. In

that way these communities hope they might participate

in the development of advanced technology and their

people could take jobs or participate in decisions which

require such technical knowledge. Many of the students,

people between jobs, librarians, and senior citizens who

volunteer, do so with this purpose in mind. But how to

maintain a sufficient pool of such volunteers was a

question for many of the community networks. There

was wide-spread sentiment that the volunteers had to be

offered quality training and skill upgrade opportunities,

especially those with more skills offering help to those

with less. Also, some argued that care had to be taken to

involve volunteers in all aspects of the network’s deci-

sions and operations both for the network’s health and

for retention of the volunteers. From what I heard at the

conference, it seemed that concern for retaining volun-

teers would strengthen some community networks in

their resolve not to allow any commercial activity on

their networks lest the volunteers see that someone was

profiting from their donated labor.

Even with most labor done by volunteers and most

equipment donated as it was for some of the community

networks, there are still ongoing costs to operate a

community network. There was general experience

throughout Canada that the actual operating cost amounts

to about $8.00(U.S.) per member per year (mostly for

phone line costs). Even that small cost per member, for

a community net like National Capital Free-Net in

Ottawa with over 50,000 members necessitates an annual

budget of over $400,000. Participants from the Blue Sky

Community Network of Manitoba pointed out that $8.00

per year amounts to about 70 cents per month and

therefore should be covered by the government which

would save that much money just by making one less

paper mailing per month to each online citizen. People

from Edmonton FreeNet argued that it would not be

unfair to charge each member a $10 to $20 annual

membership fee as they do. Many others argued that

even $10 per year might be a burden for some and that

there should be no economic obstacle to anyone partic-

ipating. Most Canadian community networks retain free

access, covering their operating costs by voluntary

donations from their users and other fund raising

mechanisms. But the money question and the question

of being sustainable seemed on everyone’s agenda.

Speaking to the principles on which to base the

money and other decisions, Garth Graham one of the

theoreticians of the Canadian community network

movement has written: “A community network is elec-

tronic public space where ordinary people can meet and

converse about common concerns. Like parks, civic

squares, sidewalks, wilderness, and the sea, it’s an

electronic commons shared by all, not a cyberspace

shopping mall.” To maintain their value as a public

space, Canadian community networks have rules that

their members and users agree to and can lose their

accounts if they violate. Among the rules presented at

the conference was an acceptable use policy in effect at

some of the networks permitting: No corporate ac-

counts, No advertising, and No overt buying and selling.

Other nets represented at the conference have made

openings for commercial use of their networks by

establishing paid for higher levels of membership or

sponsorship. But many worried that such duel level

membership would compromise the public community

essence of their networks.

One disappointment for the conferees was the fail-

ure to form an international organization or put in mo-

tion steps in that direction. The Canadian community

network movement acknowledges its indebtedness to

and respect for Cleveland Freenet and there had been

strong efforts made to connect the Canadian community

network and U.S. Freenet movements. Telecommunities

Canada had hoped to work closely with the U.S. Na-

tional Public Telecommunications Network, known as

the NPTN, which had up until recently represented

many of the U.S. Freenets. During the conference, as an

American I was asked often if I had worked with the

NPTN. I explained the problems I had encountered with

the NPTN. The Canadians listened politely but only at

the end of the conference did I learn that the NPTN had

trademarked the name Free-Net in Canada. The NPTN

made it a condition of its participation in the conference

that each Canadian community network pay the NPTN

Page 3

a $2000 membership fee. Telecommunities Canada

offered to make a token payment in the name of all the

Canadian community networks but the NPTN maintained

that Canadian Freenets were using their trademark il-

legally and the negotiations toward an international

organization ended. The result has been that a number

of Canadian community networks have taken Freenet out

of their names while others have offered each other legal

support if the NPTN were to sue any of them over its use

of the name Freenet. Many people at the conference

warmly welcomed me and asked what they could do to

help people in the U.S. move closer to having more

community networks. It was as if the presence of non-

Canadians helped keep the hope of an international

organization alive.

Local content was presented by many as an impor-

tant aspect of community networks. But it was reported

that most users log-on in order to use e-mail or Usenet.

This contradiction raised the question of what was the

proper role for a community network. Garth Graham

quoting another community network theoretician Jay

Weston, phrased it this way: Are community networks

“providing something for the community or caretakers

of a space created by the community?” He argued at the

conference that if community networks saw their role as

providing something for the community, they had not

gotten “beyond industrial society models of how to

structure organizations” and therefore did not represent

anything new and would soon be replaced by commercial

service providers. If on the other hand they adopted the

role of safeguarding a public space then community

networks would be doing something unique and im-

portant. Community people need community networks

to defend their right to access to the new communica-

tions technology at its actual cost. Jay Weston writes:

“The National Capital Freenet was an imagined public

space, a dumb platform where all individuals, groups and

organizations could represent themselves, where conflict

and controversy could occur as manifestations of conflict

and controversy already occurring in the community....

Such a space could be constructed only by the commu-

nity acting as a community, and not by any public or

private organization acting on behalf of the community.”

His argument is that the community must decide what

is best for it. But who in the community has the answer?

Everyone with a genuine interest in the community must

be heard in order to figure that out. An open and diverse

electronic public space is needed for that debate and

discussion and that is what Usenet especially and e-mail

allow for. I feel many people at the conference did not

fully understand the important role that community

networks play by making Usenet and e-mail available

to their users.

In Canada as opposed to the U. S., there are stated

policies of encouragement of community networks on

the part of the Federal and some of the provincial

governments. For example, the British Columbia

Provincial government in a document called “The Elec-

tronic Highway Accord” states: “Community networks

and public points of access are fundamental to afford-

able electronic access to services and broad community

participation in the information society. A continuing

commitment to involving the public in developing the

electronic highway is essential.” It is recognized in

Canada that the private sector will not provide universal

access at no or low cost to all Canadians. But most

community network activists were frustrated by how

little financial support had come so far from Canadian

governments. The attendees at the conference took up

an active debate with the government officials who had

been sent to the conference. In most instances the

government programs prescribe the form that a network

should take in order to qualify for funding. The grass-

roots people fought to have a say in the whole process

of defining, structuring, and deciding which projects

would get government support. The Canadian Federal

government has earmarked $20,000,000 over three years

for rural connectivity to the Internet. Even those at the

conference ready to give up on achieving government

financial support, took up to argue with the government

representatives why much of that money should end up

supporting the community networking movement and

not business connectivity. The effort was to make the

government live up to its mandate as the promoter of

the general welfare rather than the provider of welfare

for business interests. The end result at the conference

was that the Federal government representatives asked

the Telecommunities Canada organization to put a

proposal on the table for the government to consider.

Whereas government support was hard to make

concrete, libraries and librarians have played prominent

parts in the community networks that have come online

in Canada. Many of the community network efforts

were initiated by librarians or library administrators.

People whose profession was to facilitate access to

information saw the advent of the Internet as a great

Page 4

Telecommunities Canada will hold its 1996 con-

ference in Edmonton, Alberta on August 16-20.

More information is available from:

[email protected]

leap forward and didn’t want their local library users nor

themselves left out. Also librarians realizing that they

need network skills are among the volunteers in many

community networks. Some library administrators also

served as activists in the development of local commu-

nity networks. A community network can be a mecha-

nism by which a library’s online catalog is available by

dialup from homes without requiring the library itself to

maintain the modem pool and computers that are neces-

sary. Also, many community networks fulfill their obli-

gation to have public access terminals by placing them

in libraries. So a community network can save libraries

a good deal of training effort, money and equipment

costs and in Canada at least many community networks

and libraries are close partners.

In most communities, libraries do not consider com-

munity networks competitors but relations in Canada

between community networks and commercial service

providers are a problem. The community network

activists do not see themselves as competitive with the

service providers. They argued that the community

networks with their basic capabilities help to create

customers for the commercial operations, introducing

people to networking and whetting the appetites of those

who will be willing to pay for higher level access. The

service providers for their part often oppose the commu-

nity networks as unfair competition. There are some

service providers who have appeared helpful to the

community networks in their areas. Some conference

attendees warned, however that what appears as friend-

ship in public is often the opposite behind closed doors.

Also Roger’s cable company in Toronto is a major

sponsor of the Toronto Free-Net, but the finances and

decision process there I was told were not public in

contrast to the normal practice in most other Canadian

community networks. When I asked people at the confer-

ence what advice they would give to people who wanted

to see a community network develop, I was often told to

look into who had a successful community network,

“Check out why National Capital Free-Net in Ottawa is

successful.” What I heard about National Capital Free-

Net was that there had been a year long planning effort

spearheaded by some faculty members from Carleton

University who held meetings frequently for more than

a year before launching their community network. That

all decisions of importance are made in public with votes

taken online on the FreeNet and that the annual meeting

setting policy for the coming year is also online available

to all and participated in by many.

I left the conference feeling that I had attended an

important event. It was a public conference that had

discussed many issues important to the successful oper-

ation of a community network. There were many dif-

ferences among the Canadians but for now it seemed to

me they had a genuine community network movement

committed to safeguarding a public space. I felt we in

the U.S. have a very big job if we too want to have the

kind of universal free or very low cost access that the

Canadians were aiming for. We here have yet to win

government commitment to a role in support of public

participation spreading access to the Internet. We have

strong commercial interests who oppose any public

sector activity, and we haven’t even gained the kind of

support from libraries and librarians that seemed so

important in Canada. But I felt there were pioneers at

work in Canada blazing the trail and wishing us well

and they had given us a push to keep going despite or

in spite of the difficulties.

The Netizens and Community

Networks

by Michael F. Hauben

[email protected]

[Editor’s Note: The following article is from a talk pre-

sented at the Hypernetwork’95 Beppu Bay Conference

in Oita Perfecture, Kyushu, Japan on Nov. 24, 1995 as

part of the Netizens section of the Conference]

The story of Netizens is an important one, and I am

happy to participate in a conference which acknow-

ledges the value and role of Netizens in the future of the

Net. In conducting research 3 years ago online to

determine people’s uses for the global computer com-

munications network, I became aware that there was a

new social institution, an electronic commons, develop-

ing. It was exciting to explore this new social institu-

Page 5

tion. Others online shared this excitement. I discovered

from those who wrote me that the people I was writing

about were citizens of the Net, or Netizens.

At the age of 12 I had started using local BBSes in

Michigan. That was in 1985. After seven years of partic-

ipation on both local hobbyist-run computer bulletin

boards systems, and global Usenet, I began to research

Usenet and the Internet. I found these online discussions

to be mentally invigorating and welcoming of thoughtful

comments, questions and discussion. People were also

friendly and considerate of others and their questions.

This was a new environment for me. Little thoughtful

conversation was encouraged in my high school. Since

my daily life did not provide places and people to talk

with about real issues and real world topics, I wondered

why the online experience encouraged such discussions

and consideration of others. Where did such a culture

spring from, and how did it develop? During my sopho-

more year of college in 1992, I was curious to explore

and better understand this new online world.

As part of course work at Columbia University, I

explored these questions. One professor’s encouragement

helped me to use Usenet and the Internet as places to

conduct research. My research was actual participation

in the online community by exploring how and why these

communications forums functioned. I posed questions

on Usenet, mailing lists and Free-Nets. Along with these

questions, I attached some worthwhile preliminary

research. People respected my questions and found the

preliminary research helpful. The entire process was one

of mutual respect and sharing of research and ideas. A

real notion of ‘community’ and ‘participation’ took

place. On the Net, people willingly help each other and

work together to define and address issues important to

them. These are often issues which the conventional

media would never cover.

One response to my research came from a Netizen

from Montreal, Jean-Francois Messier. He commented

on how his connection to the world via the Internet

changed how he viewed the world. He said, “...my

attitudes to other peoples, races and religions changed,

since I had more chances to talk with other peoples

around the world. When first exchanging mail with

people from Yellowknife, Yukon, I had a real strange

feeling: Getting messages and chatting with people that

far from me. I noticed around me that a lot of people

have opinions and positions about politics that are for

themselves, without knowing others.” (See “The Net and

The Netizens” in the Netizens Netbook)

He continued, “Because I have a much broader

view of the world now, I changed and am more con-

ciliate and peaceful with other people. Writing to some-

one you never saw, changes the way you write... Tele-

communications opened the world to me and changed

my visions of people and countries....” (ibid.)

My initial research concerned the origins and

development of the global discussion forum Usenet.

Usenet developed out of the desire of several graduate

students in the United States to be part of a cooperative

technological community across campuses. As campus

connected to campus across state, across the nation,

across the continent and then across continents, a global

Usenet communication network emerged. People used

Usenet because it is more powerful to be in a large

community than in isolation; communication with

others leads to broader ideas and cooperative activity

is more productive than competition. These principles

emerged from the necessity of sharing knowledge to

successfully implement new technology; at the time it

was Unix. Much of the culture of open discussion and

sharing of technical experience spilled over into the

non-technical discussion groups. These basic principles

were part of the evidence behind the discovery of

Netizens.

For my next paper, I wanted to explore the larger

Net, what it was and its significance. This is when my

research uncovered the remaining details that helped me

to recognize the emergence of Netizens. Netizens are

the people who actively contribute online towards the

development of the Net. These people understand the

value of collective work and the communal aspects of

public communications. These are the people who

actively discuss and debate topics in a constructive

manner, who e-mail answers to people and provide help

to new-comers, who maintain FAQ files and other

public information repositories, who maintain mailing

lists, and so on. These are people who discuss the nature

and role of this new communications medium. How-

ever, these are not all the people. Netizens are not just

anyone who comes online, and they are especially not

people who come online for isolated gain or profit. They

are not people who come to the Net thinking it is a

service. Rather they are people who understand it takes

effort and action on each and everyone’s part to make

the Net a regenerative and vibrant community and

resource. Netizens are people who decide to devote time

Page 6

and effort into making the Net, this new part of our

world, a better place. Lurkers are not Netizens, and

vanity home pages are not the work of Netizens. While

lurking or trivial home pages do not harm the Net, they

do not contribute either.

The term Netizen has spread widely. The genesis

comes from net culture based on the original newsgroup

naming conventions. Network wide Usenet groups

included net.general for general discussion, net.auto for

automobile owners, net.bugs for discussion of Unix bug

reports, and so on. People who used Usenet would prefix

things related to the online world with the word “net”

similar to the newsgroup terminology. So there would

be references to net.gods, net.cops or net.citizens. My

research demonstrated that there were people active as

members of the network, which the term net citizen does

not precisely represent. The word citizen suggests a

geographic or national definition of social membership.

The word Netizen reflects the new non-geographically

based social membership. So I contracted the phrase net

dot citizen to netizen.

Two general uses of the term netizen have devel-

oped. The first is a broad usage to refer to anyone who

uses the Net, for whatever purpose. Thus, the term net-

izen has been prefixed in some uses with the adjectives

good or bad. The second usage is closer to my under-

standing. This definition is used to describe people who

care about Usenet and the bigger Net and work towards

building the cooperative and collective nature which

benefits the larger world. These are people who work

towards developing the Net. In this second case, Netizen

represents positive activity, and no adjective need be

used. Both uses have spread from the online community

appearing in newspapers, magazines, television, books

and other offline media. As more and more people join

the online community and contribute towards the nurtur-

ing of the Net and towards the development of a great

shared social wealth, the ideas and values of Netizenship

spread. But with the increasing commercialization and

privatization of the Net, Netizenship is being challenged.

