The Amateur
Computerist
Spring 2001 Volume 10 No. 2
Table of Contents
Editorial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Internet, Laboratory for Democracy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
Ford Model E Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22
Battle over Computer Classes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24
State of the Net in Hungary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31
A Loss for Netizens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 36
Moment of Silence for Michael Muuss.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 37
Usenet Archives: Culture Clash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 40
John Locke and the Internet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 52
MsgGroup Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 64
Editorial
This issue of the Amateur Computerist returns to a general rather
than thematic format. There are a number of articles, however, that
explore whether the Internet will be for everybody or whether it will be
limited to an exclusive strata of society. Also the question of what role
the Internet will play in society is a question that needs public discussion
and examination. Such topics are being ignored by the media, at least in
the U.S., at the current time. Meanwhile there are plans in the U.S. to
change some of the nature of the Internet and the means of its access.
While the Internet was originally created to make possible resource
Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
Page 1
sharing of human and computer resources, there are commercial desires
to make the Internet into a network that will prioritize packets and
introduce classes of service so that the packets of those who pay more
will be treated in a privileged way and those who cannot pay more will
have their packets treated as second class. The article in this issue about
the cancellation of programming classes at the Ford Motor Company
that led to the creation of the Amateur Computerist shows that a change
in policy can be carried out in a way that is hidden from the public and
contrary to their best interests. The effort of the staff of the Amateur
Computerist to continue to support the development of computers and
computer education, despite losing the classes has been an important
achievement. Almost 15 years after the computer programming classes
were ended at the Ford Rouge Plant, the Ford Model E program has been
introduced and is making it possible for many Ford employees to have
computers and a form of Internet access. What will be the long term
effect of this program will be interesting to see.
The talk “Is the Internet a Laboratory for Democracy?” presented
at a European Union Conference in December 1999, describes the
important role that the Internet can play in making it possible for citizens
to make some impact on the otherwise difficult problems of their
societies. Understanding the potential of the Internet and the goals of its
early socio-technical pioneers can help to define a path for those
concerned with its continued development.
The article on the State of the Net in Hungary provides a view of
how Internet development is progressing in Hungary and the problems
that the Hungarian people are encountering to be able to have access to
the Internet. This article helps to understand the challenges to a society
trying to develop the Internet and trying to have it serve a general
purpose and socially beneficial goal.
In a similar way, the challenges of Usenet’s development and the
effect on Usenet of a company archiving the posts contributed by users
is explored in “Culture Clash: The Google Purchase of the 1995-2001
Usenet Archive and the Online Community.”
In this issue we express sadness with the loss to the Internet and the
world of two important Netizens, Michael Muuss and Kerry Miller.
The article on John Locke and the Privatization of the Internet
Page 2
considers the importance of thinking about the way that the Internet was
originally created and the benefits that a social goal provided for all
users. John Locke's writing offers some helpful ways of understanding
how the benefits of such a shared development are important to consider
and nourish.
Serialization of the article describing the early development of the
MsgGroup mailing list ends in this issue. Reviewing this early mailing
list provides a way to look back at some of the early vision of creating
an online collaborative process. This can help provide useful perspective
toward understanding the current developments and plans for scaling the
Internet. How far have we come and where do we as a society want to
go with regard to the future of the Internet? There is a vital need to be
raising such questions publicly and hearing from a variety of voices of
users about how they perceive the path forward. We hope that volume
10 no. 2 of the Amateur Computerist will contribute to catalyzing the
much needed public discussion on these issues.
Is the Internet a
Laboratory for Democracy?
by Ronda Hauben
[Editor’s Note: Following is an edited and expanded version of an
invited talk “Is the Internet a Laboratory for Democracy: The Vision of
the Netizens or the E-commerce Agenda?” given at the European Union
NGO Citizen’s Agenda Conference in Tampere, Finland, December 5,
1999. The URL for the conference was http://www.citizen2000.net/E2]
I am happy to be here today at this EU Conference on Citizens2000
exploring the nature of citizenship at this special time in history when
we are about to welcome in not only a new century but also a new
millennium.
It is interesting that many of the questions being asked at this
Page 3
conference are the questions that show that we have both the old and the
new surrounding us and it is not always easy to understand the new as
it isn’t something that we are familiar with.
Yesterday during one of the opening sessions of the conference, the
question was raised by both someone in the audience and someone on
the panel on stage, about why the voting level of people voting in
elections in Europe is low. This is true in the U.S. as well. The session
yesterday raised the important need to go beyond representative
democracy in political forms available to the citizen in modern times.
And the question was asked: “What would be the new ways of participat-
ing?”
I am delighted to be here today at this conference considering the
role of citizens in the coming millennium. This seminar “Civic Partici-
pation, Virtual Democracy and the Net” is not only exploring the role of
citizenship but also a new form of citizenship, that of the form of citizen
which is one of the newly emerging developments brought into the
world by the Internet. That of the Netizen.
The question I want to raise with my talk is “Is the Internet a
laboratory for democracy?” And I hope that we can discuss this question
more fully as part of this seminar. Also I want to raise the question of
what this shows us about the nature of the Internet and about the new
forms of participatory democracy the Internet makes possible.
When I first got access to Usenet, online newsgroups that are
accessible via the Internet, my earliest posts were greeted with com-
ments from people around the U.S. and from other countries like
Scotland and Canada and Australia. I was thrilled with the ability to
have a serious discussion on a variety of important issues. This was the
situation when I first got access to an e-mail account and Usenet in
January 1992 from the Cleveland Freenet.
I had heard that Usenet was a collection of newsgroups filled with
all sorts of interesting information, but I didn’t know how to contribute
to it. I wrote out a description of what I was interested in discussing and
sent it to the only online newsgroup forum that I could figure out how
to access at the time, which was called misc.books.technical.
First Post on Usenet
Page 4
From: [email protected]
Newsgroup: misc.books.technical
Date: 10 Jan 92 07:48:58
I am interested in discussing the history of economics – i.e.
Mercantilists, physiocrats, Adam smith, ricardo, marx, marshall, keynes,
etc. With the world in such a turmoil it would seem that the science of
economics needs to be invigorated. Is there anyplace on Usenet News
where this kind of discussion is taking place?
Ronda
The response to this and my other early posts surprised me. I had
posted to the Usenet newsgroup misc.books.technical because this was
the only newsgroup I could get access to and I was new using Usenet,
using it from the Cleveland Freenet. Within a day I had 10 e-mails from
across the U.S. and a few from abroad. Do you have any idea why? The
newsgroup misc.books.technical was for the discussion of technical
subjects and I was asking about how to discuss economics. People from
around the U.S. and abroad wrote me to tell me that I had posted in the
wrong newsgroup. Several of those who wrote told me the newsgroup
where I should have posted in was “sci.econ.” Others wrote, describing
how Usenet worked. Even more surprising was that one person actually
wrote, encouraging me to post in the appropriate newsgroup and saying
to me: “We’re all ears!”
I had interested people and they had acted both to tell me what I had
done wrong and also to tell me how to be able to make my contribution
so that it could be utilized and considered by others.
This was an impressive experience for me. Ten people had taken
time out from their lives to help me correct a problem, and to make it
possible for me to begin to contribute to Usenet and its growing
worldwide community of users.
A short time later I found another online forum, a “mailing list.”
Unlike the newsgroups that were forums where I could go to participate,
joining a mailing list led me to get messages that came to my mailbox
and often would fill my mailbox. This was 1992. The U.S. portion of the
Internet, during this time period of 1992-1993 was basically government
owned and operated. The mailing list I had joined was called
Page 5
“com-priv”. This mailing list was discussing plans for privatizing the
U.S. portion of the Internet and making it commercial. On this mailing
list I found U.S. government officials from different U.S. government
agencies, including the National Science Foundation who were in charge
of networking there. There were officers from the newly created Internet
Society, and some of the people who had begun to operate or were
hoping to soon operate commercial access points who called themselves
Internet Service Providers (ISP).
When I posted on “com-priv” asking why the U.S. portion of the
Internet was being privatized, my posts were either ignored or I would
get an e-mail asking me why someone who had just arrived into the
discussion would have such strong views on this topic.
Here my contributions were discouraged or ignored. I wondered
why I could find no discussion about the planned privatization. What
were the reasons for it to happen? What were the reasons it might be a
problem? And why was no such discussion allowed on the mailing list?
I posted on “com-priv” asking a question about the development of
the Internet. Also through e-mail I got in contact with some of the
pioneers of early Usenet and the Internet.
I eventually left the “com-priv”mailing list, but I had begun to
realize that I wanted to understand the origins of Usenet and the Internet,
and to understand how the interesting participatory environment I was
experiencing online on Usenet had developed. My access to Usenet
depended on the Internet and I wondered why the U.S. portion of the
Internet was being privatized.
I soon learned that the pioneering vision of J. C. R. Licklider had
inspired many of the earliest networking developments. Licklider was
a scientist, a psychologist who had studied the brain to learn how
hearing was made possible. Also he had participated in the discussion
circles in the Cambridge, Massachusetts area where Norbert Wiener and
others discussed the nature and laws governing communication in
humans and machines. From this ferment the theory of communication,
control and feedback, of cybernetics, was developed.
Wiener recognized the importance of determining the nature of the
relationship between the human and the computer. Licklider decided to
do a study to understand what would be a desirable relationship. As part
Page 6
of Licklider’s research study, he wrote down all the tasks he did as part
of his research. Reviewing the notes he made, he discovered that a large
percentage of his time was spent doing routine tasks that the computer
could do, and only a small percentage of his time was spent doing the
kind of tasks like thinking about the data he had gathered that the human
was uniquely qualified to do.
Licklider reasoned that what was needed in the human-computer
relationship was a partnership, where each partner, the human partner
and the computer partner, would work together doing what they each
could do best. This would be the most productive arrangement. It would
result in the most desirable rapport.
Licklider called this relationship “human-computer symbiosis” and
he wrote about his experience in a paper he published in 1960 called
“Human-Computer Symbiosis.”
1
In the paper, Licklider described how there was a need for hu-
man-computer interaction in order to achieve the kind of rapport that he
proposed was desirable between the two partners in this new form of
symbiotic relationship. Also in the paper, Licklider outlines the kind of
research needed to create this interactivity between the human and the
computer.
This was a time when computers were big machines filling large
data processing center rooms. A person wanting to run a program would
have to type it on punch cards, and then bring the stack of cards to the
data processing center and leave them. The person would come back
hours or days later to pick up a printout to see what the program had
done and if it had worked. Forgetting a period or a comma would often
mean the program had to be resubmitted. Getting the program to run
might take several days and numerous trips to the data processing center.