During such a period it is valuable to look back at the

pioneering vision that has helped make the Net possible

and examine what lessons it provides.

References

J.C.R. Licklider and Robert Taylor. “The Computer as a Communi-

cation Device.” In Science and Technology: For the Technical Man

in Management, No. 76, April 1968, Pp. 21-31.

The quote from Jean Francois Messier is from the Netizens Net-

book, which this speech is adapted from.

The Netbook is available from:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/.

[Editor’s Note: An article about the author of this article

and others who attended the Beppu Bay Conference in

November, 1995 appeared in the New Year’s Day issue

of the Nishi Nippon newspaper, Fukuoka, Japan.]

Letter to the Editor

Hi,

I want to use your newsletter to suggest to Apple

and IBM and Compaq, etc. that they make an “economy

model” computer for those of us with a limited income.

I think it would be not only a great thing but also a best

selling item worldwide. Lest we forget what the Volks-

wagen “Bug” did for its manufacturer as well as the

West German economy. I hear they either brought it

back or they are thinking about making an improved

version. GMC, Ford and Chrysler ought to be working

on something like that, instead of making and trying to

sell $20,000 lemons!

Thanks for your help.

Louis Dequesa

[email protected]bia.edu

Access For All FAQ

by Volker Grassmuck

[email protected]

[Editor’s Note: The following Request For Comment

was presented at the Interstanding Conference, Nov.

23-25, 1995 at the National Library, Tallinn, Estonia.

We thank Wulf-Burkhard Goehmann for forwarding a

copy of it.]

- RFC Draft 1.1 -

http://www.is.in.berlin.de/~vgrass/afa-faq.html

Q1: Access for All sounds great. What is it all about?

Q2: What are the concrete targets?

Page 7

Q3: Why is it so important that everybody be on the Net?

Q4: What’s the time frame?

Q5: Microsoft, Burda, Time-Warner, German Telekom,

and all these other big companies also want access for

all. What’s the difference?

Q6: Are there already examples of Access for All?

Q7: If all these people come online, won’t the lines be

overloaded?

Q8: So the issue is first of all one of pricing and regula-

tion, i.e. telecommunications policy. What models are

there?

Q9: Access to the pipes is great, but what good is it if all

the useful stuff I find there has a price tag attached? How

about Access to Information?

Q10: What other problems are there to be solved?

Q11: Where does the Access for All movement start?

What’s the context?

Q1: Access for All sounds great. What is it all about?

A1: The Matrix has inherent potentials for empowerment

of individuals and small groups. Historically it was

invented by its users, as a huge experiment in ongoing

collaboration in an open, distributed, non-hierarchical

environment. It was an economy-free enclave based on

non-proprietary technology where advertisements were

prohibited by the Acceptable Use Policy and despised by

its inhabitants.

Now, these Old Internet cultures are becoming

marginal, while infrastructure-building capital takes over.

An economy of desire meets money economy.

Technically the potentials for open information

exchange and debate, shared creation and decision mak-

ing, for an equality of voices are still there, but they will

not manifest themselves automatically. Like anywhere

else we will have to fight for our right to be on the Net,

and to be there in a way we choose. Access for All is a

grassroots movement for bottom-up infrastructure

building — technically, politically, artistically, socially.

Q2: What are the concrete targets?

A2: 1.) an open, distributed, heterogenous, packet-

switched, two-way, many-to-many network in which

everybody can write as well as read.

2.) ubiquitous, 24-hour, flat-rate access to the pipes at the

fastest available speeds and at rates affordable to all.

3.) free access to all public information (analogous to

the public library in the Gutenberg Age), freedom of

speech and assembly, privacy and anonymity.

— We want it all, and we want it now!

Q3: Why is it so important that everybody be on the

Net?

A3: The Matrix is turning into an educational, eco-

nomic, political, social infrastructure; a communica-

tional place where jobs are offered, civic and citizens’

action is taken, kids do their class projects, government

information on equitable opportunity programs is

published, and public debate is conducted on just about

anything somebody deems relevant. In such a world,

anybody who is not present on the Net will be seriously

disadvantaged.

In his keynote speech at the Telecom ‘95 in

Geneva, Nelson Mandela argued that if the right to

communications is understood as a basic human right,

then the difference between the information saturated

countries and the information have-nots has to be abol-

ished.

Human rights are not granted, but have to be fought

for. Also at Telecom ‘95, Peking correspondent Francis

Deron pointed out how access restrictions are turning

the Internet in China into another tool of the power elite.

In capitalist countries, the danger is more one of

trivializing the Matrix into a medium for teleshopping

and video-on-demand.

Understood as a public sphere, the Matrix is not an

issue of industrial policy, but of democracy. Not every-

body has to be on the Net, but everybody, regardless of

location, know-how, and income, has to have the

opportunity to be there. We’re all stakeholders.

Q4: What’s the time frame?

A4: This new platform for social intercourse is still in

the process of formation. Within the next year or two

many decisions will be taken that set the technical,

economic, political, legal constraints within which the

network cultures will grow. In order not to leave these

decisions to experts lobbied by commercial interests,

alternative, critical, artistic circles have to be made

aware of these issues. Precondition for opinion-forming

and participation is access to the Net. Solutions will be

negotiated inside and around the Net. The most urgent

Page 8

issue today is to get the widest possible manyfold of

perspectives to participate in this process, i.e. Access for

All.

Q5: Microsoft, Burda, Time-Warner, German Telekom,

and all these other big companies also want access for

all. What’s the difference?

A5: Those enterprises are, by nature, interested in their

own and not in public benefit. The conglomerates of

telephone, cable, publishing, broadcasting, entertain-

ment, merchandising, and retail companies produce a

particular vision of what the Net is, thereby margin-

alizing alternative usages. Their idea is one of TV with

a minimal back-channel for polling and ordering.

“For example, executives from Time-Warner, Inc.

are proudly showing a video about the ‘Full Service

Network’ currently being tested in Orlando, Florida. The

video shows happy suburban families using their set-top

boxes to play games, watch movies, browse electronic

magazines, and order pizzas and bedroom sets. This

supposed ‘Full Service Network’ does not provide e-

mail, bulletin-boards, or person-to-person communica-

tion of any kind.... without e-mail, discussion groups, or

a means of entering text, the Time-Warner ‘Full-Service

Network’ can’t possibly support participatory democ-

racy.... the dominant component on the Information

Highway will be a highly commercial, top-down, ‘pay-

per’ system for delivering infotainment to consumers,

and, of course, taking their product orders. Most people

won’t even *know* about alternative components, e.g.,

civic networks operated by non-profit organizations,

much less subscribe to them.” [Jeff Johnson (Computer

Professionals for Social Responsibility)]

What the Fortune 500 want is a controllable, cen-

trally planned and operated, unified network. They want

set-top boxes as terminals not computers, closed front-

end networks to the Internet (MSN, Europe Online) not

straight Internet access. (not decided yet: Springer)

In contrast, the Internet as it evolved so far is a

patchwork of heterogenous islands internetworked

through the regional cooperation of the various operators,

all with their own plant structures, clientele, funding,

organization, philosophies, and cultures. Access for All

builds on this diversity.

Another essential criterion for an open network that

connects us rather than targeting us is that of “reciprocity

of voices”: in whichever format you can read informa-

tion, you should also be able to create and provide your

own. Therefore, tendencies that increase the division

between professional information providers and a

receive-only general audience have to be counteracted.

One way to do this is to put as much effort into

advancing tools for social intercourse (newsgroups,

mailing lists, IRC, MUDs) as we see being put into

tools for information navigation (ftp, Gopher, WAIS,

WWW). [Sproull & Faraj]

Access for All wants to do two things. First develop

grassroots efforts for access that demonstrate that we

do not depend on corporate offerings. And second, it

wants to start a public debate about the significance of

the Matrix as a public sphere, and about counteracting,

e.g. by regulation, the additional empowerment of the

corporations.

Q6: Are there already examples of Access for All?

A6: Yes, during the time when access to the Internet

proper was still largely reserved for the academic world,

BBSs provided community networking. Places like The

WELL in San Francisco, the Cleveland FreeNet, or

Coara in a small town on Japan’s southern main island

of Kyushu grew into geographically and thematically

focused digital public spheres. They spawned similar

networks in other cities, and were finally gatewayed to

the Internet at large.

Today, even in the tightly regulated telecom land-

scape of Germany, alternative access models are coming

up. The rooms in some student dormitories are con-

nected to the university LAN directly. An apartment

block in the federal state of Turinga uses the existing

CATV system to run IP. The city council of Münster

decided to bring the town online, offering free dial-in

points and terminals at cafes and libraries. A final

example is Prenzelnet. The name is derived from

Prenzlauer Berg, the squatters’, students’, and artists’

ward in Berlin. Here a house will be wired with an

Ethernet from the cafe on the ground floor up to the last

bathroom where people might want to read online

magazines. It will be a model house with a cheap and

dirty, but scalable network that can be expanded to the

whole neighborhood. The main cost advantage of these

models lies in circumventing the monopoly-priced

Telekom lines, in doing local access not over phone

lines but own lines. The other main point of local

initiatives taking networking in their own hands is that

Page 9

the systems grow out of the needs of a community, not

out of commercial considerations.

Local online communities provide a sense of affilia-

tion, a shared history. They turn information into mean-

ing by placing it into a social context. They allow for

face-to-face checks, local sharing of resources (scanners,

printers, CD-ROM burners), and encourage self-help.

Local islands serve as ideal community front-ends to the

Matrix at large, following the WELL’s motto “Think

global, act local.”

Q7: If all these people come online, won’t the lines be

overloaded?

A7: New technologies are becoming available for digital

transmission on any channel and any part of the elec-

tromagnetic spectrum. Even good old copper wire, the

most extensive existing network on the planet, can now

be turned into broadband infrastructure. Recently, there

was a report that 52Mbps communications will be

possible using copper wire. [GLOCOM] ATM over

copper wires provides hundreds of leased-line quality

virtual channels.

Also current CATV, with minimal capital invest-

ment for changing broadcast architectures into two-way

systems, can be turned into a cheap, high-speed local

loop. Continental Cablevision and PSI offer 24-hour

high-speed Internet access at $125/month. In Tokyo,

three CATV companies announced telephony inside their

cable islands at a flat rate of $20/month.

Once deregulation makes it possible, extensive

optical fiber lines installed for internal use by local

administrations, by railway and electricity companies and

the like will become generally available.

A wide range of wireless technologies from packet

radio to microwave links, from infrared to laser are

becoming technically feasible. These are especially

attractive where there is no wire plant in place.

A more exotic technology is the modulation of

electricity lines (Baby Phone).

One does not have to be a utopian to envision a time

when bandwidth is abundant, and connectivity is ubiqui-

tous and cheap, just like electricity and water today.

Technically, there are no problems, only a wealth of

solutions.

Q8: So the issue is first of all one of pricing and regula-

tion, i.e. telecommunications policy. What models are

there?

A8: There is a range of models from grassroots coop-

eratives (Prenzelnet), via funding by sponsorship and

donations (dds), to government subsidies (Münster), and

regular for-profit companies (The WELL).

Networks afford immense economies of scale. For

example, in 1993 the NSF financed its backbone at $1

per user per year [MacKie-Mason & Varian, 273]. On

the local level, Harvard University with 12,000 users

pays $4 per user per year for its connectivity. [Kahin,

12] The same advantage of large institutions can also

be achieved by buyers cooperatives of individual users

that purchase bulk connectivity at favorable conditions

(like Individual Networks).

Public ownership, subsidies, and tax incentives

should be part of the access structure, at the very least

to assist disadvantaged sectors of the population,

providing access through institutions such as libraries,

schools, and town halls. In the U.S., the National Tele-

communications and Information Infrastructure Assis-

tance Program offered $64 million in fiscal year 1995

in matching funds for projects in education, community

networking, health care, and public libraries. [Kahin,

15] Some U.S. states linked the deregulation of tele-

communications to the establishment of a universal

service fund into which the commercial service provid-

ers have to pay contributions. [Civille, 196]

Finally we could imagine a radical departure from

the American market model. Today, former telecom-

munications monopolies are faced with two incon-

gruous demands. On the one hand, they have to compete

in certain areas like any other profit-making corpora-

tion. On the other, they are still legally obliged to

provide universal service. The struggles between the

New Common Carriers (NCCs) and NTT in Japan, and

the German Telekom’s decision to raise local call rates

are resulting from this contradictory situation. The latter

is, in fact, a way to have German Telekom’s competi-

tiveness subsidized by customers who were not asked

and do not have a choice.

An obvious solution would be to split the telco into

a truly competitive company and a nonprofit organiza-

tion. The latter could be based on a common pool of

resources and funds. The former public telco brings in

its physical plant, the NCCs their backbones. Operating

and investment funds would come from contributions

of the value-added carriers, the commercial content

Page 10

providers and network marketeers, and the public hand.

Mainly those who profit from the Net financially would

bear the cost. This could also be achieved by a tax on

monetary transactions over the Net. The pipes would be

considered common good and provided for free.

Economically, one could argue that as a precondition

of any online market, connectivity itself should be

excluded from market forces.

Politically, one could draw an analogy to other

common goods. In order to vote, to go to school or a

library, to go window shopping, or meet friends at a

public square I do not have to pay.

Socially, a truly universal, equal and equitable

access for all requires a national and international meta-

structure that addresses the disparity between metropoli-

tan centers and rural areas, and between rich and poor

countries.

In an interpretation of Nelson Mandela’s right to

communications, societies could proclaim a basic human

right to be online.

Q9: Access to the pipes is great, but what good is it if all

the useful stuff I find there has a price tag attached? How

about Access to Information?

A9: This is the crucial question to be addressed after

access to the pipes. An obvious model here is the public

library. In the spirit of the Enlightenment, nations have

taken the decision that all published information should

be accessible to everybody at no cost — a very radical

decision indeed. A debate should be started on how this

value of access to information translates into the Matrix.

Q10: What other problems are there to be solved?

A10: Lots. As a continuum from private sphere to public

sphere, the Matrix has a range of requirements from

privacy, security, and anonymity, to freedom of speech

and — since the Matrix is a Third Place where people

can actually meet — also freedom of assembly. Related

issues concern censorship, access by minors, intellectual

property rights, fair use, and non-representational models

of democratic decision making.

A current problem that we heard about from Marleen

Sticker is the attempt to hold access providers liable for

the content of their customers. The concept of “common

carriage,” wherein transporters have no control over —

and no stake in — what is transmitted to whom is

endangered.

Answers to these questions will emerge from de-

bates in the old media, and through established societal

channels like Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

lobbying activities (EFF). But the discussions can only

be substantial if they are based on first-hand experience,

i.e. if they are also led on the Net. Therefore the primary

meta-goal is Access for All.

Q11: Where does the Access for All movement start?

What’s the context?

A11: Access for All starts from existing crystallization

points (dds, is, Prenzelnet, Zamir Network and Elec-

tronic Witches in former Yugoslavia). By simply

pooling these models, presenting them together, and for-

grounding Access for All, the issue will become visible

for the first time.

The result could be a collection of pointers to

Access for All projects, of fact-sheets about the dif-

ferent approaches and technical implementations, diary-

style scenes from the local online cultures, policy state-

ments of these communities. Furthermore, forces can

be joined to help bootstrap other projects by sharing

experiences, software, know-how, and money (like the

International City Federation). Operating projects could

adopt sister communities in other countries.

As a movement Access for All could be a contri-

bution to the Internet World Expo 1996, initiated by

Carl Malamud after the example of 19

century indus-

trial world fairs. Among many fancy, advanced projects

showcased there, Access for All could be a bottom-up,

trans-European counterpoint.

Sources

GLOCOM, Information Technology and Communications Policy

Forum of Japan, Proposal on the Reform of the Information and

Communications Industry,

http://ifrm.glocom.ac.jp/ipf/pr1/index.html

Jeff Johnson (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility),

“The Information Hypeway: A Worst-Case Scenario”,

http://www.1010.org/Dynamo1010.cgi/LiveFrom1010/

team1/johnson.html

Prenzelnet,

http://fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de/~huette/prenzelnet

Sproull & Faraj, in: Brian Kahin & James Keller (eds), Public

Access to the Internet, MIT Press 1995

Page 11

MacKie-Mason & Varian, in Kahin, op.cit.

Kahin, in Kahin, op. cit.

Civille, in Kahin, op. cit.

Thanks to Sabine Helmers, Koji Ando, Ilona Marenbach, Frank

Holzkamp, Joachim Blank, Barbara Aselmeier.

This FAQ also available at:

http://www.race.u-tokyo.ac.jp/RACE/TGM/tgm.html

[Editor’s Note: The above RFC on Access for All is a

request for comment. We welcome the article and felt it

added a broad and helpful perspective to the question of

why universal access to the Net is such an important

social goal. However, previous issues of the Amateur

Computerist have documented the history of the origins

and development of the ARPAnet and the Internet. The

past history demonstrates that through government

support for research into new technologies and through

government regulations like the Acceptable Use Policy

(AUP) that guided the development of the ARPAnet and

Internet, there was the needed support and direction for

the technological development that made the Net possi-

ble. In a similar way, Unix was developed at Bell Labs

as a research arm of the regulated AT&T. The RFC

suggests that deregulation will lead to the development

of new technologies, while the history of the develop-

ment of the Net shows that enlightened regulation is

needed, not deregulation.]

The article “John Kemeny: BASIC and DTSS:

Everyone a Programmer” (Amateur Computerist

Vol 5 no 1-2) was recently reprinted in the book

Computer Pioneers, edited by John A. N. Lee and

published by the IEEE Computer Society Press.

Online Public Discussion

and the Future of Democracy

by Michael Hauben

[email protected]

[Editor’s Note: The following article is also included in

Telecommunities ‘95 Conference Proceedings, Victoria,

BC, August, 1995]

“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 contro-

versy.” — Christopher Lasch, “Journalism, Publicity,

and the Lost Art of Argument.”

“Throughout American history, the town meeting

has been the premier, and often the only, example of a

direct democracy.... The issue of whether the town

meeting can be redesigned to empower ordinary citi-

zens, as it was intended to do, is of vital concern for the

future.” — Jeffrey B. Abramson, “Electronic Town

Meetings: Proposals for Democracy’s Future.”

Introduction

Democracy, or rule by the people, is by definition

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 more realistic.

James Mill, a political theorist from the early nine-

teenth century, and the father of John Stuart Mill, wrote

about democracy in his 1825 essay on “Government”

for that years Supplement for the Encyclopedia Britan-

nica. Mill argues that democracy is the only governmen-

tal form that is fair to the society as a whole. Although

he does not trust representative government, he ends up

advocating it. But he warns of its dangers, “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.”

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 impos-

sible 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,

Page 12

“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.”

In lieu of participatory democracies, republics have

arisen as the actual form of government. Mill recognizes

that an elected body of representatives serves 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 mo-

tives which will carry them, if unchecked, to inflict the

greatest evils....”

A more recent scholar, the late Profes-

sor Christopher Lasch of the University of Rochester,

also had qualms with representative government. In his

essay, “Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argu-

ment,”

Lasch argued that any form of democracy

requires discourse and debate to function properly. 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 recommended the recreation of direct

democracy when he wrote,

“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.”

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. One

scholar wrote that a “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 ordinances that debate collapsed into angry

shouting matches.”

The twenty-six year development of the Internet

(starting in 1969) and the sixteen year development of

Usenet (starting in 1979) is an investment in a strong

force toward making direct democracy a reality. Mill’s

observations of the obstacles preventing the implementa-

tion of direct democracy have a chance of being over-

come using these new technologies. Online communica-

tion forums also make possible Lasch’s desire to see the

discussion necessary to identify today’s fundamental

questions. Mill could not foresee the successful assem-

bly of the body politic in person at one time. The Net

allows for a meeting which takes place on each person’s

own time, rather than all at one time. Usenet

newsgroups are discussion forums where questions are

raised, and people can leave comments when conve-

nient, rather than at a particular time and at a particular

place. With computer discussion forums, individuals

can connect from their own computers, or from publicly

accessible computers across the nation to participate in

a particular debate. The discussion takes 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

schedules.

Mill’s second observation was that people would

not be able to communicate peacefully after assembling.

Online discussions do not have the same characteristics

as in-person meetings. As people connect to the discus-

sion forum when they wish, and when they have time,

they can be thoughtful in their responses to the discus-

sion. In a traditional meeting, participants have to think

quickly to respond. In addition, online 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 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

potential for the implementation of direct democracy in

a country as long as the necessary computer and com-

munications infrastructure are installed. Future advance-

ment towards a more responsible government is possi-

ble with these new technologies. While the future is

discussed and planned for, it will also be possible to use

these technologies to assist in citizen participation in

government. Netizens

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 dem-

ocratic “Town Meeting” via online communication and

discussion. Discussions involve people interacting with

others while voting only involves the isolated thoughts

Page 13

of an individual on an issue, and then his or her acting

on those thoughts in a private vote. In society where

people live together, it is important for people to commu-

nicate with each other about their situations to best

understand the world from the broadest possible view-

point.

Public and open discussions and debates are grass-

roots, bottom-up situations which enable people to

participate in democracy with enthusiasm and interest

more so than the current system of secret ballots allows.

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.

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 Telecom-

munications and Information Administration (NTIA)

a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce sponsored

this e-mail and newsgroup conference and encouraged

a few public access sites to allow broad-based discus-

sion. 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 an online “town meeting.” This prototype of what the

technology facilitates also demonstrated some of the

problems inherent in non-moderated computer communi-

cation. The NTIA conference was a new social form

made possible by the net and actually occurred as a

prototype of one form of citizen online discussion. It

demonstrated an example of citizen-government interac-

tion through citizen debate over important public ques-

tions 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 usually unheard

voices.

2) A new form of politics involving the people in the

real questions of society.

3) The clarification of a public question in public.

4) The testing of new technological means to move

society forward.

David J. Barram, the Deputy Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Commerce, closed the NTIA’s Virtual

Conference on Universal and Service and Open Access

by stating the conference was: “...a tremendous example

of how our information infrastructure can allow greater

citizen participation in the development of government

policies.”

To hear such a comment from a government repre-

sentative is important. Such a statement indicates that

many users of the Net have demonstrated to the U.S.

Federal Government that they oppose the recent conver-

sion 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 telecom-

munications service that may shape the legislative and

regulatory debate.

2) Demonstrate how networking technology can

broaden participation in the development of government

policies, specifically, universal service telecommunica-

tions 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 ex-

periment 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 fo-

rums on Availability and Affordability and Redefining

Universal Service and Open Access demonstrated that

the solution of the so-called “free market” is not a cor-

rect solution for the problem of spreading network ac-

cess to all. Voices otherwise unheard sounded loud and

clear; there is a strong need for government to assure

that online access is equally available to urban, rural,

disabled or poor citizens and to everyone else. The gov-

ernment must step in to cover non-profitable situations

that the so-called “free market” would not touch. Non-

governmental and non-profit organizations along with

community representatives, college students, normal

Page 14

everyday people and others made this clear in their

contributions to the discussion. The NTIA Virtual Con-

ference was not advertised broadly enough, but the

organizers did establish 80 public access points across

the U.S. 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.

Conclusion

That the NTIA conference was online meant that

many more points of view were heard than is normal.

Prominent trade-off 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 understand-

ing 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 communica-

tions network represents for society. The last concern to

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.

Despite the sentiments expressed during the NTIA

conference in November, the NSFnet (National Science

Foundation Network) was put to death quietly on May

1, 1995. Users heard about the shut down indirectly.

Universities and other providers who depended on the

NSFnet might have reported service disruptions the week

or two before while they re-established their network

providers and routing tables. No larger announcements

were made about the transfer from a publicly subsidized

U.S. 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 opening date

of a national electronic open meeting sponsored by the

U.S. government on “People and their Governments in

the Information Age.” Apparently the U.S. government

was sponsoring this online meeting from various public

access sites, and paying commercial providers in the

process. Something is deeply ironic in this government-

decided change to increase government expenses.

But also, on May 1, 1995, there was a presentation

at a branch of the New York Public Library which

focused on the value of the Internet and Usenet as a

cooperative network where people could air their indi-

vidual voices and connect up with people around the

world. The Internet and Usenet have been networks

where new voices were heard and the more established

voices of society would not be overwhelming. This May

First, traditionally a people’s holiday around the world,

the domain of the commons was sadly opened up to the

commercial world. But the commercial world already

has a strong hold on all other broadcast media, and these

media have become of little or no value. The Internet

has been a social treasure for people in the U.S.A. and

around the world. It is important to value this treasure

and protect it from commercial interests. As such, this

move by the U.S. government is disappointing, espe-

cially considering the testimony presented by 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 con-

cerning the National Information Infrastructure (NII),

it is necessary to bring the greatest possible number of

people into the process of discussion and debate.

The

NTIA online conference is a prototype of possible future

online meetings leading to direct democracy. There are

several steps that need to be taken for the online media

to function for a direct democracy. 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 encour-

age people to participate in online discussions about

government, and then ask them to pay for that participa-

tion. 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 a necessary step forward

in order to facilitate more participation by people.

The archives of the NTIA avail forum and the

NTIA redefus forum make for very important reading.

It would be valuable if they were available in print form

and available to those involved with policy decisions

on the NII and for people around the U.S.A. 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 only stand only as a landmark, rather it should set

a precedent for future conferences which could serve as

the basis of a new social contract between the American

Page 15

people and government.

References

1. Essays on Government, Jurisprudence, Liberty of the Press and

Law of Nations, reprint, Kelley Publishers, New York, 1986, p. 8.

2. ibid., p. 6.

3. ibid., p. 13.

4. “Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument,” Media

Studies Journal, vol 9 no 1, Winter 1995, p. 81.

5. ibid., p. 89.

6. Jeffrey B. Abramson’s “Electronic Town Meetings: Proposals for

Democracy’s Future,” prepared for the Aspen Institute Communica-

tions and Society Program.

7. The Net being: the Internet, Usenet news, Mailing Lists, etc.

8. Netizens are Net Citizens. See the URL:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/text/WhatIsNetizen.html

9. The NTIA virtual conference was co-sponsored by the National

Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) and the

Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), as part of the Adminis-

tration’s National Information Infrastructure initiative.

10. The NTIA Virtual Archives are available via the World Wide

Web at: http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/11s/virtual

11. See the opening speech by C. P. Snow in Management and the

Computer of the Future, Martin Greenberger, MIT Press, 1962.

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 MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, 1962.

Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben. “The Netizens and the Won-

derful 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, p. 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. Augustus 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

Old Freedoms and

New Technologies:

The Evolution of

Community Networking

by Jay Weston

[email protected]

This paper, with only minor variations, was deliv-

ered as a talk at the FREE SPEECH AND PRIVACY

IN THE INFORMATION AGE Symposium,

University of Waterloo, Canada, November 26, 1994.

©Copyright: This text is released to the public domain.

No copyright restrictions apply. J. Weston

North American society has had a lot to say on the

distributed public media that we call the Internet, or

simply the Net. And, in the past year or so, we have

started to have a lot to say about what we’ve been

saying. However, we haven’t quite heard what we’ve

been saying. We haven’t heard because we are inex-

perienced in listening to each other this way. We are

listening to the wrong things. Or, as Karl Popper once

put it, we have been “like my dog, staring at my finger

when I point to the door.”

But, we can be forgiven for

our misplaced attention to the Net.

Since it was first observed that there just was not

enough available bandwidth to let everybody send

smoke signals or bang drums, we’ve been organizing

and reorganizing to determine who would, and who

would not, get their hands on the blankets and the drums

— and the presses, the microphones, and the cameras.

As we moved through a few millennia, successive

public communication technologies either began as, or

Page 16

very quickly were made to conform to, the extreme send:

receive imbalances that, somewhere along the line, we

started calling the mass media, or simply the media.

It would be pedantic in the extreme to do more than

note that these access restrictions now define all of the

social relations of modern societies. Whole disciplines

are organized around the understanding that all public

and private institutions, all local and external spaces are

bent by the constricted and compressed discourses of the

mass media. Whether the analyses are celebratory or

critical, whether their mass media interdependencies are

made explicit or not, all analyses of modern society take

the access constraints of the mass media as immutable.

Public access to these media is simply not problematical.

On the one hand, there are the media and, on the other,

there are their audiences, consumers, constituents, and

publics.

Until very recently, there was no reason to imagine

that questions would ever have to be asked about societ-

ies with abundant access to the means of media produc-

tion, exhibition, distribution, and reproduction of cultural

offerings. Suddenly, it is time to start imagining the

questions. That is what the Internet is about.

Some usually astute observers, among them Internet

Society President Vinton Cerf and Microsoft CEO Bill

Gates, are predicting that the twenty million now on the

Net is only the beginning. Cerf predicts 100 million by

1998

and Gates, in a recent interview, confided that his

big mistake so far had been in underestimating the

importance of the Internet.

If they are right, if the hordes

are going to start beating their drums in public, abso-

lutely everything about the existing social order is about

to be challenged. Not simply the mass media institutions,

but all institutions. Everything is at stake. [If they are

wrong, if the Internet is only the latest gizmology, then

there is nothing to get intellectually excited about. We’ve

been there before. For, as exciting or as terrifying as the

prospect of a tiny 500 channel universe may be, it is just

mass media business as usual, albeit new and unusual

business.]

Whether or not there will be 100 million or so peo-

ple on the Internet by 1998 or so, will depend first, upon

whether they want to be there and secondly, if they do,

who will likely be trying to stop them, why will they be

trying to stop them, and how will they be trying to stop

them.

As to the question of whether they will want to be,

the Internet growth figures are familiar to us all. Steeply

up to the right and getting steeper. This should be more

than enough evidence that, given a chance, people are

eager to be there. Curiously, this inconceivable growth

has occurred despite the equally familiar observations

that the Internet is difficult to access, hard to use, slow

to respond and, what is mostly to be found there is banal

or otherwise offensive, and hopelessly disorganized.

This apparent contradiction of millions actively em-

bracing cyberjunk cannot be resolved within the vocab-

ulary of the mass media with their well-organized,

familiar, marvelously honed content packages, that are

so quickly and effortlessly available. Dismissive state-

ments about the potential of the Internet that are based

on the quality and delivery of content, cannot be re-

solved by debates about whether such statements are

accurate or inaccurate. For some, judging the Internet

by its content, the quality of its information, and the

accuracy of its databases, is relevant and for others it is

not.

For those for whom it is not, the Internet is less

about information or content, and more about relations.