The research program that Licklider outlined in his paper was for a
new form of computer architecture that would make it possible for a
person to interact directly with the computer, to be able to type into the
computer oneself, instead of having to bring punch cards to someone
else to feed into the computer. Also Licklider’s research program
included creating interactive graphics.
At the time that Licklider was doing his research, there was a
realization inside the U.S. Department of Defense that these huge batch
Page 7
processing computers were too hard to use for people to be able to
utilize the value of the computer. Licklider was invited to set up a
research office inside the civilian scientific research agency called
ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) that had been created
under the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Licklider started the Information
Processing Techniques Office (IPTO). Building on early efforts to
determine what methods were needed to support fundamental research,
Licklider decided to support the creation of what he called “Centers of
Excellence” at chosen universities in the U.S.
Licklider supported the creation of Project MAC at MIT and
another research program at what is now Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh. These were research programs to study the computer’s
potential and to explore the human computer relationship. A particular
interest of the research was how the computer could be used for more
than arithmetic calculations. In particular, Licklider was interested in
how the computer could be developed as a communication device.
If you remember Licklider was a scientist interested in the nature
and mechanisms of human communication both in the research he had
done about the nature of the brain and how it made communication
possible and in the discussions he was part of in the Wiener circles. As
Licklider was helping to set up research centers at universities he felt it
would be important to have a network of these different centers to make
it possible for the researchers at the different programs to communicate
with each other.
In this way they would be able to identify what they had in common
and what the general nature of the study they were doing was. Licklider
called this network of leading researchers, “the intergalactic network”.
Since he was interested in facilitating communication among the
different research projects and researchers, he knew that a goal of
computer research would be to create a computer network.
The earliest efforts at IPTO to create a computer network didn’t
succeed. Licklider left IPTO in 1964 after almost 2 years. But the vision
he was developing helped to inspire others who became the directors of
IPTO to continue to pursue this effort.
Research in interactive computing led to the creation of different
communities of researchers able to share a computer and interact with
Page 8
it directly and with each other. This new form of computing was called
time-sharing. As head of IPTO in 1966, another psychologist, Robert
Taylor also recognized the importance of linking different time-sharing
systems at different universities. He brought Larry Roberts to ARPA to
head IPTO and to create a packet switching network project which came
to be called the ARPAnet, i.e. a network connecting the different ARPA
centers of excellence.
Robert Kahn, who had worked on the design of the ARPAnet and
its development at BBN, came to IPTO in November 1972. Kahn began
the internetworking project, the effort to make it possible to share
computer resources among those who were on different networks. These
resources included people collaborating and communicating, as well as
sharing programs and other computer resources. Kahn directed the
research from 1972 through the 1980s that made the Internet possible.
IPTO was ended in 1986.
By 1992 the Internet had developed and spread around the U.S. and
Usenet had spread through several countries in Europe and was
accessible via the Internet or via uucp. A student at Columbia University
in NYC, Michael Hauben, had a project to do for a class he was taking
in computers and society. He had only recently gotten access to the
Internet as a Columbia student. But he had experience as a teenager on
local bulletin board systems (BBS’s) in Michigan. He had heard that the
Internet was a much more extensive communications system and was
interested in knowing how far it reached and what it made it possible for
people to do.
He wrote a set of questions and posted them on Usenet and on
relevant mailing lists. E-mail responses immediately started arriving and
in a few days he’d received over 60 responses from people around the
world. He discovered that those around the world who had gotten access
to the Internet were excited about what it made possible. And because
they had found that it was something of value, they wanted to contribute
to it and to help others get access to it.
What Hauben found was that there was a new form of citizenship
emerging from the experience of those who were participating online.
One of the conventions used to refer to the Net or to those related to
Usenet as net.xxxx with xxxx being the term you were referring to.
Page 9
People occasionally talked about a net.cop or a net.citizen. Michael
contracted net.citizen into netizen. The concept of netizen that he had
discovered was someone who saw himself as a citizen of the net. This
described the people online who were doing what they could to
contribute to the discussion or other needs of the developing Internet and
were active to spread it to others.
Further research that Hauben and others did revealed other
examples of this new form of participatory global citizenship that was
emerging from the development of the Internet.
There are many examples of this new form of citizenship being
developed and taking on some of the important challenges of spreading
the Internet to all.
Following are a few brief examples of the achievements by
netizens:
1) The NTIA online conference held by the U.S. government in
November 1994 on the question of universal access to the Internet.
After there was protest against the privatization of the U.S.
backbone to the Internet, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to
hold an online conference to discuss the issue of universal access. A
vibrant debate over the privatization occurred in the online conference.
Many people explained why the privatization was a poor policy decision
and that it would impede the spread of Internet access, rather than
facilitate it. Others supported the privatization. But the dominant
sentiment was that the U.S. government shouldn’t change its role in
Internet development until it had a plan for how to make access
available to all. Though the online conference didn’t stop the privatiza-
tion, it made a record that there was significant public opposition to the
privatization policy. And it demonstrated that the form of an online
conference was a valuable means of exploring difficult but important
public policy issues.
2) The Intel Story
Another example of netizen activity was demonstrated by the way
online discussion on a Usenet newsgroup was able to uncover a bug in
the first Intel Pentium computer chip. When newspapers reporters tried
Page 10
to ignore the problem, online discussion by users not only brought the
problem to the attention of the public, but they also challenged reporters
who tried to make excuses for the problem.
3) Communications Decency Act.
When the U.S. Congress passed the Communications Decency Act,
vigorous discussion online on Usenet, and on mailing lists condemned
the law. And numerous web sites were blackened in protest. Judges
hearing the court challenge to the law wrote a strong decision criticizing
efforts by the U.S. government for trying to restrict the “global conversa-
tion” that the Internet makes possible.
An important example of the power of the netizens is the 1996
Federal District Court decision in Pennsylvania overturning the
Communications Decency Act (CDA).
4) The U.S. government anti-trust decision about Microsoft.
A more recent example of netizenship helping to challenge
unbridled power is demonstrated by the recent finding by a U.S. court
that Microsoft is guilty of violating the U.S. anti-trust law. The online
development of an alternative and better operating system by Linux
programmers around the world, along with the online discussion of the
problems with Microsoft, helped to provide an environment where the
U.S. government has been pressured to apply its anti-trust laws to
Microsoft’s activity.
5) The ICANN challenge to the future of the Internet
A new and greater challenge has recently developed for netizens
who care about the development of the Internet and the fulfillment of the
future promise that there will be access for all to this new participatory
medium of global communication holds.
I learned about the problem of ICANN in the spring of last 1998
from a Japanese mailing list that I had been invited to participate in.
The U.S. government had posted a rule making procedure on the
web stating that they were going to give key functions of the Internet to
the private sector removing them from public ownership and protection.
These functions included the IP number system for providing a
Page 11
unique number to computers on the Internet to make it possible for users
to send and receive messages across the diverse networks of the Internet.
It included the domain name system and root server system. This system
provides the network and computer names that users use like xxxx@col-
umbia.edu or xxx[email protected].
A statement by the U.S. government called the Green paper had
been put online at a U.S. government web site by the U.S. Department
of Commerce. After learning that there was only a day left to comment
on it, I was able to access it, copy it, read it and write a response. The
Green paper presented the Internet solely as a means for e-commerce
and provided no means of supporting the global communication that is
the important general function of the Internet. I responded with a
critique of the Green paper which I sent to the comments section on the
U.S. government web site. I also posted it on relevant Usenet news-
groups and mailing lists on the Internet.
A number of people wrote me including someone from the
American Library Association, and from a newspaper for local govern-
ments. They asked me if they could reprint my response in their
publications. I later learned that the U.S. government did not want to
summarize the comments as required by a rule making procedure and
instead dropped the rule, but tried to continue with the privatization.
Subsequently there was a meeting of the Internet Society in Geneva,
Switzerland. The U.S. advisor for policy to the President, Ira Magaziner
announced that the U.S. government was planning to give the DNS
system to the private sector (whatever that meant). When I tried to talk
with Magaziner about why this would be harmful for the public, he told
me to send him e-mail.
After I returned home, I sent several e-mail messages to Magaziner
and finally got an answer. Also after several e-mails he agreed to talk
with me by phone. In response to my questions, Magaziner told me that
there were two problems he was solving with his privatization plan.
1. The complaint by some trademark holders that they weren’t being
protected adequately from others getting domain names that were similar
to their trade marks.
2. The desire of the International community to participate in the
administration of the Internet and its essential functions.
Page 12
When I told Magaziner my objections to the U.S. government plan
to privatize essential functions of the Internet’s infrastructure,
Magaziner told me I would have to give him a proposal putting my
objections into operational form if I wanted him to consider them. I felt
that the second problem, the desire of countries around the world to
participate in Internet development and administration, was the primary
problem to be taken up and that the trademark problem could only be
solved after understanding the other problem. I wrote a proposal to
create a collaborative scientific prototype to document the administrative
functions to be taken on, and to create an open online process to involve
the online community in developing this prototype. Also I proposed that
a task of this cooperative effort would be to identify the problem to be
solved, and the vested interests to be identified who would make it hard
to solve the problem, and to make a proposal toward determining a
solution.
I spent a week writing a proposal based on my research on how
Usenet spread abroad via a cooperative process of development among
members of the European, Australian and Asian Unix communities. The
process that I was proposing, of a collaborative international activity to
identify the problem, was a process I felt would provide a prototype to
help to solve the problem
Also Magaziner indicated a concern of industry that different
countries would pass different laws related to the Internet.
Magaziner promised me a response to my proposal, however,
instead of his calling me to discuss it, a few weeks later I heard from
Becky Burr, in the NTIA in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Meanwhile the U.S. government contractors who were then administer-
ing the domain name and root server system functions, a company called
Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) and the Internet Assigned Names and
Numbers Authority (IANA) were negotiating under U.S. government
oversight to create a private entity to provide for what was called
“industry self governance” of these controlling functions of the Internet.
NSI at this point in time was owned by SAIC, a large privately held
defense contractor corporation formed originally by a number of people
from the U.S. Department of Defense. It held the NSF contract for
administering domain names. IANA was created by the Information
Page 13
Sciences Institute (ISI) at the University of Southern California, who had
a DARPA contract to administer significant parts of the Internet’s
infrastructure. Both DARPA and the NSF are U.S. government agencies.
ISI had been created through contracts with DARPA.