For the mass media, it is always just the opposite. The

mass media are almost pure content, the relationship a

rigidly frozen non-transaction, that insulates the few

content producers or information providers from their

audiences. This is how we experience and understand

the mass media. If it were not so, we would not call

them the mass media. Five hundred or 5,000 more un-

switched, asymmetrical, “smart” channels will not

change that.

It is, on the other hand, impossible to understand

much about the Internet’s appeal by analyzing its

content. The Internet is mostly about people finding

their voice, speaking for themselves in a public way,

and the content that carries this new relationship is of

separate, even secondary, importance. The Internet is

about people saying “Here I am and there you are.”

Even the expression of disagreement and hostility, the

“flames” as they are called, at least says “You exist. I

may disagree with you, or even dislike you, but you do

exist.” Mass media do not confirm existence, and

cannot. The market audience exists, but the reader,

listener or viewer does not.

This is not to argue that the content of the Internet

is irrelevant. The content defines the relationship. Peo-

ple not only want to represent themselves, they ordin-

arily want to present themselves as well as they can. It

would be cynical in the extreme to devalue these repre-

Page 17

sentations, the texts, the exhibited cultural products of

tens of millions. It is rather to argue that the relational

aspects of the transactions qualify and define the content

in ways that need to be understood if the Internet it to be

comprehended.

Whatever the reason for millions speaking publicly,

this condition was not part of the mass media problem-

atic. It is unreasonable to think that merely tinkering with

paradigms grounded in technologies of restricted access

will permit a rich interrogation of the range of social

relations provided for by technologies of unrestricted

access.

This call for a vocabulary that directly addresses the

centrality of distributed public media is not a suggestion

that paradigms that centrally situate mass media are

somehow of less importance than they once were. If

anything, their questions of access, production and

representation are more critical, and even more challeng-

ing, than they were before distributed media raised the

complexity of social relations. However, an expanded

universe of mass media discourse that merely attempts

to overlay distributed public networks upon the struc-

tured relationships of a mass mediated society, will lead

us to misunderstand a society evolving with distributed

public media.

It is well-understood that, all social institutions have

their relative certainties made possible by the centralizing

power of the technologies of mass communication. The

relative certainties that accompany attenuated access to

the means of symbolic production is welded into the

fabric of all institutional policies and practices. Assum-

ing, then, that access to the means of cultural expression

will be increasingly distributed, it follows that all of the

institutions of modern society will be threatened or at

least inconvenienced by this development. While expres-

sions like “public involvement”, and “participative

democracy”, are imbedded in our rhetorical traditions,

their unquestionable acceptability has always been

conditional upon their equally unquestionable non-

attainability. The technologies of mass communication

always ensured that involvement and participation would

not be overdone.

When the institutions that rose to power in the wake

of the industrial revolution began to speak of the “infor-

mation revolution”, they only meant to digitize the

modern industrial state. This non-revolution was Phase

II of the old boys’ operation, another remodeling of the

modern apparatus. The “Information Highway” is the

updated codeword for the modern retrofit. This was not

supposed to be about a technological adventure that

would reconfigure social relations or blur the well-

constructed boundaries between the public and the

private ground. This was supposed to be about a five

hundred, not a one hundred million channel universe.

The becoming Internet, this decentered polity, is an

accident that happens to expand the locus of direct, self-

mediated, daily political involvement. Those who

previously had to make themselves presentable to the

agencies of mass communication technologies in order

to be represented by the technologies, have begun to

publicly represent themselves. What was previously

local, domestic, idiosyncratic and private can, for the

first time, become external and public. This is an abrupt

reversal of the mass media’s progressive appropriation

of the idiosyncratic and private for their own institu-

tional purposes.

Since this reversal was unimaginable, no contin-

gency plans had been imagined for dealing with it. But,

to the extent that the expansion of the public ground

challenges become identified for any segment of the

established order, these challenges will be met. It is

axiomatic that the Internet and, by extension, public

community networks can expect massive pressure to

diminish or eliminate the identified destabalizing

influences that these distributed media exert. If the

Internet, with its changed relations of production and

related exigencies, is signaling a coming Accidental

Revolution, the contests and the casualties will be enor-

mous.

This symposium is about the skirmishes, battles and

wars that have already started. All of these encounters

are around the legitimacy of public self-expression,

assembly, examination and privacy. These are the

problematic of distributed public media, not of the mass

media. Beyond our noting that they were lamentably

unimportant, the concerns relating to freedom of speech

were not central to a mass mediated society. Our famil-

iarity with freedom of speech was almost entirely

abstracted from the mass media accounts of their own

experiences and the performances of their own legal

departments. The mass media tested the limits of those

freedoms for the speechless public.

We are now in the beginning stages of defining the

legitimacy of self-expression for ourselves. This repre-

sents a new set of concerns about the circumstance and

substance of distributed media texts in all of their

Page 18

modes, the bases upon how it comes to happen that

people ‘speak’ publicly, and what it is that they ‘say’.

The idea of ‘assembly’ and how it will happen that

groups come to occupy territory and how they are distrib-

uted globally and locally assumes original importance,

as decisions get made about what ‘virtual communities’

will be, and where they will situate. The privacy puzzles

about the availability and use of all those sophisticated

watching, listening, storing, sifting and intrusive devices

are a humbling reminder of just how much our reach has

exceeded our understanding of these technologies. How

these matters are resolved will shape the distributed

media and decide their social relevance.

Community networks are contributing a broader

distribution of voices as these puzzles begin to get

worked out on the distributed media themselves, rather

than only in the exclusive enclaves of special interests.

This must continue and expand or the awakening of self-

representation will be short lived. It would be wise to

assume that there are not yet any ‘rights’, or that the old

freedoms that were often hard won by the mass media,

are now enshrined and will automatically transfer to

distributed public media.

Situating Community Networks

If, as Bruce Sterling observed in the Afterward to

his earlier work The Hacker Crackdown, “Three years

in cyberspace is like thirty years anyplace real”

and, as

events from thirty years past are often dimmed or forgot-

ten, I hope you can forgive me for reminding you this

morning that way back in November, 1991 the Canadian

public had no access to the Internet. Moreover, there

were no signs that the public would have any access.

The steepness, even then, of that now overly familiar

Internet growth curve was entirely attributable to new

users from within their formal institutional settings. The

universities, research institutes of the telecommunication

giants, and a few government departments had the

Internet as their private preserve and tightly controlled

access to it, often denying entry to even their own.

This

control existed, even although the administration of these

institutions were still marvelously unaware of what was

going on in their basements. Though unintentional, the

Internet was still a well-kept secret, its threat to the status

quo still largely unrecognized.

The commercial online services were busily avoid-

ing the Internet, still building the firewalls around their

own proprietary networks. Their fees were so high, and

their services so meager, that they were providing little

incentive for the general public to even begin to experi-

ment with their narrow networking offerings.

The recurring telco dream of local metered service

was a constant reminder that the Canadian public might

never experience the Internet. Failure of poorly con-

ceived commercial network services like Bell Canada’s

“Alex” and Australia Telecom’s “Discovery” had

convinced the telcos that not even the business commu-

nity was ready for network services.

The Canadian Network for the Advancement of

Research, Industry and Education (CANARIE), as its

name implied, betrayed no awareness that there might

be people in this country. Even by the end of 1992 when

CANARIE released its business and marketing plans,

the hundreds of written pages devoted to its vision made

almost no reference to the Internet, and carefully avoid-

ed the ‘public’ as serious participants in what the

partners had in mind for the country.

These are but a few isolated examples of the evi-

dence that the Internet had either not yet penetrated the

collective institutional consciousness or was enjoying

a brief period of benign neglect. For those who had

experienced the Internet and begun to internalize even

a small amount of what was happening, the general

inattention seemed amazing, even eerie.

One thing was very clear. With no public or private

restrictive policies in place, if there was ever a brief

moment when it might be possible to unleash the

Internet in Canada, to really unconditionally distribute

this distributed capability to the Canadian public, it was

1991. (The National Capital Free-Net and the Victoria

Free-Net were not actually unleashed until late 1992,

but the idea was developing in the autumn of 1991.)

The full stories of how the first Canadian commun-

ity networks managed to uncage the Internet should

probably be told some day. These stories need to be told

to fill in the historical record, and to preempt any

misconceptions that the development was simply blind

luck or simply technology running its inevitable course.

For now, it is enough to say that the Free-Net initiative

in Canada was understood and intended from the very

beginning as political action. At least, it was in the

instance of the National Capital FreeNet, the community

network where I live and, about which I am best able

to speak.

It was understood from the first, for instance, that

the relatively narrow and concrete act of having elec-

Page 19

tronic mail and Usenet newsgroups available, and at their

real cost to the community, would ensure widespread

acceptance, and that the acceptance rate would be

stunning. It was also understood that once these were

made freely available, it would be difficult to take global

electronic mail away, or to introduce it at the leisurely

rate and higher tariffs that are customary with market

driven services.

More importantly, it was understood that the in-

clusionary ideals and vocabulary of the FreeNet would

both protect and sustain the initiative after the private

sector realized that a public market for networked

services was being created for them.

The National Capital FreeNet was an imagined

public space, a dumb platform where all individuals,

groups and organizations could represent themselves,

where conflict and controversy could occur as the man-

ifestation of conflict and controversy already occurring

within the community. As a public space, no one, and

certainly no group or institution, would be held responsi-

ble for another’s ideology, moral standards, expectations

or motivations. On the other hand, each person or organi-

zation would be accountable for themselves. Such a

space could be constructed only by the community acting

as a community, and not by any public or private organi-

zation acting on behalf of the community. At least that

was the idea in 1991.

Just three years later, the Net situation has changed

dramatically. Although still unreasonably expensive,

commercial Internet access is fairly readily available, and

very shortly community networks like the National

Capital FreeNet will not be needed, or even wanted, as

Internet access points. FreeNets will have to become the

vital, local public spaces they originally promised to be.

Just calling the facility a community network does

not make it one. The label does not ensure an uncon-

ditional public terrain where the whole community can

celebrate its commonalities and diversities, and work

through its differences. In 1991, there was not much

urgency to focus on these ideals. Access to the existing

and emerging Internet services, and at no involuntary

cost, was enough to ensure a community network’s

success. It was not then understood by the community

networks that this powerful Internet access lever would

slip away so quickly.

Community networks must now understand that they

must be community networks. This means that they

cannot be financed or run for the community by one or

another institution. Although networks run by such

organizations as universities, hospitals, telephone

companies, or governments, often do not charge a fee,

and always provide an array of valuable services, these

are not the criteria by which community network can be

usefully defined.

Community networks run by other organizations

are always conditionally invested with the values, mis-

sions, mandates, policies and procedures and other

constraints necessarily imposed by the host institutions

and, therefore, cannot ever provide a public terrain. No

institution has a primary mandate to provide a public

space where public opinion can be under construction.

When freedom of expression is a secondary add-on, it

is just that, and will be encouraged only so long as it is

not in conflict with what the institution is primarily

about.

Today’s youthful community networks, are better

than they have any right to be this soon and are still our

best hope, maybe our only hope, for a more par-

ticipative, more self-representative democracy. It is too

bad that they will have to mature so quickly if they are

to reach adulthood. While they are still critical Internet

access points, still the bridge between the vast diversity

of the Internet and the more homogeneous organic

community, they must take that opportunity to learn

how to celebrate the vast diversity that is also the local

community. The local community is where people live

their social and political lives and that is where dif-

ferences must be publicly worked through. This is most

important where the differences are the most acute and

where the latitudes of tolerance are the narrowest. Com-

munity networks must be up to letting everyone speak,

as painful as this will be for some, some of the time.

Children, and others unequipped to make safe judg-

ments when encountering the most extreme clashes of

values, opinions and advocacy, must be protected from

these conflicts, but the community network cannot be

their guardian. The family, the school, the place of

worship and other societal structures are their guardians.

Finally, and most importantly, the part-time, short-

term stewards of the community networks, usually call-

ed the ‘board’, must understand that the public terrain

is not their institution, and not their moral preserve. The

construction of Public Sphere, Inc. is a betrayal of the

promise community networks have for becoming a

public terrain. As community networks develop and

mature, they are becoming more exclusionary, more

Page 20

restrictive, more like any other organization. They begin

to see themselves as providing something for the com-

munity, rather than as caretakers of a space created by

the community. This needs to be reversed. A commit-

ment to defending and expanding this public ground will

determine whether community networks will survive

more than a few more years and, what is more, whether

their survival will be a matter of importance.

Endnotes

1. Popper made the statement at a public lecture at Michigan State

University in the mid-sixties. Ironically, he was arguing that the then

popular social science translations of the electrical engineering

‘information theory’ model were misguided attempts to understand

social communication by what he termed ‘bucket theories’, where

the transactions are comprehended only as buckets of content,

devoid of any human consideration.

2. Written testimony to United States House of Representatives,

Committee on Science, Space and Technology, March 23, 1993.

When asked what he thought about the reliability of Cerf’s estimate

of 100 million Internet users by 1998, Gerry Miller, Chairman of

CA*net, the non-profit company that manages and operates the

Canadian Internet backbone network, responded wryly “Try 100

million hosts.” While Miller might not have meant that literally, it

was clear that he felt Cerf’s earlier estimate to now be a significant

underestimate of expected Internet growth. Private conversation,

Ottawa, November, 1994.

3. PC Magazine, “Bill Gates Ponders the Internet” by Michael

Miller, October 11, Volume 13, Number 17, 1994 p 79.

4. An explication of framing human communication as the inevitable

interplay of content and relational components of symbolic transac-

tion was provided by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin and Don

Jackson in Pragmatics Of Human Communication. This 1967

monograph has attracted little attention from media scholars and

other social theorists, probably because the unidirectional pro-

ducer/consumer relationship between the mass media and their

audiences is fixed, thereby eliminating or greatly inhibiting the meta-

communication interplay.

5. Bruce Sterling, “Afterwards: The Hacker Crackdown Three Years

Later”, January 1, 1994. Found on the WELLgopher URL:

gopher://gopher.well.sf.ca.us:70/11/Publications/authors/ Ster-

ling

6. For example, undergraduate students in most programs at most

Canadian universities could not get computer accounts in 1991.

Also, many of the first cohort of National Capital Free-Net subscrib-

ers were federal civil servants from departments and ministries

where Internet access was available, but only to a selected few.

7. CANARIE Associates, “CANARIE Business Plan” and

“CANARIE Marketing Plan”, July 15, 1992.

8. The National Capital Freenet was inspired by the Cleveland

Freenet, founded in 1986 by Tom Grundner at Case Western

Reserve University. “Freenet” is a registered servicemark of the

National Public Telecomputing Network.

Forming the Usenet Online

Community

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

[Editor’s Note: The following article is based on a talk

presented at the Mid-Manhattan Branch of the New

York Public Library, December 11, 1995.]

In order to figure out how and why to form com-

munity networks which will make Usenet discussion

groups and e-mail available to all in a community or

city, it is helpful to be familiar with the experiences and

principles that gave birth to the early online Usenet

community. Many people online have found Usenet to

be an important new communications medium which

is helping people to change their lives in surprising and

important ways. As a result, many of those online feel

it worthwhile to contribute to the development of

Usenet so that it will grow and flourish. They identify

as Net citizens, or Netizens in a way similar to how

people in the past have identified as citizens of a partic-

ular nation.

Today, however, there are still many people who

do not know what this valuable online experience is,

either because they don’t have computers or modems

or because they can’t afford the hourly or monthly

charges of commercial service providers and they aren’t

connected at a university, community, or work site. Also

there are many online who know very little about the

early days of the Net and how the principles then

established have helped set a firm foundation for Usenet

and the Internet to develop.

Writing in 1990, Lauren Weinstein, one of the

pioneers of the Usenet online community, observed:

“Without a historical perspective, it’s quite easy to get

the wrong impression of how all this came to pass. It is

the result of the work of a large number of individuals,

some of whom have been at it for the past 20 years.”

Page 21

Lauren is describing the hard work and daily efforts

made by large numbers of online pioneers who have

given the world the ever growing set of online discussion

newsgroups which make up Usenet.

Usenet was born in 1979. It has grown from a design

conceived of by two graduate students, Tom Truscott and

James Ellis, into a network that today links millions of

people and computers to over 14,000 different news-

groups and millions of bytes of articles available at any

given time at an ever growing number of sites around the

world.

In reading through posts from the early days of

Usenet, one sees that one of the defining characteristics

of Usenet is that the early online pioneers were willing

and eager to discuss a broad ranging set of topics. In one

of the posts appearing on Usenet during this early period,

the writer explained: “The net represents a wide spec-

trum of interest (everything from the latest kill-the-

millions-hardware to the latest Sci-Fi movies). All these

people seem to have one thing in common,” he contin-

ued, “— the willingness to discuss any idea, whether it

is related to war, peace, politics, science, technology,

philosophy (ethics!), science fiction, literature, etc. While

there is a lot of flame [which then meant impassioned

disagreements –ed] the discussion usually consists of

well thought out replies to meaningful questions.” And

he gave examples such as “Should the Postal Service be

allowed to control electronic mail?....”

But he added, “I am told that a lot of traffic on the

net is not discussion, but real honest-to-goodness work

([writing computer] code, applications, ideas, and such.)”

He also noted the broad range of sites on Usenet,

“The participants of the net,” he wrote, “include major

(and not so major) universities, corporations, think tanks,

research centers, and the like.”

By 1982, those on Usenet were mainly at sites using

the Unix operating system. However, there were also

connections to sites that were on the ARPAnet, which

was the research network for those with U.S. Department

of Defense contracts. A March 1982 Usenet post ex-

plains: “Usenet is an international network of Unix sites

with hookups into the ARPA network, too. It is basically

a fancy electronic Bulletin Board System. Numerous

BTL [Bell Telephone Labs] machines are connected....

In addition, there are major sites at universities: Univer-

sity of California at Berkeley, Duke, U Waterloo, and so

on (...). And at industry nationwide: DEC, Tektronics,

Microsoft, Intel, etc. There are numerous bulletin board

categories, set up in a hierarchy.”

The article describes how the newsgroups on

Usenet “can reach a very large user community....”

For example, there was discussion on early Usenet

about the implications of world-wide ubiquitous net-

working. This network of the future was referred to as

World-Net. The discussion was on the Usenet news-

group known as Human-Nets. One of the pioneers of

Usenet, Tom Truscott, writes that the discussion on

Human-Nets “was...very interesting... and possible only

due to the ability of the network itself to permit those

interested in this obscure topic to communicate.”

A description of Human-Nets, during this period,

notes that it “has discussed many topics, all of them

related in some way to the theme of a world-wide com-

puter and communications network usually called

World-Net. The topics have ranged very widely from

something like tutorials, to state of the art discussions,

to rampant speculations about technology and its im-

pact.”

Mark Horton, a Usenet pioneer from the University

of California at Berkeley and later Bell Labs, who

played an important role in the development of Usenet,

explained in a 1981 post that Usenet was a network of

sites running the Usenet software known as Netnews:

“For those of you who don’t know, Usenet is a logical

network of sites running Netnews. Netnews is a network

oriented bulletin board, making it very easy to broadcast

a query to a large base of people. Usenet currently has

about 50 sites and is growing rapidly.”

Horton emphasized that Usenet is a users’ network.

He explained: “Usenet, exists for and by the users, and

should respond to the needs of those users.”

He also noted that in these early days “Usenet is a

cashless network.” This meant that “No person or

organization may charge another organization for news,

except that by prearrangement.” He explained that a site

could charge only for the extra expenses incurred in

sending Usenet to another site. And almost every site

that received news had to be willing to forward it to at

least two additional sites.

Horton’s description included the mechanism for

maintaining a set of standards for Usenet and for deal-

ing with those who violated these standards. Horton

wrote that articles should be of high quality, signed, and

that offensive articles shouldn’t be posted. “Peer pres-

sure,” he proposed, “via direct electronic mail will,

hopefully, prevent any further distasteful or offensive

Page 22

articles. Repeated violations,” he noted, “can be grounds

for removing a user or site from the network.”

Common to many of the posts in these early years,

is the encouragement that users participate and voice

their concerns and opinions, both in the ongoing discus-

sion in various newsgroups, as well as in determining the

practices and policies guiding how Usenet functions. For

example, Adam Buchsbaum, a high school student who

played an important role in early Usenet, started the

NET.columbia newsgroup, a newsgroup about space

issues. He posted the following opening message inviting

participation: “Greetings fellow space enthusiasts! This

newsgroup was designed to inform people on develop-

ments in our space program. Although named ‘colum-

bia,’ it will contain articles about the entire space pro-

gram, including the shuttle for which it is named. Please

feel free to reply, comment, criticize, and submit your

articles. Also, I hope this will serve as an open ground

for discussion about events in the space program. Com-

ments, etc. can be mailed to myself (...) or submitted

directly into the newsgroup. In all, I hope that this will

provide an atmosphere for people who are interested in

the space program to discuss it and be informed of new

events.”

Such articles on Usenet, welcoming contributions

from all participants, helped to set a firm foundation for

interesting and lively discussion.

Usenet pioneers describe how even though Usenet

was a good place for a user who wanted to sell a used

car, commercial advertising was greatly frowned upon.

The story is told about how a certain AT&T site played

a large role in helping to transport Usenet and e-mail, but

after a supervisor at AT&T discovered that a commercial

vendor was using the AT&T site to help him get e-mail

to support his commercial product, the AT&T site was

no longer allowed to play the same role. Since the

contributions to Usenet were voluntary, and often con-

tributed by the users, commercial use of Usenet was

strictly limited. Also, during a more recent period much

of Usenet was transported over the National Science

Foundation (NSF) backbone of the Internet. The U.S.

government had an Acceptable Use Policy which forbid

for profit activity for projects funded by or making use

of NSF funding. This helped to limit commercial abuse

on Usenet until the NSF recently turned the NSF back-

bone of the Internet over to private entities.

From the time I got access to Usenet in January 1992

via the Cleveland Freenet, I have found that there con-

tinue to be serious discussions on Usenet though they

are less concentrated today than in the early years of

Usenet. Also, I found that it was possible to get help

with real problems like medical problems as at the St.

Silicon Sports Medicine Clinic on Cleveland Freenet,

or with problems dealing with workman’s compensation

or tenant rights or consumer problems and similar issues

via the discussions that occur in relevant newsgroups

on Usenet. Helpful comments and perspective have

been provided locally from users in response to posts

on local newsgroups like nyc.general, or from users

around the U.S., as in responses to posts on

soc.culture.usa, or from users on other continents like

Australia or Asia as in posts on sci.econ,

a l t . a m a t e u r - c o mp , s o c . c u l t u r e . j a p a n ,

soc.culture.german, etc.

Also, posts on Usenet asking for help with com-

puter problems to newsgroups like comp.misc or

comp.os.linux.hardware or for advice about what

computers people found reliable when planning on

getting a new laptop as on comp.laptops have gotten

helpful responses that it would be difficult to get else-

where.

But just as in the early days of Usenet, today there

are serious problems being discussed online. The U.S.

government has promoted commercial use of the

Internet and Usenet rather than supporting a system of

Freenets or community networks with acceptable use

polices around the U.S. The result is that there are ads

and other junk posts flowing across Usenet, and users

are too often getting junk mail from vendors, instead of

helpful comments from other users. But the principles

that were established while Usenet was first developed

are proving helpful again today. People online have

been discussing their different views of the causes of the

problems and in the process working together to find

ways to tackle these problems. There is a common

desire among many that Usenet continue to be a valu-

able communications medium for an ever growing num-

ber of people. Since Usenet was created as a user’s

network for discussion and communication, many

people participate because they like to discuss issues

and to read what others contribute. But even more

importantly, many users have found that when they have

a problem, they can post it and get help from others. In

return they provide help whenever they can. In the

process, all benefit from the cooperative online commu-

nity that Usenet has made possible.

Page 23

This kind of discussion and cooperative effort is

needed today by people who are not yet online as well

as those who are online to deal with the hard problems

of our times. That is why it is important that all have

access to the global computer network that the pioneers

of Usenet created which makes it possible to communi-

cate with people around the world and so get a refreshing

and helpful perspective from others.

Community networks which make free access to

Usenet and e-mail available to the folks of a community,

town or city, are needed today more than ever. And the

lessons and principles of the pioneers of Usenet and of

the Netizens from around the world who have found that

the communication that Usenet makes possible is crucial

to their lives will hopefully provide the needed founda-

tion to solve the problems to create free community

networks in those areas that don’t yet have them in the

near future.

Notes:

1. NET.news, wolfvax.53, net.news, wolfvax!jcz, Mon Nov 2

21:47:32 1981, Net Names, In Real Life: Carl Zeigler, Location

NCSU, Raleigh.

2. ucbarpa.1182, net.sources, Subject: ARPAVAX: Usenet, Tue, Apr

20, 19:50:48 1982, misc/newsinfo, from eiss!ladm, Fri Mar 19

16:20:27.

3. Mark Horton, fa.unix-wizards, ucbvax.4080, Sun Sep 27 22:04:41

1981, Usenet membership.

4. NET.news, cbosgd.794, Wed Dec 23 21:28:32 1981, Subject:

Proposed Usenet policies.

5. net.columbia, research!sjb, Thu Sep 17 07:28:50 1981. Adam

Buchsbaum also kept the official list of newsgroups and published

it regularly to the Net for several years in the mid 1980s.

A Brief History of

Cleveland Freenet

by Jay Hauben

[email protected]

[Editor’s Note: The following article is taken from a talk

presented at the Mid-Manhattan Branch of the New York

Public Library, July 10, 1995.]

The Cleveland Freenet computer networking sys-

tem is often cited as the grandfather of the worldwide

community computer networking movement. This

movement takes as its goal the provision by community

networks of free or at-cost dial-up and public terminal

access to community and world wide communication.

Cleveland Freenet and other community networks are

made possible by volunteers from all sectors of the

community. In 1992, Cleveland FreeNet had well over

40,000 registered users making more than 10,000

accesses per day. Over 250 volunteer system operators

maintained and upgraded the system and kept the

information fresh or got answers to questions posted by

users. This model is proving attractive to citizens

around the world. It is worth looking at how the first

Freenet got started in Cleveland.

Cleveland Freenet traces its origin to 1984 when

an education professor, Tom Grundner, was involved

in monitoring the quality of education offered to medi-

cal students and interns who were spread over five

Cleveland hospitals and clinics. He devised a system

that used an Apple II+ computer and a 300 baud modem

to receive questions over phone lines from the medical

students and interns who had access to a microcomputer

or a computer terminal with a modem. The questioners

were provided within a reasonable time, with answers

from relevant doctors. The system was eventually called

Doc-in-the-Box. Within a week of starting up the

system, the telephone number to reach the central Apple

II+ computer had gotten out and lay people started to

leave medical questions with the hope the doctors

would answer them also. The doctors answered all

questions. What was in many cases quality medical

advice was available to some who ordinarily might not

have been able to afford the usual fee or find a doctor

for such advice. It dawned on those involved that a new

medium for dispensing medical information was open-

ing up.

In 1985 Grundner expanded this system which was

intended especially for medical students and interns to

a new system open to all who had a medical question

and a computer and modem. He called the new system

Saint Silicon’s Hospital and Information Dispensary.

Saint Silicon operated in some ways like a real hospital.

When you used your modem to dial up, the first ques-

tion on the screen was, “Have you been a patient here

before?” If you answered No, the next screen had the

title, “Admitting Desk” and required you to provide

Page 24

some information about yourself. Then you could post

medically related questions in the message area of the

system called the Clinic to be answered by a doctor

within 24 hours. A doctor would read the question and

post the question and his answer on the system so all

who dialed in to Saint Silicon could read them. Within

a few weeks of the launch of Saint Silicon, a steady

average of more than 300 calls were being received per

week, saturating the one line system.

Grundner wrote up the Saint Silicon experience in

an article for the New England Journal of Medicine

(NEJM).* At about the same time, representatives of

American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) offered to

donate an AT&T 3B2-400 Unix based minicomputer to

support the operation and expansion of Grundner’s

experimental system. Unix is a multitasking, time--

sharing computer operating system and the AT&T

3B2-400 was a much more powerful computer then the

Apple II+. With the better equipment, Grundner designed

a system based on the networking software used to make

the newsgroup system know as Usenet possible. The new

system was intended for the posting of questions and

answers across the whole spectrum of areas that make

up a community. Grundner envisioned an electronic city

with a post office, government house, library, court

house for legal questions, etc., in addition to a hospital.

Eventually the system would also have hobbyist areas,

special interest areas, and kiosks and coffee shops for

people to meet at and have discussions. This was Freenet

1, the first version of Cleveland Freenet (1985-1989).

The sections of Freenet were staffed by doctors, lawyers,

hobbyists, etc., each contributing as part of his or her job

or voluntarily. People who dialed into Cleveland FreeNet

were never charged to use the system nor did those who

provided information or their expertise get paid by the

Freenet.

The museums and parks and theaters and clubs of

Cleveland voluntarily provided the information about

themselves and some staff time and in exchange that

information was readily accessible by the users of the

Freenet. Doctors, lawyers, car mechanics, etc. volun-

teered in large numbers. One incentive being that Freenet

users satisfied with the online answers to relevant

questions often became paying clients and customers.

Someone I know is no longer on crutches because a

doctor who showed a genuine understanding of her

condition by his response to her post on Cleveland

Freenet was chosen by her to do an operation. The

success of that operation solved a condition doctors in

her own state said was permanent.

In 1989, Case Western Reserve University became

the dominant sponsor of Cleveland Freenet. It supported

development of the software and eventually took over

the system, now Freenet 2, the Cleveland Freenet that

exists today. This Freenet includes many areas of active

discussion, some for senior citizens, some for teenagers,

some for any group with a common interest. Also, by

giving its users access to Usenet newsgroups, Freenet

makes it possible for people in Cleveland to be commu-

nicating and interacting with Usenet users all over the

world. Cleveland Freenet serves as a means of limited

free Internet access for its users who each get a sizable

electronic mail storage area, limited file handling and

transfer capability, and connectivity to other Freenets

in the U. S. and around the world. For many people,

Cleveland Freenet has served as the starting point for

their online activities. And as an example Cleveland

Freenet has given impetus to a global community

computer networking movement. By 1995 there were

at least 150 similar community networking systems up

or soon to be up around the world and many more in

some stage of planning. There are organizing com-

mittees in at least 40 U.S. States, all across Canada and

in 10 or more other countries.