Supposedly negotiations between NSI and IANA broke down and
a proposal was presented by IANA to form a private sector corporation
to carry out the privatization of these publicly owned and controlled
functions. IANA’s proposal was prepared by a supposedly pro bono
lawyer from one of the largest U.S. corporate law firms. How a proposal
prepared by a U.S. government contractor was a private sector proposal
is still a mystery to understand. But perhaps the fact that it is illegal
according to U.S. law for the U.S. government to create a private sector
entity to conduct government functions can help account for the
Orwellian nature of the terms used to describe a public entity as the
creator of a private sector proposal. (Also the head of IANA during this
period had been threatened by Magaziner with prosecution in connection
with a dispute and activity that had developed over whether NSI or
IANA would control the DNS root server system.)
The IANA proposal was to privatize essential functions of the
Internet’s infrastructure. These would be put under the control of a board
of directors. A private sector non profit company was to be created
under California’s non profit corporate law. The company would be
called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN). The U.S. government was to transfer to this corporation
essential functions of the Internet, including the root server system, the
IP numbers, the domain name system and the protocol development
process (IETF).
Originally there were three proposals submitted to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, the proposal I had been asked to submit to
Magaziner, the IANA proposal, and an alternative proposal for a private
corporation that was submitted by several who had been involved in the
IFWP mailing list who called themselves the Boston Group. Later a 4
th
proposal was also submitted.
The U.S. government allowed a very short period of time for public
comments on the proposals and then declared the IANA proposal to
create ICANN as its choice proposal. All the government did to consider
Page 14
the proposal I had submitted was to have a U.S. Department of Com-
merce official call and talk to me on the telephone for about 20 minutes.
She asked if there was something from my proposal that could go into
the IANA proposal to represent my concerns. When I said that my
proposal required government support for scientists and collaborative
scientific activity, she didn’t explore why that was true, but ended any
contact. Afterwards she sent me an e-mail message thanking me for my
“constructive participation.”
During this period there was a hearing in the U.S. Congress, held by
the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Basic Science and
the Subcommittee on Technology about what was happening with the
DNS system privatization. Some of the people opposing the ICANN
proposal tried to contact Congressmen on the subcommittee or their
staffers. When I asked the staffers if I could submit testimony in the
hearing, I was told that the committee would then have to let everyone
submit testimony. They asked me to submit questions that the Congress-
men could ask of those they had invited to testify. I submitted several
questions including the question “by what authority was the U.S.
government transferring these publicly owned and controlled essential
functions of the Internet to the so called ‘private sector’?” I maintained
contact with the staffers, often able to use e-mail to do so, along with the
telephone. Two days before the hearing I was told that I could submit
testimony into the record. I sent testimony via e-mail (which became
part of the published record of the hearing) and I also attended the
hearing. Several others who were on the IFWP mailing list also attended
the hearing and also submitted questions or testimony that was later
included in the published record of the hearing.
6) Mailing list and ICANN
An important means for participation in these issues has been
online mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups relevant to the topics There
have been posts and sometimes discussion on these online forms about
what has been happening with the plans of the U.S. government to carry
out this privatization of the essential functions of the Internet’s infra-
structure.
On the Netizens Association Mailing list there was an ongoing long
Page 15
term discussion of the need to let the public, both those online and off,
know about what has been happening in the Internet privatization
process the U.S. government is carrying out. For quite a while the U.S.
press articles on ICANN activity were only press releases for the U.S.
government plan. Finally, after a large meeting in November 1998 in
Cambridge, MA, where there were many questions asked about the
privatization and much protest expressed about what was happening,
there were a few accounts reporting that there was criticism of ICANN
published in the online and even in the print press.
After a number of posts on the Netizens mailing list about problems
with the creation and development of ICANN and the way it treats users,
there was a serious discussion about the need to break through the lack
of media coverage of the problems with ICANN. A Hungarian freelance
writer John Horvath wrote a long and detailed article about the problems
of the privatization and of the lack of information for the public about
what is being done. Horvath’s article was printed in an online German
journal Telepolis. Included in the article was a criticism of the way the
European Union officials involved were not protecting the public which
was similar to the criticism about what U.S. government officials were
doing. A European Union official wrote complaining about the article
and saying that the writer needed to do more research on the European
position about the privatization. The fact that there was such dialogue,
which even got printed in the forum section of an online journal, was
important. Horvath’s article was referred to broadly online. (It was
reprinted in the Amateur Computerist. See:
Other mailing lists carried this discussion. One such mailing list was
the mailing list known as the IFWP mailing list. This mailing list was
mainly made up of people who favored the privatization but had
disagreements about how it was being carried out. However, there has
been a long and sustained discussion of some of the issues on this
mailing list during the course of the 1998-1999 period. The mailing list
has now been ended.
Another mailing list carrying some discussion of the ICANN
controversy was the Telecom Digest which was a moderated mailing list
and also a moderated Usenet newsgroup. The moderator of this mailing
Page 16
list, Pat Townsend, had directed the mailing list for a number of years
and it was highly regarded by many online. Townsend expressed his
concern about what was happening and felt that those who are online
know what was going on and that they have a chance to consider the
effect that ICANN’s privatization may have on their future net access.
He posted some of the articles sent to him by the critics of ICANN and
requested that ICANN advocates like Vint Cerf or others respond. He
also received some responses he was told he couldn’t post. During this
period, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) was
providing some minimal financial support for the mailing list. An
official of the ITU wrote to the list, expressing his displeasure with the
digest carrying discussion critical of ICANN. The official indicated that
the problem was that the critics weren’t reliable and that any time one
does something there will be criticism. He suggested that if the mailing
list continued to carry such discussion, it would put in jeopardy the
funding that was received from the ITU.
In September, 1999, the organization Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility (CPSR) held a conference and invited a few of
those opposing ICANN and ICANN advocates to be speakers at the
conference. The conference was sponsored by the Open Society
Foundation (Soros Foundation) and the Marino Institute Foundation.
CPSR also invited Ralph Nader, who presented a proposal for a
multilateral agreement of different nations to support ICANN. A
response to Nader’s proposal was posted on mailing lists critiquing it for
not challenging the way that the U.S. government had created ICANN
to transfer essential functions of the Internet’s infrastructure from the
public sector to the control of private entity created illegitimately by the
U.S. government. Also the critique challenged Nader’s claim that online
users are to be regarded as consumers. Portraying users and netizens as
consumers limits their rights and their ability to function as netizens,
presenting them instead as those who are involved in buying what others
sell.
There have been a number of other important developments in the
ICANN controversy. There have been letters sent to executive branch
officials by U.S. Congressmen asking for explanations of behind the
scenes government activity to create ICANN and to form the Govern-
Page 17
ment Advisory Council (GAC), an advisory body of government
officials to ICANN. Congress asked the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to investigate the secret process which resulted in the choice of
the interim board members for ICANN. The GAO was asked for an
opinion on the authority of the U.S. government to create ICANN and
to transfer public property to ICANN, along with the authority to fund
U.S. representatives to attend the GAC meetings. Other government
agencies have become involved in trying to challenge ICANN’s closed
and arbitrary structure. For example, advocates from the U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) have complained to ICANN about the
lack of procedural rights for small business owners and others to
participate in ICANN’s activities. A few recent books have been
published which note the problem of privatizing the public Internet func-
tions. (See, for example, Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert
McChesney, University of Illinois Press, 1999, p. 134)
What are the lessons one can draw from the experience of the past
year and a half participating in the fight against the privatization of
essential Internet functions?
Is the Internet a Laboratory for Democracy?
I have found that the Internet provides for important ways for
citizens to participate in and extend democracy. Also, in the process of
participating online, I have learned something about the nature of
democracy.
I have been able to communicate with other citizens in the U.S. and
netizens around the world on issues of public concern. I have learned
how the principles behind the creation of Usenet and of the Internet are
important democratic principles. Usenet was created to make it possible
for people to communicate. The Internet was created for a similar
reason, but phrased in a slightly different way, i.e. to remove the
constraints on communication. It was also created to facilitate resource
sharing across diverse networks.
I have gotten help and support from netizens abroad to be able to be
a citizen at home. I have gotten help from other citizens in the U.S. to be
able to contribute to netizenship abroad. There are new democratic
forms and concepts being pioneered by those concerned with the
Page 18
development of the Internet and of Usenet that will help in the battles.
I have come to the conclusion that the Internet is a laboratory for
democracy. Those who are willing to contribute in this exploration will
contribute to the further development and spread of the Internet and will
gain in their ability to be better netizens and more effective citizens. But
it isn’t easy and we need improved ways to support each other and to
work together.
In summary I want to describe a recent interaction that the Internet
has made possible. In the process of taking up the challenges of the
ICANN controversy I was invited onto a mailing list. For a while posts
to the mailing list were encouraged, but after challenging Nader’s plan
to represent users as consumers, moderators of the mailing list said they
weren’t going to post much on ICANN any longer. They continued to
post the articles they wrote, but they didn’t post another post that I sent,
even when it was not about ICANN. Also I had a talk I had planned to
give cancelled. I wrote a post about how I had previously had other talks
I was scheduled to give cancelled, and how articles I had been invited to
write for publications, including a publication by the Internet Society,
were subsequently pulled from publication. The moderators of the
mailing list that wasn’t posting my articles wouldn’t post this, but I
posted it on another mailing list that I still had access to.
Someone from Norway wrote me in response, describing the
frustration in his country with the U.S. corporate effort to dominate
around the world using the Internet as the mechanism for e-commerce.
Also he described some of the activity of those in the Linux movement
in different countries to create an alternative to Microsoft’s operating
system. He raised the question whether something like that is needed for
the Internet as well. In the process of the discussion with him I was
reminded of Licklider’s vision for the future of the network. In an article
published in 1968, written with Robert Taylor, Licklider and Taylor
wrote about the vision for the network that was only just being planned.
They wrote
1
:
For the society, the impact will be good or bad depending
mainly on the question: Will ‘to be on line’ be a privilege or a
right? If only a favored segment of the population gets a chance to
enjoy the advantage of ‘intelligence amplification,’ the network
Page 19
may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual
opportunity.
On the other hand, if the network idea should prove to do for
education what a few have envisioned in hope, if not in concrete
detailed plan, and if all minds should prove to be responsive, surely
the boon to humankind would be beyond measure.
Unemployment would disappear from the face of the earth
forever, for consider the magnitude of the task of adapting the
networks software to all the new generations of computers coming
closer and closer upon the heels of their predecessors until the entire
population of the world is caught up in an infinite crescendo of
on-line interactive debugging.