Some of the guiding vision behind the community

networking movement is that every community will

benefit if all the citizens of that community have free

access to global communication technology and to

information about community resources. If access has

to be paid for by the users, some segment of the com-

munity will be left out both from use of the resources

but also as a resource. For many community networks

the name Freenet conveys their principle that access has

to be free of cost to the user. Some communities like

Seattle, Washington provide terminals or computers in

public libraries to fulfill this requirement. In most com-

munities where community networks are being orga-

nized there is however opposition from some who want

to charge for access. Also, there are expenses involved

for the equipment and especially for leasing phone lines

even if all the staffing and administration is done by

volunteers. A widely verified assessment is that in

North America the line leasing expense amounts to

about $8 to $12 per user per year (roughly $1.00 per

user per month). The challenge to each organizing or

operating committee is to solve these and similar

Page 25

problems. Even Cleveland Freenet is currently facing the

problem that Case Western Reserve University may

withdraw some of the $50,000 annual budget that has

been its sponsorship contribution in the last few years.

There are many active community oriented people

and some government bodies throughout the world who

see some level of community provided access to commu-

nity based computer network information and communi-

cation as crucial to modern life. There are people in

many cities and rural areas who are looking to a commu-

nity network or Freenet as a first step into the telecom-

munications revolution. Cleveland Freenet has been an

inspiration to many such people.

*“Interactive Medical Telecomputing: An Alternative Approach to

Community Health Education,” NEJM, Vol 314 no 15, April 10,

1986, pp. 982-985.

Note: The sources of information for this article were help from

some people on Cleveland Freenet (telnet free-net-in-a.cwru.edu),

an e-mail correspondence from Tom Grundner, the NEJM article,

and a chapter in The On-Line User’s Encyclopedia: Bulletin Boards

and Beyond, by Bernard Adoba, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.,

1993.

[Author’s Note: In late 1995 it was reported that Tom

Grundner resigned as Director of the National Public

Telecommunications Network. Subsequently, it was

reported that the Deputy Director also resigned. The

NPTN had been formed by Grundner in September 1989

to coordinate the activities of the Freenets that formed

on the model of Cleveland Freenet.

On the mailing list serving members of the NPTN

affiliated Freenets, questions were raised as to what was

happening. The new leadership responded that it will

take a little while to put the finances back in order and

would not answer the questions until then. Many sub-

scribers to the list were not satisfied and requested a

national meeting to discuss the crisis, assess the situation

and propose ways forward. When the new leadership

turned down that proposal, there were submissions to the

list documenting a long history of top down unhelpful

NPTN practices and the lack of democratic forms within

NPTN to deal with the crisis. In a similar way, the

recently formed NPTN affiliated New York City Freenet

Organizing Committee has held no public meetings nor

shared with those interested any of its inner workings or

documents.]

Universal Access to E-Mail

Benton Foundation

[email protected]

[Editor’s Note: We are reprinting the following an-

nouncement from an e-mail message on an Internet

mailing list]

On November 21, 1995, RAND, a nonprofit policy

research and analysis organization, released a report

called Universal Access to E-Mail: Feasibility and

Societal Implications. The report includes the following

policy recommendations:

* that the United States address the ever-widening

gaps in access to e-mail.

* that we develop simple means to provide e-mail

to every citizen.

* that we create incentives to develop multiple

access points (home, work, schools, kiosks) to e-mail.

* that we support development of noncommercial

activities via e-mail and the Internet (i.e. civic partic-

ipation).

* that we emphasize two-way communication on

the National Information Infrastructure as a hook for

increasing democratic participation and increased use

of all Internet services.

The report concludes that this goal is both reach-

able and vital for increased democratic participation and

economic development. The report is available from the

National Book Network (800.462.6420) — use refer-

ence number MR-650-MF.

The book is also available from:

RAND Distribution Services

PO Box 2138

Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

(310)451-7002, (fax (310)451-6915)

E-mail: [email protected]

World Wide Web: http://www.rand.org

[Editor’s Comment: The RAND Report, funded by a

grant from the Markle Foundation, described many of

the benefits that would result from all in the U.S. having

access to e-mail. It recognizes that “market” forces in

the U.S. are not able to provide for ubiquitous e-mail.

It concludes that there needs to be government interven-

tion for ubiquitous e-mail to become reality soon.

The RAND Report on the need for universal access

to e-mail is one of the first signs in U.S. policy circles

Page 26

that there is a need for public policy provisions to

provide for universal access to the Internet. However, the

RAND Report fails to acknowledge the importance of

Usenet newsgroups or the potential they hold for making

more democratic participation in civic life possible for

those who gain access to the Internet and Usenet. Also,

the Report is practically silent on the development of the

Freenet movement in North America and around the

world. It chooses instead to look at several particular

examples of networks that charge for access, like the

Blacksburg Electronic Village, in Virginia, Playing to

Win in New York City, and LatinoNet. The relatively

recently created Seattle Community Net based its devel-

opment on the Free-Net model but the RAND Report

ignores the longer standing and important Freenets such

as the Cleveland Freenet. Also, some of the examples

mentioned in the Report like the Public Electronic Net-

work (PEN), in Santa Monica, CA, do not offer access

to the Internet, but only to local public discussions about

local issues.

The recommendations provided by the RAND

Report to implement its policy proposals are disappoint-

ing. Instead of supporting the volunteer organizations

which have worked so hard to create the Free-Nets across

the U.S., or the academic institutions like Case Western

University in Cleveland, which have reached out to the

surrounding community and supported Freenets like the

Cleveland Freenet, the RAND Report recommends

subsidizing for-profit service providers to provide

accounts for those who can’t afford Internet Access. It

projects paying a public subsidy to these service provid-

ers of one billion dollars a year to make such access

possible.

The Report appeared one year after the NTIA online

meeting [See next article –ed] where people around the

U.S. and abroad discussed and supported the need for

online access to Usenet and e-mail for all. Many partici-

pants in this online meeting urged government action to

make online access possible. Surprisingly, the RAND

researchers do not make any references to this online

public policy meeting. It is hard to understand how these

researchers cannot be aware of this important prototype

online hearing and of the sentiments that were expressed

there on the future of the Net.

Despite such weaknesses in the RAND Report, it is

good that there is some effort toward examining why and

how to make online access available to all in the U.S.

However, it is also necessary that such policy discussion

include an examination of how the Internet and Usenet

were developed and encouraged, and how the Freenet

movement built on these origins. It would be good to

see further studies and public discussion of this impor-

tant issue.]

An Online Prototype for

Policy Decisions

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

[Editor’s Note: The following article, with small

changes, was delivered as a talk at the Telecommunities

‘95 Conference, Victoria, BC, August, 1995.]

PART I

In spring, 1995, a special issue of Scientific

American appeared, exploring the advance that the com-

puter and communications revolution is having for our

times.

In the introduction to the issue was a cartoon.

The cartoon shows several paleontologists on the trail

of a major new discovery. The caption reads: “Well, I

don’t see any point in looking any further. It was proba-

bly just one of those wild rumors.” They are about to

turn back as they feel they aren’t finding what they are

looking for. The cartoon shows they are standing in the

midst of a huge footprint. However, because it is so

large, they don’t see it.

This cartoon is a helpful analogy to our situation

today. There have been very significant computer net-

working developments in the past 30 years, but these

advances are so grand that it is easy to miss them, and

to begin to turn back, just like the paleontologists. It is

important to understand what these advances are, so we

can recognize them, and learn in what direction the

footprints point, rather than turning back.

Today we are at a turning point in terms of what the

future direction of the Global Computer Network will

be. Changes are being made in U.S. policy and in the

policy of countries around the world regarding the Net

and Net access and thus there are important issues being

raised about what the new policy will and should be.

In response to criticisms in the U.S. that the online

community was not being involved enough in the set-

ting of the new policy, an online conference was held

Page 27

November 14-23, 1994, by the U.S. National Telecom-

munications Information Administration — the NTIA.

The NTIA virtual conference was co-sponsored by the

National Telecommunications Information Administra-

tion and the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF),

as part of the U. S. government’s National Information

Infrastructure Initiative. The conference gave people both

in the U.S. and around the world a chance to discuss their

concerns about government policy on expanding access

to the Net.

People needed a computer to take part or could

participate at a limited number of public access sites that

were set up around the U.S. in public libraries and other

public places. The online conference was available via

a mailing list, where all the posts were sent to the sub-

scriber’s e-mail mailbox, or as a Usenet newsgroup on

a limited number of sites. Also a World Wide Web site

was set up so one could read the posts, without being

able to participate. There were several conferences on

different topics, two of which discussed increasing

access to the Net to a broader sector of the U.S. popula-

tion.*

One paper posted to the online conferences de-

scribed the social and technical advance that the Global

Computer Communications Network makes possible.

The author of the paper wrote: “Welcome to the 21

century. You are a Netizen, or a Net Citizen, and you

exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the global

connectivity that the Net makes possible. You consider

everyone as your compatriot. You physically live in one

country but you are in contact with much of the world

via the global computer network.”

“The situation I describe is only a prediction of the

future, but a large part of the necessary infrastructure

currently exists.... Every day more computers attach to

the existing network and every new computer adds to the

user base — at least twenty five million people are

interconnected today....”

“We are seeing a revitalization of society. The

frameworks are being redesigned from the bottom up. A

new more democratic world is becoming possible.”

This paper was one of the many contributions in

response to the NTIA statement welcoming participants

to the online conference. The NTIA listed several pur-

poses for the conference. Among those purposes were:

“1) Garner opinions and views on universal tele-

communications service that may shape the legislative

and regulatory debate.

2) Demonstrate how networking technology can

broaden participation in the development of government

policies, specifically, universal service telecommunica-

tions 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.”

“This conference,” the NTIA explained, “is an

experiment in a new form of dialog 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.”

What was the response to the call? In the process

of the week long discussions a number of voices com-

plained about the commercial entities that were slated

to take over the U.S. portion of the backbone of the In-

ternet. Many expressed concern that government inter-

vention was needed to make access to the Net broadly

available in the U.S. They gave experiences and ex-

amples to demonstrate that leaving the problem of ex-

panded access to commercial entities would not solve

the problems that expanded access required be solved.

For example, one participant wrote: “I want to add

my voice to those favoring greater, not less, government

intervention... to protect the interest of the people

against the narrow sectarian interests of large telecom-

munications industries. Why the federal government

gave up its part ownership in the Internet backbone is

a mystery to me. An active interventionist government

is essential to assure universal access at affordable

prices (for)... people living in (the) heart of cities or in

the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.”

A number of people from rural and remote areas

participated and explained their concern that they not

be left out of the online future because connecting them

to the Net would not be profitable.

In response to a post from someone in Oregon, a

librarian from a remote area of Michigan wrote: “I’d

like to hear more from the Oregon edge of the world.

Being from a small, rural library in the Upper Peninsula

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 patrons equal and universal

access to these new and wonderful services... we have

no local nodes... every hook up is a long distance call.

Page 28

What are you doing over there?”

A participant working with a scientific foundation

echoed this concern. He wrote: “When faced with the

resources and persuasive power (legal and otherwise) of

enormous multinational corporations with annual in-

comes that are orders of magnitude greater than some of

the territories they serve, only a capable and committed

national guarantee of access, and a national cost pool can

provide access to these new technology resources.”

“And THE INTERNET IS SPECIALLY IMPOR-

TANT to areas with limited access to technical and

scientific resources. As one of the leading non-profit

educational foundations devoted to the environmental

problems of small tropical islands, we (Islands 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 (be)

closed off from access to this resource because of mo-

nopoly pricing policies.” (To the NTIA, he urged, “we

ask careful attention to the equity issues of access, and

a federal guarantee of access and availability.”)

Recognizing that people without computers or net

access wouldn’t be able to participate in this conference

because they didn’t have computers and modems already

available, a limited number of public access sites had

been set up. One poster from San Francisco explained

how this made it possible to participate. The person

wrote: “I am sitting in the corner of the card catalogue

room at the San Francisco main library,(...) doing what

I hope I will be able to do for the rest of my years: use

computers freely. Internet, online 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.... We

could become isolated in a cubicle existing only through

our computer.... I would choose otherwise. Keep comput-

ers part of the schools and libraries, and definitely make

(the) Internet free to any who wish to use it. Otherwise

we are doomed.”

Another poster expressed support for library access

and participation. He cautioned: “If things go as it looks

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. Some estimates that I have read

say that it should cost no more than $10 a year per user

for universal access to the national network, including

library sites so that those without phones or home

computers have access. The NSF has decided against

funding the Internet anymore and all the talk of (...)(late)

is about the privatizing of the net. No one seems to get

the point involved (or, worse: They *do* get the point.).

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. That is, now we are

represented in Congress by geographical area, not what

our opinions support....”

Several people complained how Net access was not

only difficult because of the cost of modem connec-

tions, but that for many people it was a financial hard-

ship to even own a computer. As one poster from

Virginia explained: “As a newcomer to the net, I don’t

feel I have much relevant to say. All this chatter about

Info Superhighways strikes me as so much political

double talk. The highway exists. But to drive on the

damn thing you need a car. Computers (Macs or PCs,

etc.) are not items that someone making 6 or 7 dollars

an hour can easily obtain.”

Other posters described the efforts in their areas to

provide public access to the Net. In Seattle, we learned

that the Seattle Public Library and the Seattle branch of

Computer Professions for Social Responsibility had set

up a system that made e-mail access and an e-mail mail-

box available to anyone in Seattle who wanted it.

We learned that in Blacksburg, Virginia, federal

funds had helped to set up the Blacksburg Electronic

Village by installing fiber optic cable to all new apart-

ments being built so the people would have direct

access to the Internet.

Canadian posters described how the Blue Sky Free-

Net in Manitoba Canada was providing access to all of

Manitoba with no extra long distance phone charges to

small rural areas. We were told that in Manitoba, “They

have basically a hub in each of the different calling

areas...some places will be piggy-backing on CBC radio

waves, others on satellite connections.”

Also proposals were made to provide access to

other forgotten segments of the society like the home-

less. A poster from San Francisco proposed that term-

Page 29

inals with network access be installed in homeless shel-

ters. The person explained: “Provide homeless shelters

with online systems frozen into Netnews and e-mail, or

e-mail and gopher. A 386 terminal running Linux,

Xwindows and Netscape, and linked into a user group

such as e-mail and gopher, etc., would permit defining

the lowest level of involvement. People need communi-

cation to represent themselves, and e-mail for that

reason, as well as Netnews.”

People from other coun-

tries also contributed to the discussion providing a

broader perspective than might normally be available in

a national policy discussion.

From the Netherlands came the following obser-

vation: “After attending the Virtual Conference for two

days now, I would like to give my first (contribution) to

the discussion. Since I work for the government of the

Netherlands, at the Central Bureau of Statistics, which

is part of the Department of Economic Affairs, the

question of availability of statistical figures intrigues me.

As a result of safety-precautions there is no online

connection possible with our network. There should,

however, be a source for the public to get our data from,

we get paid by community-money so the community

should benefit (from) the results of our efforts. I am

wondering how these matters are regulated in the other

countries who participate in the Virtual Conference.”

“With kind greetings,” he ended.

And a Psychology Professor from Moscow State

University in Russia wrote: “Hi, netters: (He explained

how he had subscribed to the two mailing lists dealing

with network access, since he didn’t think there would

be many messages so it wouldn’t require much time.)

“I’m glad I’m wrong,” he admitted. “I can’t follow the

massive traffic of discussions. Sometimes my English

is too poor to grasp the essence, sometimes I don’t know

the realities, legislation etc. Some themes I’m greatly

pleased with.... I agree gladly with Larry Irving — (of the

NTIA who had said he was-ed) thrilled with the volume

of traffic & quality of discussion. I am, too. Perhaps I’ll

find more time later to read the messages more atten-

tively. I shall not un-subscribe, though.” “The people in

the 2

& 3

worlds,” he continued, “are just now trying

to find our own ways to use the Internet facilities &

pleasures. I am interested in (the -ed) investigation of

these ways, in teaching and helping them in this kind of

activity. Besides, my group is working on bibliographic

database construction and letting...remote access to it.

For several days only we got an IP access to the WWW,

we are not experienced yet to access. So I use ordinary

e-mail. Good luck to all subscribers,” he ended. “I wish

you success.”

As part of the discussion several participants dis-

cussed how they felt the ability to communicate was the

real advance represented by the Global Computer

Network, rather than the means of providing informa-

tion as others have maintained.

Titling her message, “Not just information — Com-

munication,” a participant from Palo Alto, California

wrote, “...the NTIA is building a one-way highway to

a dead end when they take the word Telecommunica-

tions out of their rhetoric.” She listed several points for

people to consider, among which were:

“1. Information is always old already.

2. Tele-communications, properly algorithmed, pro-

vides dynamic information about who we are as the

human race....

3. Telecommunications is the road to direct democracy

and a future for this planet.

4. Down-stream bandwidth is just another broadcast

medium. Upstream bandwidth is power for the peo-

ple.”

In a similar vein, another participant who was a

college student wrote: “To start off, I take issue with the

term “service.” As I have stated...the terminology being

used is being adopted from an out-dated model of a

Top-Down communications system. The new era of

interconnection and many-to-many communication

afforded by Netnews and Mailing lists (...) brings to the

forefront a model of bottom-up rather than top-down

communication and information. It is time to re-exam-

ine 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. Rather than service, I

would propose that we examine what “forms of commu-

nication” should be available. So instead of talking

about “Universal Service” we should consider “Univer-

sal Interconnection to forms of communication.”

These were just some of the many concerns raised

in this week long online conference supported and spon-

sored by a branch of the U.S. government. The people

participating raised serious questions as to whether the

real issues needed to make access possible for the many

rather than a multimedia plaything for the few, would

be considered and examined.

Many were concerned for those who didn’t now

Page 30

have access to the Net, either because they didn’t have

modems or even more fundamentally because they

couldn’t afford computers. Thus there was a significant

sentiment that computers with network access be made

available in public places where people could have

access, like public libraries.

One participant noted that current policy was favor-

ing a few people having video connections rather than

the many having e-mail capability. He requested that we:

“Redirect some of the funding for high end technology

into getting the mainstream public onto the net. Instead

of funding an hour of video between two users, we

should use the money to let 100,000 users send an e-mail

message.”

Summing up the sentiment expressed during the

conference, a participant wrote: “I find it hard to believe

a state can function in the 21

century without a solid

information infrastructure and citizens with enough

technological savvy to use it.”

The conference was a very significant event. From

cities to rural and remote areas, people made the hard

effort to express their concern and commitment to having

everyone have access and to protest the U.S. government

policy of giving commercial entities the Net as a policy

that is in conflict with the public and social goal of

universal network access for all. Despite hardships that

people experienced to participate — mailboxes got

clogged with the volume of e-mail that people couldn’t

keep up with, newsgroups appeared late on Usenet and

at very few sites so it was hard to get access to them, the

lack of publicity meant that many didn’t find out till the

conference was almost over, etc., the people who partici-

pated did what they could to contribute to and speak up

for the means for everyone to be able to be part of the net

as a contributor not just as a listener. A new government

form was created which is very different from what has

existed thus far.

This online conference made clear that the hard

problems of our time can be solved only if the most

advanced technology is used to involve the largest pos-

sible number of people in the decisions that will affect

their lives.

PART II

In trying to determine the significance of this con-

ference for solving the problems of the future of the Net,

it is helpful, however, to look back at how a similar

problem was explored 30 years ago and see if there are

lessons that can be applied to the problem of today.

In Spring of 1961 an important event occurred.

MIT, a pioneering engineering institution was to cele-

brate its 100th birthday. A call went out, for suggestions

for what would be an appropriate celebration. Martin

Greenberger, then a young MIT faculty member, de-

scribes how he responded to the request and proposed

a series of lectures on the Computer and the Future.

“We threw open the hatches,” Greenberger remem-

bered,”and got together the best people we could

assemble — whatever their fields. We asked these

thinkers to project ahead and help us to understand what

was in store.”

One of the invited speakers was the British writer

Sir Charles Percy Snow (better known as C. P. Snow).

His talk on “Scientists and Decision Making” opened

the conference. In 1961, working computers were only

17 years old. One of the first working computers was

the ENIAC which was created in 1945. The computer

pioneers and enthusiasts who gathered at the MIT

conference, however, recognized the enormous impact

that computers could have on society in the future,

particularly on the university of the future if the com-

puter could be made more accessible. This was a period

when computers were very expensive and not very

available. When one did have access to a computer, it

was most likely to something like an IBM mainframe,

which was being operated in batch processor mode.

This meant that one delivered one’s program on a stack

of punch cards to the computer center and some hours

or days later, returned for a printout of the computer

results.

Those at MIT and at other academic institutions

recognized that there would be a great and important

change in computer science, in particular, and in univer-

sity education, in general, if every student could have

access to a computer for at least 2 hours a day and if the

computer could be used increasingly by educators and

researchers.

Though these were important issues on the minds

of the MIT faculty in 1961, the opening talk at the

centennial conference took a different direction. C. P.

Snow described the period that they were living in,

saying: “We happen to be living at a time of a major

scientific revolution, probably more important in its

consequences than the first industrial revolution.”

He predicted that the significance of the changes

would be something “we shall see in full force in the

Page 31

very near future.” And he raised the question: Will the

challenge represented by the emergence of the computer

be treated seriously by society?

Snow explained that when important decisions were

made by a society, they were more likely to be good

decisions if a large number of people were involved in

the decision making process. He gave examples of

decisions made by the British government during and

after World War II. One of the decisions was to under-

take strategic bombing, that is the bombing of civilian

populations, as part of the British War effort. C. P. Snow

explained how he felt this decision was made by a very

small number of people and that in his view, it length-

ened the war and was a harmful decision to the British

people. He also described the decision in Great Britain

to introduce National Health Care. That decision in-

volved the discussion of many people at many levels of

British society. Such broad public discussion, he be-

lieved, managed to filter up to the government, and led

to legislation that was of great benefit to British society.

Snow was fearful that a small number of people would

be making the needed decisions regarding the computer

and he warned, “A handful of people, having no relation

to the will of society, having no communication with the

rest of society, will be taking decisions in secret which

are going to affect our lives in the deepest sense.”

He also cautioned against having government

officials without the adequate scientific or technical

background, making decisions that would determine the

future of the computer. It was necessary, he maintained,

that those who understood the depths of the arguments

of the issues being dealt with, be involved with govern-

ment policy concerning computers.

Others at the conference explored how the computer

would impact on diverse areas of society. John Kemeny,

who later became one of the creators of the BASIC

programming language and the DTSS time-sharing

system, explored how the computer could affect the

library of the future. Alan Perlis, another speaker at the

conference, explored how the computer might change the

university of the future. J. C. R. Licklider, who was to

become the head of the soon to be created Information

Processing Techniques Office under ARPA (The Ad-

vanced Project Agency of the U.S. Department of

Defense) also attended the conference. He had recently

published a thought provoking article, “Man Computer

Symbiosis”, exploring how computers would change

intellectual processes. In his contributions to the confer-

ence, J. C. R. Licklider examined the human-computer

partnership and cautioned that the human must not so

clutter his mind with codes and formats that he cannot

think about his substantiative problem. He projected

that in the future the computer would aid intellectual

development, explaining, “In due course it will be part

of the formulation of problems, part of real-time think-

ing, problem solving, doing of research, conducting of

experiments, getting into the literature and finding refer-

ences.... And it will mediate and facilitate commun-

ication among human beings.”

He proposed that the most important function of the

digital computer in the university, should be as a cataly-

sis for the development of computer science.

Other participants at the conference included

Claude Shannon and Norbert Wiener. Both had been

instrumental in putting the study of engineering and

communication on a scientific footing. At the con-

ference, Wiener observed that “a computing machine

is a general-purpose device that can be programmed to

do many specific jobs. But, if you fail to give a neces-

sary instruction to a computer, you cannot expect the

machine itself to think of this restriction. An unsafe act,

thus,” Wiener warned, “may not show its danger until

it is too late.” Wiener cautioned that humans had to

oversee the computer, that the computer required more

human intellect, not less. “They involve more thought,”

he explained, “and not less thought. They may save

certain parts of our efforts, but they do not eliminate the

need for intelligence.”

One of the most important presentations at the con-

ference was by the young MIT faculty member, John

McCarthy. McCarthy spoke as a representative of a

committee set up by the MIT administration, to make

recommendations about the future computer needs of

MIT. McCarthy described a new form of computing that

was called time-sharing and the vision for the future that

it represented. He explained how a computer time-

sharing system was one that interacts with many simul-

taneous users through a number of remote consoles.

With time-sharing, multiple users could work interac-

tively with a computer, by taking advantage of the faster

speed the computer functioned at, as opposed to hu-

mans. Several users could work at terminals sharing a

computer, but they would each have the illusion that

they were the sole user of the computer.

At the end of the conference, the linguist Yehuda

Bar-Hillel concluded that it was hard to predict what the

Page 32

future of the computer would be in the long term, or even

in the short term. However, he recommended that it was

important to decide what type of future it would be

worthwhile to encourage and to work to make that future

a reality.

The conference marked an important turning point

in the development of the computer. It represented in

effect, the passing of the torch from those like Claude

Shannon and Norbert Wiener who had developed infor-

mation and communication theory and those like John

Maunchly and Grace Hopper who had helped create the

working computer and functioning software. They were

passing the torch, so to speak, to those who would

pioneer a new form of computing, that of the time-

sharing of computers. The development of time-sharing

would in time lead to the creation of online communities

of computer users, and then to the linking of such online

communities into a supercommunity of online communi-

ties, which eventually became the development of a

Global Computer Network.

The MIT faculty member who presented the talk on

time-sharing at the Centennial Conference, John McCar-

thy, described the technical change that was on the

horizon in 1961.

McCarthy realized that a new form of

computing would become possible and that MIT could

help to make the needed technological leap. This was just

at the time of the change from vacuum tubes to transis-

torized computers.

Another participant at the MIT Conference was

Robert Fano, a senior faculty member at MIT, who had

contributed to the information theory developed by

Wiener and Shannon. In the summer of 1961, Fano took

a sabbatical to work at Lincoln Labs because he hoped

to learn more about digital computers there. He felt one

had to begin thinking about communication in the

general purpose way that the digital computer was

making possible.

Also, in the summer of 1961 Fernando Corbato, then

the assistant director of the MIT Computation Center,

along with several other programmers from the Center,

were “in the heat of trying to work out the intricacies of

the software problems to create a primitive prototype for

a time-sharing system” which they called the Compatible

Time-Sharing System or CTSS.

Though they gave a

demonstration of a crude prototype time-sharing system

in November, 1961, they couldn’t develop CTSS until

the spring of 1962 when the more advanced hardware,

the IBM 7090, the first transistorized computer in the

IBM family, arrived.

Corbato, McCarthy, Fano and Licklider were part

of a group of scientists and engineers who had become

convinced that interactive computing and time-sharing

had to be developed and it would need to replace the

batch processing mode of computing that commercial

companies like IBM projected as the future of the com-

puter.

Licklider had gone to work at the acoustical re-

search company Bolt Beranek and Newman, known as

BBN. He had been able to try out one of the earliest

time-sharing systems there. Licklider describes the sen-

timent of the group of researchers who were determined

to make the leap to time-sharing, explaining: “Well, it

turned out that these guys at MIT and BBN. We’d all

gotten really excited about interactive computing and

we had a kind of little religion growing here about how

this was going to be totally different from batch process-

ing.”

By the Fall of 1962, Licklider had accepted a

position with ARPA, to support the development of

time-sharing and interactive computing. One of the first

projects that Licklider funded was Project MAC, a re-

search project at MIT, headed by Robert Fano, to

achieve 3 goals:

1) time-sharing

2) a community using it

3) education which meant supporting research

projects

Out of the work done by Project MAC, a time-shar-

ing system was developed and an online community of

computer users grew up. Members of the community

not only participated in the system, but also contributed

the programs and data to help the system grow and

regenerate.

Describing the surprise that the creation of this

online community represented to the researchers who

had pioneered time-sharing, Fano observed: “Friends

being born out of using somebody else’s program, peo-

ple communicating through the system and then meeting

by accident and saying ‘Oh, that’s you.’ All sorts of

things. It was a nonreproducable community phenome-

non.”

In addition, the creation of such time-sharing sys-

tems provided the model for a more expansive online

community, for the online super community that would

be developed through linking together the various

time-sharing communities that had developed. In 1968,

Page 33

Licklider and Robert Taylor described the networking

model that had developed from time-sharing, the super-

community of time-sharing communities, which pro-

vided the vision for what was to become the ARPAnet,

and then the Internet, and then the Global Computer

Network of our times. Describing online time-sharing

communities of 1968, they observed that these communi-

ties were learning how to cooperate and mutually support

each other and they were producing large and growing

resources of programs, data and know-how which they

felt was only the beginning of the kind of online net-

working supercommunity of the future.

Also, building on the work done creating the Com-

patible Time-Sharing System at MIT in the early 1960s,

Bell Labs programmers Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie

and others developed the Unix Time-sharing system in

1969.

Their goal, similar to that of the Project MAC pio-

neers, was to create a community of programmers.

Reviewing the achievements of CTSS, Fano described

one of the important but un-met goals. He explained,

“One of our goals was to make the computer truly

accessible to people wherever they were. We did not suc-

ceed. For people who lived in the community that used

the system, it was fine. In any system like that, you keep

learning things, you keep using new things, and so you

keep having troubles. If you can go next door and say,

‘Hey, I was doing this and something strange happened,

do you know what I did wrong?’ Usually somebody in

your neighborhood will be able to help you. If instead,

you are far away, you are stuck.... We tried to develop

some way of helping remote users.... Well, we never did.

So in fact, we failed to make the computer truly accessi-

ble regardless of the location of the user.”

Other computer networking efforts like the creation

of the ARPAnet, of Usenet, and of the uucpnet that

transported it, the gatewaying of Usenet with the

ARPAnet, and the creation of the NSF backbone for the

Internet, helped to solve the important problem left

unsolved by Project MAC. This growing network, and

particularly the Usenet newsgroups and IRC chat give

computer folk who have access to them a way to post

their problems, to get help, and to share the solutions

they have figured out, so people can benefit from others

experiences. Usenet and IRC chat have thus followed in

the footsteps of Project MAC and other early time-

sharing systems and have created an online super-

community of communities of computer users. What the

Centennial conference at MIT and the early

time-sharing work (along with subsequent develop-

ments like Unix and Usenet) show, is that the creation

of the current global computer network is not the result

of some science fiction dream. Rather the global net-

work is the result of scientific and engineering exper-

imentation and the creation of models based on the real

world prototypes that the experimental mode produces.

What then is the value of identifying the real roots of

the Net in trying to determine the future of the Global

Computer Communications Network? How can know-

ing this past history help to guide the work for the

future?