The Linux movement provides a material example of those carrying
on Licklider’s vision as they collaborate and work together to debug the
developing software to make it possible for the Internet to spread and
develop.
But Usenet and Internet pioneers I have known have taught me that
there is another form of debugging that is equally important.
2
That
debugging is to identify and solve the problems of the Internet’s
continuing development. Just as the Internet provides the means to
participate in the creation and development of Linux, similarly it also
provides the means to participate in the creation and development of the
administration of its political and administrative infrastructure. This is
in some ways a harder challenge, but to fail to do so is to leave the
vested interests free to stifle and then end the future development of the
Internet as a two-way interactive communications medium. They want
to replace it with a centrally controlled and e-commerce directed
commercenet.
3
Their slogan is “making the world safe for
e-commerce.”
4
Netizens need a slogan as well, one which will indicate
the need for the continuing interactive participation of users in the
growth of the Internet and of the democratic participation of citizens and
netizens to solve the problems of present and future Internet develop-
ment. Perhaps such a slogan is “the Internet is a laboratory for democ-
racy for ever more participatory debugging to identify and solve the
problems of future Internet development.”
Page 20
Notes
1. From In Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider 1915-1990, Aug. 7, 1990, p. 40, reprinted by
Digital Research Center; originally published as “The Computer as a Communication
Device,” in Science and Technology, April, 1968. They also write:
“First, life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with
whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of
interests and goals than by accidents of proximity. Second, communication will
be more effective and productive, and therefore more enjoyable. Third, much
communication and interaction will be with programs and programming models,
which will be...both challenging and rewarding. And, fourth, there will be plenty
of opportunity for everyone (who can afford a console) to find his calling, for the
whole world of information, with all its fields and disciplines, will be open to
him, with programs ready to guide him or to help him explore.”
2. Examples of such debugging of problems includes the role played by Mark Crispin
on the TCP digest in the 1982 period before the cutover to TCP/IP on the ARPAnet.
Crispin noted that TCP/IP was a good protocol but that milestones for the cutover had
been planned even though the needed implementations for the PDP-10 computers
hadn’t been developed. Similarly, on early Usenet a number of the Usenet pioneers
encouraged open discussion of problems and changes as they maintained that Usenet
was a users’ network and unless users participated in the decisions they wouldn’t be
decisions that were good decisions.
3. ICANN is an example of creating a centrally controlled management form to
centralize control over the Internet in a few private hands. The U.S. government
claimed that it would transit the publicly owned central functions of the Internet's
infrastructure to a privately owned and controlled ICANN by September 2000. They
did not succeed in doing so and as of Spring 2001, the U.S. government is still involved
in the contracts with ICANN determining the administration of these functions.
4. The General Accounting Office (GAO) report about ICANN and the U.S.
Department of Commerce, issued in July 2000, noted that there was a problem with the
U.S. government plan to privatize the publicly owned functions of the Internet's
infrastructure. The report pointed out: “Under the Property Clause of the Constitution
disposal of government property requires statutory authority. U.S. Constitution, Art IV,
SS 3.” (p. 26). The report noted that the Executive branch of the U.S. government could
not just transfer public property to a private company. That there were laws and
constitutional obligations regarding federal property and its deposition.
Page 21
Ford Model E Program
by William Rohler
On February 3, 2000, Ford Motor Company Chairman Bill Ford,
Chief Executive Officer and President Jac Nasser, and UAW President
Stephen Yokich announced that Ford would offer all of its eligible active
employees a computer, printer and Internet access for home use for a fee
($5.00 per month in the U.S., for example) for three years. All active,
full-time hourly and salaried employees of Ford Motor Company
worldwide – including Ford Credit and Visteon – are eligible.
“Technology and the Internet, in particular, are changing the way
we do our business,” said Jac Nasser. “Providing home computers for
employees is a tremendous step in the right direction of connecting all
of our employees with what’s going on with the company – the way we
run the business and the way we communicate with our markets.”
“The intent of this program is to bring the capability of our
employees up to the highest level,” said company Vice President and
Chief Information Officer Jim Yost. “In order to do that, they have to
have access to the Internet. Not only to learn more about Ford, but about
the customer and e-commerce in general.”
The program was first called Ford Employee Connectivity Program
(FECP). But on July 28, 2000, it was changed to the Model E program.
“Model E is the modern equivalent of Henry Ford’s $5 a day wage – a
breakthrough approach to empowering a workforce,” said Jac Nasser
during a speech on July 27 at the National Press Club in Washington,
D.C.
The computer is a Hewlett-Packard with an Intel Celeron 500
megahertz (MHz) processor, 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM, 4.3 gigabyte
(GB) hard disk drive, a CD-ROM player, a 15 inch monitor, speakers,
a modem, software, a HP 640 Color Inkjet printer, and Internet access
from UUNET, an MCI WorldCom company based in Fairfax, Va.
PeoplePC is coordinating the overall program for Ford. The software
package will include word processing, spreadsheet and antivirus
programs, and other extras, including Encarta encyclopedia and Quicken
Page 22
financial software.
The program is optional and the computer package will become the
property of the employee and will be covered by a three-year parts and
service warranty through PeoplePC. Employees will not be restricted in
what Web sites they are able to access nor will they be monitored by
Ford or by PeoplePC. Employees will access the Internet through a
special portal that will allow them to customize their options, prefer-
ences and shortcuts. The portal will offer direct links to many Ford
services and information, and it will be customized for different regions
of the world. “When employees choose to use the portal, they can get
work-related information,” explained Yost. “But we’re not limiting it to
that use. We want them to get on the Web and use it like our customers
would.” Every employee will get two e-mail addresses and tools to
construct his or her own Web site. The program is not available for
retirees and part-time employees. There are upgrade packages for people
that want to pay extra for them.
Model E program Director Steve Paschen said “Each country we go
to has a different tax structure. In some countries we go to, this is
considered a benefit, and certain countries tax benefits, and they either
tax the employee and/or they tax the employers.” That raises the cost of
the program to potentially prohibitive levels and has slowed the rollout.
However progress is being made in several countries, including France
and Germany, which should soon permit Ford employees there to begin
logging on.
Paschen also said “In the U.S., people have just gotten their
computers within the last few months. They’re just getting online;
they’re just getting comfortable with it. So I think we’ve got a huge
opportunity in front of us to start to really provide them the tools and the
information they’re looking for.”
“Those are the kinds of things that I think we can really have a lot
of fun with and we can really make a huge difference,” Paschen
concluded.
Page 23
The 1984-1987 Battle over
Computer Classes
This is an historical account of the fight that developed over worker
access to computer programming classes at a large auto company in
Michigan in 1983-1987. This story contains valuable lessons about the
problem U.S. workers face in trying to obtain education in the work-
place. These events occurred at the Ford Motor Company’s Dearborn
Engine Plant.
Schoolhouse in the Factory
The story starts with the massive layoffs in the auto industry in the
early 1970s. In response, workers determined that they would fight for
shorter hours of work so that more workers could be employed. From
1973-1979 U.S. auto workers won shorter working hours in their
contracts in the form of individual days off, called ‘paid personal days.’
Together with the reduction in hours of work, the auto companies
undertook major investment programs to update their technologies.
Describing this in a 1994 talk, one Ford management spokesperson
explained:
By the end of 1983 the North American auto industry had spent an
estimated $80 billion on retooling and renovating its manufacturing
and assembly plants (more money, by the way, than it took to put
a man on the moon).
The Dearborn Engine Plant has participated fully in this indus-
try-wide revolution. Over a two and one-half year period,
1978-1981, we spent more than $590 million to transform the plant
from an antiquated producer of V-8 engines into one of the most
modern four-cylinder engine manufacturers in the world. And the
improvements continue. Last month we completed the conversion
of our plant from a producer of 1.6 liter to 1.9 liter engines.... In
1980, we installed state-of-the-art automation that was hard-line, or
not easily adapted for new applications. Since 1980, we have
increased dramatically our deployment of robots and flexible
automation units. By 1990, we expect to have 70 such units....
Page 24
Along with this new technology, the 1982 UAW-Ford contract
included a paid education benefit for auto workers. Under what was
called the Nickel Fund, workers gave up a raise of five cents per hour to
contribute to an education fund.
Describing this fund, the same Ford official explained:
At the Dearborn Engine Plant our education facility includes the
UAW-Ford Employee Development Center, which teaches basic
literacy skills and high school equivalency courses and the Learning
Center, which provides basic and advanced technical training.
A basic reference document for this and subsequent contracts was
a University of Michigan evaluation report. The report described the
creation and development of the Employee Development Center at the
Dearborn Engine Plant, or what was called less officially the School-
house in the Factory. The study explained that Ford workers desired
“education” as opposed to “training” and distinguished between the two.
Addressing workers’ views on education, the report said:
An analysis of their remarks reveals that no matter how stated,
regardless of context, and despite specific topic of conversation,
these individuals believe that education (as distinguished from
‘training’) can liberate them, can enrich their lives, can be the
vehicle which will allow them to do and accomplish things they
believe are important to them. Education has an irresistible appeal.
While many of the participants spoke of the ‘utilitarian’ implica-
tions of education, what was most evident was how deeply they felt
about the ‘meaning’ of education. Education represents an idea, a
touchstone which literally has become a matter of faith.
(...) In their remarks, these men displayed a very sophisticated
ability to distinguish between ‘education’ and ‘schooling’...The
single statement which perhaps best conveys this message came
from a man who is rapidly approaching retirement, ‘Overall, I just
think it’s one of the best things that’s happened to Ford’s and I’ve
been here 15 years....to have a set-up like this where you can – right
here on the job – you can do anything.’
The report suggests that workers enrolled for both practical reasons
and broader purposes. It explains:
Participants describe their reasons for enrolling in such terms as ‘I
Page 25
wish to improve myself’...‘I’m looking ahead’.. At the same time
the participants reported that education is essential for gaining
insight into their lives and providing direction for the future. When
discussing reasons for participation, the participants invariably
indicated that the decision to enroll was a personal choice – an act
taken independent of any consideration related to company or union
interest in the EDC.’
The fifty percent drop-out rate that occurred at the center was
similar to what occurred in adult education across the U.S., but the
report states “No one reported withdrawing because of unhappiness with
the program or staff or because educational expectations were not being
met.” Reasons given for choosing the DEP program were “the ease and
convenience of continuing their education at an in-plant educational
facility. Participants reiterated the theme constantly. Many participants
acknowledged that they could have gone to their local public school
program and received similar services but it was ‘too much trouble.’
Being able to go to the Center before or after work or during lunch “was
a powerful inducement leading to enrollment.”
The report also explained “a clear orientation to learning is present
among the participants. While this is not to deny the validity of
utilitarian outcomes, most enrollees hold a broader view of the meaning
of their participation in the program.” Among the reasons for participat-
ing was helping children more readily with their homework. Also,
“participants sense that enrollment in the program will help them
become more flexible regarding future employment and they feel that
education is necessary to help them keep up with the changing technol-
ogy of their jobs.” The report continues, “Participants constantly
expressed concerns about the future, about the need to be prepared, to be
able to cope with an increasingly complex society and a constantly
changing work place. Education was viewed as the basic means for
preparing for the future and for sustaining an orderly transition into the
future.” Referring to the computer classes offered at the Schoolhouse in
the Factory, the report explained that “participants in the computer
classes are primarily skilled trades workers with at least a high school
diploma, and usually some advanced training.”
It said, “Participants in the computer classes, while commenting
Page 26
favorably on the class, frequently expressed the opinion that too many
enrollees were admitted for the number of computers available....”
Concerning the teaching staff, it found that “Participants believe that
staff members view and treat them as self-reliant, autonomous adults, –
an attitude they frequently contrasted with the way they were viewed
and treated in their roles as workers....”
Among the study’s conclusions were:
* The response to the computer courses was enormous. It would
make sense to have these courses ready to go when a center opens
to attract attention....
*More course offerings for workers with higher educational skills.
Many of the skilled-trades people we interviewed expressed an
interest in further educational programs though the EDC for the
same reasons as production people enrolled --proximity, convenient
hours, pleasant surroundings etc....
Ford received this evaluation in June 1984. A new contract
incorporating these recommendations was prepared to govern the period
of September 1984 – June 1985.
The school established under this contract employed a full-time
program specialist and three certified teachers assigned to the basic
skills program, each working approximately 22 hours per week. Further,
a computer programming teacher offered two courses: Computer
Literacy I and II.
Although the course title emphasized ‘literacy’, these courses were
at reasonably difficult levels. For example, after requiring familiarity
with BASIC, the course description for Computer Literacy II read:
“Topics covered will be...nested for/next loops, one and two dimension
arrays, writing programs, on error statement, trace and no trace, bubble
and binary sorts, flow charting, math functions, string functions and data
types, sequential and random access files, hi resolution graphics and
shape tables, an introduction to the Apple’s Monitor Mode.”
Facilities were small, with one computer room equipped with
several computers.
Rouge workers greeted the computer classes enthusiastically. There
was much interest in computers, and especially in programming.
Popularity was such that workers recommended classes to their fellow
Page 27
workers and the program grew. Interest was sufficient to open summer
classes in 1985. Also, workers requested that additional advanced
classes be offered, that there be a time when the computer classroom
was open outside of class time, and that there be an instructor available
in a lab setting so they could come outside of class or if they had to miss
a class. Visitors from around the U.S. and the world frequently visited
the Schoolhouse in the Factory and the computer classes.
Decline, Resistance, and Shutdown
In Fall 1985 the conditions at the Schoolhouse in the Factory
suddenly changed. At first, union and company officials wanted to know
what was being taught in the computer classes. The Schoolhouse
director showed them syllabi and the class text.
Then the director told staff that they would not be allowed to
distribute a brochure she had prepared announcing the computer classes,
along with the other course offerings, throughout the Rouge plants. This
brochure, called “It’s Your Nickel”, was only to be distributed inside the
Dearborn Engine Plant. She was to create a different brochure to
distribute Rouge-wide that could not mention the days and hours when
computer classes were to be offered. Further, the union newspaper
would include the computer listings at the Dearborn Engine Plant when
its new issue came out, at a date uncertain. But the union newspaper
appeared with only a vague notice of the computer classes, and several
classes were cancelled as a result. From then on until classes ended in
February 1987, there was a battle to continue the computer classes.
On May 13, 1986, the following petition was sent to UAW Local
600 office:
Chairperson at the Dearborn Engine Plant:
May 13, 1986
We, the students of the computer training classes at the
Dearborn Engine Plant training facility, have been informed there
will be no summer classes and possibly no fall classes.
There are at least 29 people interested in summer computer
classes. And as many interested in fall classes.
Page 28
We, the students of this computer class, would like to know
why it is so hard to continue education in computers. We have been
experiencing for the past two or three semesters frustration in
continuing education and advancement in computer training. When
polled about advanced classes, we desire them, but then they are not
offered.
We would like to know why they are not offered because we
want to continue and advance. (It was also printed in the union
paper which led us to believe there were summer classes available
to computer students.) We await your answer so that we may
register for summer classes when they are offered.
Concerned students of the computer classes,
(signed by over 20 students)
Also, computer students wrote, passed out, and posted a leaflet at the
Ford Rouge Plant. The leaflet said:
UAW members have been fighting for 1-1/2 years against
attempts to cut out the classes in computer programming held at the
DEP. UAW members contribute 17 cents an hour straight time and
50 cents an hour overtime to have these classes available. The most
critical point for UAW members is to have training in high
technology. How can UAW members be trained in high technology
by cutting computer classes out?
We contacted the Chairman in the Engine Plant, and he didn’t
give any result. We contacted the management officials in charge
of training in the Engine Plant. We contacted the President of Local
600, and the officials in charge of the program at Ford Motor Co.,
and at the UAW. We sent letters everywhere. We are tired of being
denied benefits we’re entitled to. We’re tired of being shuffled from
one person to another so as to cover up who we’re fighting. We
don’t know what classes are being offered from one course to the
next. We ask for programming in BASIC and they offer PASCAL.
We ask for PASCAL to be continued, they offer advanced BASIC.
There are no rights to grievance how the monies are being spent.
Page 29
But the letter of Understanding (in the 1984 UAW-Ford Contract)
says: ‘In view of the Company’s interest in affording maximum
opportunity for employees to progress with advancing technology,
the Company shall make available appropriate specialized training
programs for employees.’ But this is not being provided...
Despite the efforts of workers to make the problems known to Ford
management and union officials, and despite efforts to protest the
ever-worsening conditions via student and staff letters, those contacted
refused to investigate the problem. Instead, students and staff faced
retaliation threats and job harassment. By February 1987, no further
computer classes were scheduled at the Schoolhouse in the Factory and
classes ended.
Realizing that computer classes would no longer be available,
several students and their teacher decided to work on a newsletter, the
genesis of the Amateur Computerist. As our first issue in February 1988
explained:
This newsletter is to inform people of developments in an effort
to advance computer education. Workers at the Ford Rouge Plant
in Dearborn, MI were denied computer programming classes. There
was an effort by administrators of the UAW-Ford program at the
Dearborn Engine Plant to kill interest in computers and computer
programming. We want to keep interest alive because computers are
the future. We want to disperse information to users about comput-
ers. Since the computer is still in the early stage of development, the
ideas and experiences of the users need to be shared and built on if
this technology is to advance. To this end, this newsletter is
dedicated to all people interested in learning about computers.
Page 30
The State of the Net in Hungary
by John Horvath
As the seconds tick the time out for the second millennium,
Hungary is still playing catch-up on the long and winding infobahn.
High telephone charges coupled with metered rates for local calls make
domestic access still a luxury for many. In addition, the country’s digital
infrastructure is still inadequate to handle large volumes of traffic and
high bandwidth applications.
Yet despite these and many other shortcomings, Hungary has made
some progress over the past few years. The Internet has finally broken
out from its isolation as a seedy and potential dangerous place for
youngsters and society at large. Indeed, even the extreme fringes of the
political spectrum now have a presence on the Internet.
The Internet as a source of mass media has gained ground in the
past year, albeit still very slowly. Conventional media – radio, televi-
sion, and print – have increasingly made references to the “new” media.
In fact, many have their own online presence. Shows dealing specifically
with the Internet have also been on the rise.
As for e-commerce, although still in its embryonic stages, it has
started to become more prominent. This year saw a big boost for the
commercial Internet as the country’s largest savings bank, OTP,
launched an array of online services. This has taken place in conjunction
with the rise of other business activities, like ordering a pizza online. As
a result, advertising is beginning to spill over from “cyberspace”. Many
advertisements placed within traditional venues now include a web site
or e-mail address.
Coupled with all these advances, there has been an exponential rise
in native language content. This is directly related to the growth in user
demographics which, although still well below the European average,
not to mention North America and Japan, has risen substantially. The
latest demographic figures from IDC show that there are 650,000
Internet users in Hungary and this is expected to increase by almost 30
percent in the next three years. Much of this can be attributed to the
Page 31
government’s effort at wiring the schools to the Internet. Known as
Sulinet, the program has introduced many students, teachers, and
administrators to the world of computers and networking, and has
offered them an opportunity to go online that they otherwise would not
have had.
There have also been several private sector initiatives at broadening
the user base. Cable access has made its appearance, providing more
reliable service and higher bandwidth. Not only this, but with cable
threatening the ISP position of the country’s leading telecom provider,
MATAV, the access market has become more competitive, to the benefit
of consumers.
In addition to this, the post office has been busy establishing
“telepost” offices in various communities. In conjunction with usual
postal services, these offices enable people to use computers and the
Internet, providing them with e-mail and a host of other services. A total
of 17 such offices are presently scattered throughout the country, with
plans to open another 30 offices next year.
Although the progress the country has made over the year to bring
the Internet to the average citizen is noteworthy, it is still far too early
to proclaim that the Internet revolution has “taken off” in Hungary. On
the contrary, the country still faces many challenges. Unless these are
addressed, the potential of the Internet will be stagnant.
One of the major problems still faced, not only by Hungary but
other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, is that the area is still
being used a dumping ground for redundant technology. The new
computer system at OTP, for example, which was purchased and
implemented in the mid-nineties, is outdated by at least a decade.
This impediment of redundant technology, due either to ignorance
or economic considerations, is not limited to merely Hungarian
enterprises, however. A Dutch bank operating in Hungary, which last
year implemented a new retail card system, only found out at the
beginning of this year that its new system was not Y2K compliant.
On the commercial side of things, although the presence of the
Internet is obvious in advertising and marketing strategies, Hungarian
companies (especially SMEs) still are unable to see the advertising
potential nor fully grasp the dynamics of online advertising. On the other
Page 32
hand, those that do are often behind the times, perpetually caught in a
cycle of playing catch-up with western trends. For instance, although
many companies have now begun to make a shift toward the Internet,
the new trend in the U.S. is to actually “flee the dot-com”. As Keith
Dawson writes in his weekly log, Tasty Bits from the Technology Front
(see: http://tbtf.com/blog/1999-11-07.html as well as
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB942276734846706339.htm and
http://www.msnbc.com/news/333919.asp), “focus groups are beginning
to show that average folks don’t remember the companies, don’t like the
ads, and resent the ever-present image of the greedy twenty-something
zillionaire.”