Recalling the admonition of C. P. Snow at the MIT

Centennial conference, that the more people involved

in trying to solve important social problems, the more

likely the solution will be beneficial to society, rather

than harmful, reminds us that there is a need to involve

the broadest possible number of people in the problem

of expanding and determining the future of the Net.

Also, the legacy of the MIT pioneers of time-sharing is

not only the development of time-sharing, it is also the

lesson that it is important to create the prototype of what

one is trying to develop, and to build one’s vision for

the future on what the real models show is possible.

Fortunately, such prototypes have been created.

The NTIA conference, using mailing lists and Use-

net newsgroups, to have a broad reaching online dis-

cussion, created a prototype for how ubiquitous net-

working can be achieved more broadly within the U.S.

and elsewhere.

The NTIA conference demonstrated that in the

involvement of the many the important problems of our

times can be analyzed so they can be solved. And the

Internet and Usenet news, vital components of the

Global Computer Network, are providing important

means for the people of our society to contribute to the

needed discussion to determine what decisions will be

helpful or harmful concerning the future of the Net.

Even though the NTIA conference meant a much

broader section of people than ever before were able to

participate in the policy discussion over the future of the

Net, one of the participants explained why this process

was only a prototype of what was needed. He wrote: “I

think this conference was accessible to more than just

“elite technocrats. I, for instance, am a graduate student

at the U of MN. I have access because everyone who

attends the University has access, and can apply their

Page 34

access via numerous computer labs that are open to all

students. I think a lot of people don’t realize that we’re

at a very critical point with determining the future of

resources such as the Internet. I join you in hoping that

no irreversible decisions are made on the basis of this

conference — there needs to be a much wider opportu-

nity for public comment.”

Epilogue

What was the significance of the NTIA conference

toward helping to determine what direction government

policy should take regarding the future of the Net?

When the NTIA conference was held in Nov. 1994,

many of the participants expressed their dissatisfaction

with the plan of the U.S. government to turn the back-

bone of the U.S. portion of the Internet over to private

and commercial interests by May 1, 1995. Despite the

many questions raised about the objectives of U.S. policy

by those participating in the online conference, and

despite the fact that the stated goal of the conference was

to involve citizens in helping to formulate policy objec-

tives, the U.S. government ignored the concerns and

voices raised during the online conference, and went

ahead with their plans to privatize the U.S. portion of the

backbone of the Internet.

The plans for the policy the U.S. government carried

out had been formulated at a by-invitation-only meeting

at the J. F. K. School of Government in March 1990.**

This points up the discrepancy between the stated NTIA

objectives of opening policy decisions up to public

discussion and input versus the actual deeds of the U.S.

government of implementing a policy which had been

formulated at a private by-invitation-only meeting and

which ignored the concerns and needs of the people the

policy would affect. Also, on May 1, 1995, there was a

public program at the Mid-Manhattan branch of the New

York Public Library. The program was about the impor-

tance of the Net to people around the world and about

the future potential of this new means of communication.

At that meeting, people expressed their concern that

the U.S. government would try to impede access to this

important resource, rather than help to make it more

broadly available. Also, many urged that another meeting

be set up to discuss what to do to make this important

new resource available to a broader sector of the popula-

tion.

One of the difficult dilemmas of our times is how

to deal with the disparity between government words that

they want input into policy decisions, and their actions

of ignoring that input. The 1961 MIT Conference on the

Future of the Computer, however, which occurred at a

similar turning point in the development of the com-

puter, provides helpful perspective. When one doesn’t

know what the future will be in the short term or the

long term, as one participant at that conference pointed

out, it is especially important to decide what type of

future it was to encourage and to work to make that

future a reality. Also at the MIT Conference, C.P. Snow

emphasized the importance of having important policy

issues discussed by a large number of people and he

expressed the conviction that such discussion would

eventually have an effect on policy. In addition, those

at the MIT Conference expressed a concern that when

governments deal with important matters regarding

technology and computers, those who have some

understanding of the important issues at stake be in-

volved in the decision making process.

The NTIA conference achieved two important

results. It clarified that when people have online access

and are invited to participate in a public policy dis-

cussion of an important issue, they will contribute in a

way that identifies the important principles to shape that

public policy. The second result was that it demon-

strated that the U.S. government policy of privatizing

the U.S. portion of the Internet is at odds with the

principles clarified during the NTIA online conference

called to provide public input into that policy. The

online conference also demonstrated that there is a need

to take up the challenge to make the future one that will

serve the principles of broad and ubiquitous access. The

online conference established the principles, but there

is now a need to maintain an ever widening public

discussion of these issues and to work to determine how

to implement those principles.

References

1. “The Computer in the 21

Century”, Scientific American, Special

Issue, 1995, p. 4. (Cartoon by Charles Addams, The New Yorker

Magazine, 1952, 1980.)

2. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 00:49:16 -0500

From: Michael Hauben <hauben@columbia.edu>

To: red[email protected]

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Netizen Speech

Message-ID:

<199411230549.AA1433[email protected]>

Page 35

3. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 09:07:56 -0800

From: NTIA Virtual Conference <ntia>

Message-Id: <1994111417[email protected]>

To: avail, intellec, opnacces, privacy, redefus, standard

Subject: NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address

4. James McDonough, [email protected],

Message-Id:

<Pine.SUN.3.91.941116094225.11331A-100000@access2.

digex.net>

5. From: “Cynthia S. Terwilliger” <twigs@umich.edu>

Date: Nov 15 20:42:07 1994

Subject: Re: [AVAIL:32]

Re: Key Issues of Affordability and Availability

Message-ID:

<Pine.3.89.9411152007.B7150-010000[email protected]ich.edu>

6. Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:27:42 GMT

From: [email protected] (Bruce Potter)

Message-ID: <1994Nov15.002742.7[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Subject: Need for Federal Oversight of Access and

Availability (For Island Resources Foundation,

[email protected])

7. San Francisco Public Library,

“SFPL::NTIA_PUB”@DRANET.DRA.COM

Message-Id:

<941116184335.20212906@DRANET.DRA.COM>

8. From: Sean <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: [AVAIL:41] my question

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:33:24 -0500 (EST)

Message-Id: <199411160841.AAA2721[email protected]et>

9. From: [email protected]C.Virginia.EDU (Jamie Dyer)

Subject: Internet Broadcasting Corp

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Organization: University of Virginia

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:25:00GMT

10. From: bsumm[email protected] Wed Nov 16 19:59:39 1994

Message-Id: <199411170359.T[email protected].net>

11. From: [email protected] (Paul Holden)

Newsgroups: alt.ntia.redefus

Subject: Universal Access and the Feds...

Reply-To: [email protected]

Date: Wed Nov 23 22:01:42 1994

12. San Francisco Public Library,

“SFPL::NTIA_PUB”@DRANET.DRA.COM

13. Frank D. Bastiaans, Statistical Analyser, Division Trade and

Transport

Date: 16 Nov 1994 16:35:56 MET

Subject: Availability of statistics

Reply-To: [email protected]

Message-Id: <81430000.00000000006A.FBSS.Z9H374IJ>

14. From: Alexander Voiskounsky <[email protected] .su>

Psychology Department, Moscow State University

Newsgroups: alt.ntia.redefus

Subject: Re: [AVAIL & REDEFUS]

Date: Sat Nov 19 09:24:42 1994

15. From: evote@netcom.com (Marilyn Davis)

Message-Id:

<199411150[email protected]>

Subject: Not Information ---> COMMUNICATION

To: red[email protected]

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:11:07 -0800 (PST)

16. From: Michael Hauben <hau[email protected]>

Newsgroups: alt.ntia.avail

Subject: Need to stress concept of active communication and

interconnection

Reply-To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov

Date: Tue Nov 22 05:03:13 1994

17. From: “W. Curtiss Priest”

<BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>

18. From: Lew McDaniel

<MCDANIEL@wvuadmin3.csc.wvu.edu>

19. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, vol 14 no 2, 1992,

p. 15.

20. C. P. Snow, “Scientists and Decision Making,” in Management

and the Computer of the Future, (Martin Greenberger, ed.), M.I.T.

Press, Cambridge, MA, 1962, p. 8.

21. ibid., p. 9.

22. J. C. R. Licklider, discussant, “The Computer in the Univer-

sity,” in Management and the Computer of the Future, (Martin

Greenberger, ed.), M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1962, p. 206.

23. Management and the Computer of the Future, p. 32.

24. See “John McCarthy’s 1959 Memorandum,” in Annals, vol 14

no 1, 1992, p. 20.

25. Annals, vol 14 no 2, 1992, p. 20.

26. Annals, vol 14 no 1, 1992, p. 44.

27. Annals, vol 14 no 2, 1992, p. 16.

28. ibid., p. 31.

29. ibid.

30. From: “Chris Silker” <[email protected].edu>

Page 36

* The NTIA Virtual Archives are available via the World Wide Web

at: http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/11s/virtual.

** RFC 1192 “Commercialization of the Internet: Summary Report”,

Nov. 1990, describes the by-invitation-only meeting that was held

at the Kennedy School of Government in March 1990 to set plans

for the commercialization and privatization of the Internet.

In Honor of ‘Doc’ Wilson

(1910-1995)

[Editor’s Note: Cartoons by ‘Doc’ Wilson have appeared

in various issues of the Amateur Computerist. Sadly,

‘Doc’ died on July 29, 1995. The following article with

minor changes was originally printed in the Searchlight,

newspaper of UAW Local 659, May 25, 1984. It also

was included in the booklet Tough Cookies: Pioneers of

the Flint Labor Press, in 1985, which contains 22 of

‘Doc’ Wilson’s cartoons.]

THE TRADITION OF LABOR

CARTOONING AND DOC WILSON

The labor cartoons drawn over the years by Doc

Wilson chronicle how the struggle for industrial union-

ism has been an ongoing and relentless battle. It was in

the depression days of 1933 when the notice to start work

at GM arrived at the Wilson home. Doc had come home

tired after tramping the streets all afternoon in search of

work. He hadn’t had a steady job for two or three years.

When he hired in at Chevrolet on July 13, 1933,

working conditions were awful. “It was slave labor,”

remembered Doc during an interview. “Of course,” he

explained, “the auto industry was still in its infancy – you

had to start somewhere. But it got worse. It got to the

point where people had to rebel.”

Doc worked as a truck driver for GM. His own

working situation wasn’t so bad, but he saw the condi-

tions in the plants and knew there had to be some change.

“The day of the strike,” Doc recalled, “I came in with a

load from Bay City. I knew what was coming, but I

didn’t know when. After I unloaded, I clocked out and

went to the union headquarters.”

Doc helped to put out Punch Press, the newsletter

which appeared during the Flint Sit-Down Strike of

1936-37 to keep supporters of the strike informed of

what was happening. Doc’s first published cartoons had

to appear anonymously. “I really couldn’t sign ‘em in

those days,” he explained. “They could still fire you too

easy.”

By the mid 1940s, signed cartoons, like one criti-

cizing the “No Strike Pledge” appeared in Doc’s local

union newspaper The Searchlight. Doc’s cartoons were

regularly featured in other Flint labor papers like The

Headlight, (newspaper of UAW-Local 599), and The

Flint Weekly Review. Sometimes the cartoon was

reprinted, but the caption changed to reflect a slightly

different situation. Doc’s cartoons were copied and

reprinted in labor papers around the country, “Published

in more than 200 newspapers at one time or another,”

noted Doc.

In 1948, Doc Wilson started a regular cartoon series

that he called “Plant Life.” The chief protagonist of the

series is Perry, a “graduate cum laude from the school

of hard knocks in factory life.” Through his hero, Perry,

the cartoonist was able to comment on the dangers and

frustrations of factory life. “Sometimes,” Doc ex-

plained, “the ideas for Plant Life came straight from

experience.”

Many of Doc Wilson’s cartoons were critical of

corporate policies and practices. Other cartoons, how-

ever, took up to comment on union questions. One

cartoon captioned “Just Pin Money” opposed a dues

increase. It got Doc into hot water with the International

Union. Another cartoon captioned “It Still Smells”

shows a dissatisfied worker throwing a newly negotiated

Ford Pension Agreement into the trash and holding his

nose. This cartoon again drew the ire of the Interna-

tional Officers of the UAW. “Oh, it was about the time

we got our first retirement plan,” Doc explained. “It

wasn’t quite as good as I thought it should be.” Despite

such difficulties, Doc persisted. He went on with

constant and sustained efforts via his cartoons, until

pensions, and then the “30 and Out” retirement program

had been won for UAW retirees. “I guess I realized the

need for it years before our leaders did,” he explained.

Through it all, Doc Wilson contributed to a rich

tradition of labor cartooning, one that he helped to

develop and spread. Bob Travis, a pioneer organizer and

one of the founders of the UAW, commented on the

importance of Doc’s cartoons in the development of the

UAW in a letter he wrote to one of Flint’s labor papers.

“Doc,” wrote Travis, “was the cartoonist for the original

Auto Worker – way back, over forty years ago. I’ve

always felt that his cartoons contributed significantly

Page 37

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.

Send them to: R. Hauben, P.O. BOX 250101,

NY, NY, 10025-1531. Articles can be submitted

on paper or on IBM disk in ASCII format, or via

e-mail. One year subscription (two issues) costs

$10.00 (U.S.). Add $2.50 for foreign postage.

Make checks payable to R. Hauben. Permission is

given to reprint articles from this issue in a non

profit publication provided credit is given, with

name of author and source of article cited.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

Starting with Vol. 4, No. 2-3, The Amateur

Computerist has been available via electronic

mail on the Internet. To obtain a copy or to

subscribe, send e-mail to:

[email protected] or

[email protected]ich.edu

The Amateur Computerist is also available via

anonymous ftp:

wuarchive.wustl.edu

It is stored in the directory: /doc/misc/acn

and via World Wide Web:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/acn

to our victory. To Doc, I’d like to suggest that he publish

a book carrying his cartoons chronologically. It would

really show the rise of the UAW and the history of all our

struggles.” (from The Headlight, May 31, 1978)

Doc looked back fondly on his years of cartooning

while working as a truck driver at Chevrolet. “Some-

times,” he admitted, “I miss my days drawing cartoons

.... Sometimes I’d sit up half the night making sketches

and then get up to go to work the next morning. But I

loved every minute of it.”

Doc retired from Chevrolet in 1968 on the UAW

pension that he was so active in fighting for. Upon his

retirement, the staff of The Searchlight made him an

honorary lifetime member of the Local’s Publicity Com-

mittee so that he “be allowed to continue to work with

future committees in the years ahead.” (See resolution

The Searchlight, Feb. 29, 1968, p. 2) Doc tried to pull

together the many cartoons he drew over the years to put

them into some more permanent form. “You know,” he

said, “a lot of these could still be used today ‘cause

there’s still a lot of people suffering.”

It is appropriate that pioneers like ‘Doc’ Wilson be

remembered and their contribution be studied. One

lesson that the Flint labor pioneers like ‘Doc’ never tired

of repeating is, if you don’t fight you can’t win. ‘Doc’

Wilson always put his cartooning skill into the fight.

Cartoons by ‘Doc’ Wilson have enhanced the Amateur

Computerist. We will miss him a lot and still hope to see

his cartoons properly collected into a big book.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of

their authors and not the opinions of The Amateur

Computerist newsletter. The Editors welcome

submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40