Meanwhile, telework remains a remote and wishful concept.
Despite increased traffic congestion and pollution in most of Hungary’s
major cities, especially Budapest, it’s not economically feasible to have
people work from home, given the poor state of the telecommunications
infrastructure – not to mention the cost. Moreover, most Hungarians still
work along lines of an industrial and agrarian economy, as opposed to
a knowledge-based one.
As for e-commerce, while making a grandiose appearance, it’s
caught in an awkward predicament. To be sure, e-commerce in Hungary
will grow but, if present trends continue, its influence will be limited.
The main reason is that many are wary of initiating a system for serious
online transactions. Even non-monetary transactions, such as booking
and reservation services, are not widely available. This is because there
lingers a fear and mistrust of online services. For instance, while the
ability to order and pay by credit card over the telephone has relatively
a long and established tradition elsewhere – notably the U.S. and Canada
– it’s still a concept very much alien to the Hungarian economy.
A less than extensive user base is an additional problem. Hungary
remains one of the most expensive places in Europe for Internet use.
Although the increase in the number of users may look impressive, it
still represents less than 7 percent of the population, with only 14
percent of all PCs in Hungary connected to the Internet.
While efforts have been made to get more people online, access is
still hindered by high telecommunication charges. This also goes for
cable, which costs about a quarter of an average Hungarian’s salary. A
Page 33
study commissioned by the OECD confirmed that high connection fees
coupled with the high cost of local telephone calls is impeding the
uptake of the Internet in Hungary. Unfortunately, this situation looks set
to worsen, with a 20-40% rise in telephone charges expected in the new
year.
Alternative efforts to entice more people online, such as the post
office’s telepost offices, are not only expensive but also suffer from
inconsistent and lopsided development. In the Galga valley, for example,
a region about 40 km east of Budapest, a small village has a telepost
office while neighbouring towns and villages, which are larger and more
strategically located, don’t.
As for the social aspect of computer networking, here, too,
formidable challenges and obstacles exist. While the Sulinet program
may have succeeded to a certain extent in introducing many to the
medium, students and teachers are, nevertheless, not encouraged to
understand the medium, but are taught to simply use it. Similarly, for the
community of users as a whole, the concept of a “net community” is
lacking somewhat. Most know nothing about ICANN, no less have an
understanding nor even interest about any of the issues surrounding the
future of the Internet.
Another challenge faced by Hungarians embracing the Internet is
the view of computer-mediated communications as an alternative source
for information. Unfortunately, the Internet is still regarded as a
supplement to conventional media, a view that is being reinforced by
radio, television, and print.
Meanwhile, the old habit of regarding the Internet as a cesspool of
anarchy and perversity dies hard. Earlier in the year, a report on hackers
was aired on Hungarian television. Instead of presenting a comprehen-
sive view into this sub-culture, with an additional follow-up into
Hungary’s unique hacker culture, the report turned out to be nothing
more than a shoddy play on Eric Raymond’s dichotomy of hackers and
crackers (see “Homesteading the Noonesphere”), the simplified
conclusion being that one group (hackers) is benevolent (they are people
who try to find weaknesses in systems) while the other (crackers) are
nothing more than a malevolent bunch of people.
To this extent, a 3-5 person special group within the police will be
Page 34
established in the new year to deal with “illegal” activities on the
Internet. According to media reports, the main purpose of this depart-
ment is to scan Hungarian sites for pedophilia and bomb-making
information which, according to authorities and the media, are the two
most “dangerous” types of content to be had. However, as with all such
seemingly noble efforts to protect the public from harm, the objectives
are vague enough to be used as a means for silencing social discontent
and political dissent.
Despite these shortcomings, the future is not entirely hopeless; nor
will it be entirely mundane. One thing to watch for is the possible rise
of Linux in Hungary. The government had already squandered a chance
when it had decided on Unix for the Sulinet program. Not that it
mattered much, for Hungary still has a vibrant hacker underground.
(Admittedly, the efforts of the Business Software Alliance have not gone
unnoticed either, as many first time users and administrators in public
institutions take the threats of the software police seriously.)
With the anticipated release of a Hungarian version of Star Office
some time at the beginning of the new millennium, it remains to be seen
how Linux will affect the digital landscape in Hungary. As Linux
applications become more compatible with commercial (i.e. Microsoft)
products, cash-strapped institutions and administrators may seize the
opportunities offered by free software.
On the other hand, Microsoft’s slick and subtle media campaigns
over the past year (Bill Gates is regarded by many users in Hungary as
one of the main forces behind the Internet) has done much to cement
their level of support. At the same time, Linux’s unfamiliar and
relatively less user-friendly interface are obstacles which still need to be
overcome. Other systems, meanwhile, such as BeOS or FreeBSD, are
not only insignificant in number but are also unavailable in the local
language.
For Hungary, the irony of the whole situation is that although the
country boasts some of the best talent in the field of computer program-
ming and mathematics, it’s not reflected within the general population.
Instead of bringing Hungary up to speed on the “infobahn,” this level of
talent has either added to the country’s brain drain syndrome or has
taken part in the construction of the multi-tier “information society”
Page 35
which has emerged. Only time will tell if this is a temporary enigma or
will turn out to be a chronic handicap.
A Loss for Netizens
[Editor’s note: The following e-mail message was posted to the Netizens
mailing list at the end of Jan 2000. Kerry Miller contributed often to
discussions and debates on the Internet and fought for the spread of the
Net and its value.]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:42:43 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected]
Subject: [netz] About a Loss for Netizens
On Friday night, January 28, 2000, the Netizens mailing list
administrator received a very sad message. The message asked him to
take Kerry Miller’s e-mail address off the mailing list because Kerry had
died on January 18.
After asking another mailing list administrator if he knew any
further details, we were told that Kerry had indeed died on January 18,
of a heart attack after shoveling snow. He was 75 years old.
Kerry Miller has been an important contributor to the Netizens
mailing list almost since it began. He posted regularly and encouraged
others to post by commenting on their posts.
I remember Kerry’s first e-mail to me several years ago. I told him
about the Netizens mailing list. He soon joined and participated actively
and often.
One time Kerry signed off the mailing list. I wrote him shortly
afterwards asking how everything was and telling him about some of the
new Internet problems that the Netizens mailing list was concerned with
at the time. Kerry resubscribed and contributed again helping to make
it possible to have a Netizen challenge to that particular problem
confronting the Internet.
Page 36
I didn’t know anything about Kerry’s life until after hearing he died.
I then learned from the moderator of the other mailing list that though
he had never met Kerry, he had hoped to meet him several times. That
Kerry had moved from Kansas in the U.S. to Canada to marry someone
he had met on another mailing list.
I will miss Kerry very much. The Netizens mailing list is the poorer
for this loss. I hope others will share any thoughts they have about Kerry
and that we will all make an effort to contribute a bit extra to make up
for the fact that the Netizens mailing list and the Internet have lost one
of their important contributors.
Ronda
Reprinted from Netizens Association Discussion List Digest February 20, 2000,
Volume 01 : Number 354 http://umcc.ais.org/~jrh/netizens/digest/Digest_1-354.txt
A Moment of Silence for
Michael Muuss
[Editor’s note: The following appeared on the IFWP and Netizens
mailing lists.]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:54:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email protected]>
Subject: [IFWP] a moment of silence for Mike Muuss - confirmation?
a moment of silence as we honor a network great.
I-95 Accident claims life Churchville, Md - (AP)
A double accident Monday night on Interstate 95 in Harford County
killed a Havre de Grace man. State police say 42-year-old Michael
Muuss died when his car hit a vehicle left partially in the road after the
Page 37
first crash. Muuss’ car then spun into the path of a tractor-trailer, which
pushed him into a vehicle stopped on the right shoulder to help victims
of the earlier crash. The truck driver was taken to Harford Memorial
Hospital. The accidents occurred about 9:30 p.m. on the northbound side
of the highway in Churchville. The first involved two cars and a
tractor-trailer. A driver in that crash was treated at Harford Memorial
and released. Police say it’s not clear why either accident occurred. No
one has been charged, but the investigation is continuing. Traffic was
able to get by for most of the night, but it took until 2 a.m. before all
lanes were opened.
> From: Sean Donelan <[email protected]>
> Subject: The author of PING is reported dead
>
> Since many network operators consider PING as one of their essential
> tools, I thought this would be of interest to the list.
>
> I haven’t been able to confirm this, but I haven’t been able to reach
> Mike.
>
> Forwarded message:
>
> >Subject: The Creator of Ping is dead...
> >
> > Mike Muuss, the author of the PING program used on networks
> > everywhere, died last night in a traffic accident on U.S. route 95 in
> > Maryland. He was an alumnus of Johns Hopkins (BS1978 or 1979
> > I think).
> >
> >Funeral arrangements have not been made yet, but I’ll probably be
> > going back to Maryland almost immediately to attend.
>
> http://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/ping.html
-------------------------------
Page 38
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:20:45 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [netz] Fwd: A moment of silence for Mike Muuss
It was with a real sense of loss that I read the notice that Joe Pistritto
posted on a mailing list last Tuesday.
>Subject: Re: IP: With great sadness: Mike Muuss has passed on
>Cc: [email protected]
>From: “Joseph C. Pistritto” <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Last night (Monday), Mike Muuss, famous for creating the PING
> program as well as BRL-CAD, died in a traffic accident at 11p.m. on
> U.S. highway 95 near Aberdeen, Maryland. He was going home from
> work at the time. Mike worked his entire career at the Army Research
> Laboratories in Aberdeen Maryland, and was a specialist in first
> networking, then solid modeling. Many in the SIGGRAPH community
> will know of him because of the BRL-CAD package that he authored
> (with others later) and his animation work which was shown at
> several SIGGRAPH conferences.
I wanted to add:
It is indeed very sad to hear of this great loss to the networking
community.
There is another important contribution of Mike’s to the develop-
ment of the Internet. He created and moderated the ARPAnet TCP/IP
Digest which helped in making the cut-over from NCP to TCP/IP on the
ARPAnet in January 1983. The TCP/IP Digest provided a forum in
which to discuss the problems that those who were to do the cut-over
identified so they could be solved.
The cut-over set the basis for the creation of the Internet as a
meta-network of diverse networks.
After the cut-over, the ARPAnet was split into MILNET, an
operational network for the DoD, and the ARPAnet, a research network.
These two different networks were able to communicate using
TCP/IP. And that is some of the basis of the Internet as we know it
today.
Page 39
A while ago, I wrote a paper about the role the TCP/IP Digest
played in the cutover online. The URL is:
http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/tcpdraft.txt In the research I have
done about the early ARPAnet mailing lists, Mike’s role in contributing
to the networking and UNIX communities stands out. His efforts helped
to connect these two pioneering communities. He will indeed be missed.
Ronda
Culture Clash:
The Google Purchase of the 1995-2001
Usenet Archive
And the Online Community
By Ronda Hauben
Google Takes Over Deja’s Name and Usenet Archive
A Usenet user in Seattle, Washington was using the Usenet archive
at Deja.com on February 12, 2001. He went out to get some coffee.
When he returned,
http://www.deja.com had changed to:
http://groups.google.com. This is symbolic of how the online community
learned that Google, Inc. had purchased the Usenet archive from Deja.*
A number of users expressed their dismay that the purchase resulted
in Google taking the Usenet archive off line and substituting an archive
of Usenet posts that Google had been collecting since August 2000.
Google’s beta version of a user interface for the archives was, many felt,
quite inferior to what Deja had online. One of the noted problems was
that the Google interface didn’t have a means to view the discussions
that a post was part of (known as discussion threads). Instead the posts
were presented individually, in a manner similar to how one might
Page 40
present the results of a web search. An article published in The Register
on Feb. 13, 2001 expresses the frustration of users with the fact that
Google had not maintained access to Deja’s user interface and online
archive until they got their own software developed. Subsequent articles
in The Register on Feb. 14, 2001 and Feb. 15, 2001 included comments
by Google’s CEO Larry Page about why Google had not maintained the
Deja archives online. He promised some would be back online in a
month and the rest in ninety days.
Others in the Usenet community expressed their relief hearing of the
purchase of the 1995-2001 Usenet archive by Google. They felt Google
had developed a good web search engine. This apparently gave them
confidence that Google would be able to create a good user interface for
a Usenet archives as well. They urged giving Google time to show what
they would do.
Research Origins of Google Web Search Engine
A report at the National Science Foundation in 1999 explains that
“the ‘Google’ search engine was developed by Hector Garcia-Molina’s
group at Stanford as an outgrowth of the Digital Libraries Initiative
(DLI) project.” The development of the Google search engine was
carried out as part of a DLI research project at Stanford University in
California. Several of those connected with this project are now working
at Google either as technical advisors or as employees.
In a paper presented in 1998, Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, at the
time Stanford graduate students in the DLI project, describe the rationale
for design decisions for the Google web search engine. Their paper The
Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine describes
the recent commercialization of the Internet and the harmful effect this
has had on the quality of web search engines (some of which were
originally developed with NSF funding). “Up until now most search
engine development,” they write, “has gone on at companies with little
publication of technical details. This causes search engine technology to
remain largely a black art and to be advertising oriented....With Google,
we have a strong goal to push more development and understanding into
the academic realm.” Later in the paper they describe another objective
of their research. They write:
Page 41
Another goal we have is to set up a Spacelab-like environment
where researchers or even students can propose and do interesting
experiments on our large-scale web data.
A design goal for Google was as a public research web search
engine to provide a laboratory to pursue web search engine research.
This 1998 paper also discusses how the proprietary activities of
commercial enterprises do not facilitate the research and sharing needed
to develop web search engine technology. The paper includes an
acknowledgment of the funding of the Stanford Integrated Digital
Library Project by the NSF, DARPA, NASA, and Interval Research, and
the industrial partners of the Stanford Digital Libraries Project.
What has happened to the goals expressed in this 1998 paper
describing the design rationale for Google?
Instead of a publicly developed search engine for research into web
search engine design, the authors of the paper have formed a start up
company. They are now the President and the CEO of Google. Several
of those in the Stanford University digital libraries research community
are involved in the company. Stanford University is among the investors
providing the funding for the company.
Describing such developments in testimony before a House
Appropriations Subcommittee, the director of the NSF, Dr. Rita Colwell
explains that the “transfer to the private sector of ‘people’ – first
supported by NSF at universities – should be viewed as the ultimate
success of technology transfer.” She cites Google as the company which
“is an excellent example of knowledge transfer from NSF investments
in people.” Formerly U.S. law required research done at government
expense remain in the public domain. Has this requirement been
changed? How is it that a publicly funded research project is the basis
for a private corporate start up venture by the researchers, their
professors and their university? What is the effect on the nature of basic
research funding when the fruits of its development are privatized by the
researchers and their university along with the corporate partners to the
venture?
How does this transfer of researchers and their research from the
academic sector to the private sector affect the goal of Google research
to provide an open process to support research development of web
Page 42
search engines? Examining what has happened in the acquisition by
Google of the Usenet archives and software from Deja will perhaps
provide some insight.
Responding to a question about why Google bought a Usenet
archive, Craig Silverstein, a former Stanford graduate student and now
director of technology at Google explained that the mission statement of
the company is “to organize the world’s information, making it
universally accessible and useful.” He describes how Google planned for
a number of months to add Usenet data to its search engine databases
and over the past 6 months this goal became more and more a topic of
conversation at Google.
According to Silverstein, Google started a conversation with Deja
about the archives. However, after Deja sold off part of its company, the
opportunity became available for Google to acquire the Usenet archive
data rather than license it. No one at Google has revealed what Google
paid Deja for the Usenet archive. Considering the goal of encouraging
the sharing of research about web development that marked Google’s
early development, the process of internally deciding to purchase a
Usenet archive rather than any obvious discussion with the online
community suggests that the company’s foray into the private sector has
involved them in a similar black art that they observed as a problem of
previous search engine development.
Online Petition to Deja about the Usenet Archives
Silverstein raised the question of why there was only one such
Usenet archive. Also he said he wasn’t aware of the online petition
signed by more than 3850 users to urge Deja to maintain the Usenet
archives or to transfer it to a reliable organization, preferably a public or
nonprofit organization, if Deja could no longer maintain it. Many of
those who signed the petition included comments with their names. This
public online petition contrasts with the internal discussion and
negotiations that Google carried out to acquire the archive from Deja.
That those involved in the acquisition at Google did not have an idea of
the concerns of the online community suggests there is a communication
problem between Google and the online Usenet community.
Whether there are other archives of Usenet posts during the 1995-
Page 43
2001 period is not at the moment known. Steve Bacher is one of those
who signed the petition to Deja. Comments from users like Steve Bacher
are included in the petition. These provide an understanding of why
more people didn’t archive Usenet during this period. Bacher describes
how he used to maintain an archive of Usenet at his site but that he came
to rely on the Deja archive and discontinued his own, telling those who
had used his archive to use Deja.
Another comment in the petition, by Ofer Even-Tour notes that Alta
Vista had an archive that was discontinued. Ofer writes: “I wish Alta
Vista would bring their Usenet Archive back.”
Recognizing the problem of relying on one entity to archive Usenet,
Paul Shaffer writes: “Who was sleeping when DejaNews became the
choke point of Usenet history???”
Reading the comments in the petition helps to provide an under-
standing of the importance of access to users of an archive of Usenet
posts. Also several of those commenting propose the conditions they feel
will be necessary to continue such access.
Among those signing the petition is Theodor Holm Nelson, author
of the book Computer Lib. He writes: “This archive is a public resource
which has slipped into private hands. It must be kept available for the
public benefit.”
In a similar tone, Kay Marquardt explains that “the content of the
Usenet archive is public content.”
Such concerns lead Lee Randolph to write: “where is the Andrew
Carnegie who will endow ‘free public search engines’ for the new
century?”
Considering the problem of how to maintain such an archive
responsibly, Calfin Ostrum writes, “If it had been known that you would
remove forever access to the Usenet archives, some other more public-
minded organization would have come into being to preserve them. Like
it or not, you have implicitly assumed a responsibility to provide these
archives and you are going back on it. If you don’t want to continue to
provide them, you should ‘fess up’ to it and then arrange to transfer
them (for free) to whatever organization offers to take them. The Usenet
archives are a major repository of a non-trivial part of contemporary
culture.”
Page 44
Others point out that since an archive provides a public benefit it
needs government support and funding. Ray Normandeau writes,
“Maybe Government grants should be requested for upkeep.” Echoing
this sentiment, Brian McNeil explains that the “USENET archive...
should *never* have been in private/corporate hands... give it to an
appropriate educational establishment.”
David McRitchie writes that if Deja could no longer continue the
archive, it should be turned over to the U.S. Library of Congress as a
working system.
Robert L. Collins explains, “The Usenet power search power tool
is invaluable to me. I use it more than any other link. If you can’t find
a way to make it financially viable, then perhaps you should spin it off
as a non-profit and seek grants. It is a public good...government funding
is appropriate.”
Describing the value of the archive Kalle Valo comments: “Deja’s
news archive is essential part of Internet. Whenever there is a problem,
news archive almost always has a solution. And even in many lan-
guages.”
Considering the future online community, prompts Lee Coursey to
write, “Future generations of Netizens will need this.”
Since feeds of Usenet posts are sent to news servers at participating
sites with new posts being added by users at the sites and older posts
expired by sites, a Usenet archive can be compared to an ongoing
accumulated global conversation. To determine how to archive such
conversation is a research problem that some in the Usenet community
feel requires a community approach. A post on the website slashdot.org
generated a heated discussion about whether it was desirable to have the
code for the user interface to the Usenet archive as open source. Also
there was discussion about whether Google should make copies of the
archive available to those who desired a copy. The slashdot.org
discussion was a response to an article that appeared on the Wired
website on Wednesday, February 21 proposing that Google provide a
copy of the archives data to be maintained as a distributed system on the
computers of a number of different universities. The article also
proposed that Google open source its user interface so those in the
online community could explore how to improve it. This proposal
Page 45
echoed a proposal made in The Register on February 13, 2001. Andrew
Orlowski wrote:
But perhaps something as valuable as Usenet – the words of
ordinary Internet users – is never going to be safe in private hands.
Why not return it to its roots? The Library of Congress could
administer the archive, and ensure it was a properly distributed
system farmed out to the best Universities, who could produce ever
more cunning hackish search tools? That’s not as much fun as
shooting lasers at rockets, of course, but a lot cheaper.
Users on Mailing Lists and Newsgroups Discuss the
Problem
There has also been discussion of what would be an appropriate way
to maintain the Usenet archives on several mailing lists. One such
discussion took place on the Community Memory mailing list. Some on
that list volunteered to try to find an appropriate academic or non-profit
institution to maintain the archives. One such possibility proposed was
the Metalab ibiblio.org project at the University of North Carolina in
Chapel Hill which was formerly known by the name sunsite. Sunsite was
the name of the site, they explain, because they were originally funded
by Sun Microsystems and still are along with other corporate partners.
But they wanted a vendor neutral name to reflect the general nature of
the information they archive. Another possible site proposed was the
Computer Museum in California. A subscriber to the mailing list
reported that he tried to contact Deja to inquire about the possibility of
a copy of the archive going to the Computer Museum, but his inquiries
did not get any response.
The newsgroup alt.fan.dejanews provides a forum on Usenet for
discussion of what is happening with the Usenet archive. Several users
discussed the difference in culture between a corporation which has an
obligation to view a Usenet archive as a way to earn revenue and the
needs of Internet users for whom Usenet and the Internet are an
important means of communication unrivaled elsewhere in the world.
In a post, William S. Kossack describes his experience participating
on Usenet and the implications of this experience toward understanding
Page 46
the nature of Usenet and the Internet. He writes:
If all we did was read archives then the internet would die
tomorrow. The internet is about communication. It’s about the guy
in the outback that knows something about the software your using
that nobody else does. It’s about the guy with a different native
language that needs help on a research problem. It’s about the guy
down the street that needs help finding someone to really fix his car.
It’s about people and communication between people that don’t
know each other and will probably never meet each other.
I’ve worked on problems where the best expert or at least the
one willing to help lived in the outback. I’ve solved research
problems where everyone working with me either lived in a non-
English speaking country or at least in Chicago. I’ve gotten answers
to car problems, camera problems, computer problems, health
problems, and even met my wife via the net. The internet is not
about archives it’s about communication. It’s about communication
on a scale not possible by any other means.
Kossack’s post poignantly characterizes the nature of the discussion
and human-to-human computer-facilitated interactions which are
possible because of Usenet and the Internet.
Will this Culture Clash Affect Usenet?
What will be the effect of putting a Usenet archive again under the
constraints of the income producing requirements of a corporation?
Will this affect the precious human-to-human communication that
Usenet and the Internet make possible?
If Google is willing to provide copies of the archive to university
sites or other non commercial institutions, would this be helpful in
making it possible to establish a form of user interface and archive
access that support the continued growth and spread of such human
communication?
While there has been broad ranging discussion in the online
community about what should happen if Deja could not maintain a
Usenet archive and much sentiment toward having the archive provided
with a home with an academic or noncommercial institution, a decision
to buy the Usenet archive was made internally at Google without any
Page 47
input that is obvious from the Usenet community. The lack of com-
munication between the online community and Google on the consider-
ations that are important to take into account in determining the future
for a Usenet archive is an example of the culture clash that Google’s
purchase of this Usenet archive suggests.
Another aspect of this culture clash between the online community
and Google relates to any claim of Google to own the content of a
Usenet archive. The postings on Usenet are different from much of the
content of the web. While Google is indexing and providing means of
searching the web, it does not claim to own the web pages or informa-
tion it is indexing. With regard to a Usenet archive, however, the offer
to license or purchase Usenet posts for a fee or to claim rights to
ownership of the posts, is contrary to the understanding of users and
their intention with regard to their Usenet posts. In general, those who
post on Usenet consider their posts to be contributed to facilitate
communication in the online community. Any company’s claim that it
has a right to buy or sell a compilation of Usenet posts presents a serious
challenge to this understanding which has made it possible for Usenet
to function over the years.
In his article Net Cultural Assumptions, first posted on Usenet in
1992, Gregory Woodbury stresses that people who post on Usenet are
doing so recognizing that “folks on different machines *desire* to share
information in an easy and timely manner, despite the spatial separation
between them and the machines they are using. That is the persons using
the Net to communicate *want to communicate* and are willing to
cooperate in effecting that communication.” That is the unwritten
agreement. How Woodbury would feel about a company putting a
copyright on those communications and calling them their property to
be bought and sold, is not the subject of his article. But what effect will
it have on Usenet when posts the online community has contributed for
the purpose of communication are claimed as the property of commer-
cial entities? As Woodbury argues, those posting on Usenet in general
consider that their posts are contributed to facilitate communication
among Usenet users. Any company declaring that it has the right to the
ownership of these posts, or to buy or sell a compilation of such posts,
presents a serious problem for Usenet users and for Usenet’s continued
Page 48
development. Their actions can have a chilling effect on those who make
the contributions.
In general, posts are covered by the Berne convention, agreed to by
many countries, and which the U.S. joined on March 1, 1989, protecting
the right of the creators of the posts to their copyright. The Berne
convention provides that once a work or idea is fixed in a tangible form,
the creator holds the copyright to the form. No © or other notice is
required for the copyright status. Users do not need this protection when
they are contributing to communicate. Nevertheless, this copyright is a
protection against any other entity gathering their posts and claiming
ownership or the right to financially benefit from the copyrighted work
of others, without the explicit permission of the contributors. Whether
Google paid money for the Usenet archives is not known, since they
have not made the details of the transfer from Deja to them public.
However, a spokesperson for Google has said that the company will
consider the request to make a copy of the archive available to a
nonprofit or public entity and that proposals can be sent to
Tom Truscott, one of the co-originators of Usenet, provides a bit of
a different perspective to understand the challenge the transfer of the
Usenet archive presents to the community. He points out that those at
Deja who developed the archives and the code for the user interface
spent a long time thinking and working on them, and for most it must
have been a labor of love. He suggests that creating a new user interface
or search software for the archives will require that technical decisions
be made which will require an understanding of Usenet and its nature.
For example, he writes:
1) citing a Usenet article – When I reference a Usenet article, I use
the magic URL that Deja supplies for it. I have found them to be
valid indefinitely. At least, until about a week ago. Will Google
continue to supply permanent URLs? I sure hope so.
2) Ranking Usenet articles – I haven’t tried the new Google/deja
search yet, but I’ve heard it doesn’t track “threads” any more.
Technically, this is quite important, as Steve Bellovin pointed out
in
represents an interactive discussion, and so presenting the thread
Page 49
together and in order is good. But there is another way that Usenet
searches can exploit threads. Usenet articles are more transitory
than web pages. But “followups” to articles which create Subject
threads, permit a limited variant of PageRank [Google’s ranking
scheme for web pages -ed]
Describing the differences between web technology and Usenet
technology that are relevant toward how one will do a search, he writes:
3) Searching Usenet articles – When doing a text search, google
considers matches in the web page <title> to be more important
than elsewhere, and text in a large font is more important than text
in a smaller font. A Usenet article does not have a <title>, but it
does have a Subject: field. Usenet articles often contain “included
text” which should be considered less important than original text.
He summarizes, “So, there are significant differences in the ways
that pages/articles should be cited, ranked, and searched,” and he
asks,”Does Google plan any improvements, for Usenet articles, in any
of these areas?”
Truscott’s comments are helpful in conveying how the level of
understanding of Usenet will impact the design decisions that Google or
anyone else who designs software for a Usenet archive makes.
There is another question, however, raised by the transfer to Google
of the Usenet archive. This is the question of how important is it to
maintain and develop the collaborative online community? How
important is it to encourage cooperative contributions to a common pool
of technical knowledge, software code, tools and other social forms that
the new online community has developed?
J. C. R. Licklider is recognized as the visionary who inspired the
development of a the worldwide network of networks. In articles he
wrote in the 1960s and after he explains why it is crucial to foster a
collaborative online environment and contributions by users to a
common pool of technical knowledge. The research on time-sharing that
Licklider supported when he first went to ARPA in 1962 set the
foundation for such a cooperative community. The early collaboration
between the different Centers of Excellence that Licklider set up at
universities in the U.S. were the basis for the research to create the
ARPAnet. The creation of the ARPAnet continued the development of
Page 50
this cooperative community. The ARPAnet mailing lists begun in the
1970s supported the cooperative communication that continued to
develop. Usenet grew up in the early 1980s by building on the experi-
ence gained by those who had participated in the ARPAnet mailing lists
and by linking up with the ARPAnet mailing list community. Together
Usenet and ARPAnet technical pioneers formed a vibrant online
cooperative community and created a common pool of technical
knowledge. They have given the world contributions as varied as the
Requests for Comment (RFC’s) and Unix tools. Even more important
perhaps has been the ability of the online community to work together
to solve the difficult problems of scaling computer technology and com-
puter networking. Usenet and the Internet are crucial supports in making
it possible for researchers to collaborate to understand and then solve the
problems these developments present. The problem that the online
community is faced with is how to continue its collaborative communi-
cation and contributions? Do they need some broader support from
academic institutions and governments toward this end? Isn’t it a loss if
research objectives are ended and the resources used to develop
commercial enterprises as happened with the 1998 design objectives for
the Google web search engine? Isn’t there a need to find a way to
support and encourage the integrity of the research community so that
they can resist efforts to turn them and their endeavors into products for
investor speculation? Those who are technical employees of private
corporations will especially need a vibrant online collaborative
community to help them overcome the difficulties that functioning in a
proprietary environment brings.
Vibrant and functioning Usenet newsgroups and Internet mailing
lists can help with these challenges. But what will it mean to the online
community if these essential communication processes are curtailed or
declared the private property of someone? This is one of the challenges
now facing the online community.
This is one of the questions raised by the sale by Deja of the
contributed posts of the Usenet community, and one of the questions
raised by Google’s buying these posts and suggesting that they have a
property right to own them and to trade them.
How this dilemma will be resolved will be determined by how
Page 51
seriously the online community treats it. The petition to Deja and the
various discussions both on Usenet and on mailing lists suggest that
there are those in the Usenet community who recognize the importance
of the situation.
This article originally appeared in Telepolis:
It is reprinted with permission.
*The company DejaNews had collected the posts on Usenet from
1995 and had a search engine to search for them at their web site.
Several months ago DejaNews changed its name to Deja.com and
limited access to the Usenet archives it had collected to posts from the
last year.
John Locke and the
Privatization of the Internet
By Jay Hauben
For historical reasons, the U.S. government has overseen the
technical development of the Internet from its beginning in the early
1980s. At least since 1997, there has been an effort by the executive
branch of the U.S. federal government to privatize the essential, central
functions of the Internet.
1
I want to investigate the Internet and its
proposed privatization. I will be guided by the analysis of John Locke
(1632-1704). Locke analyzes the questions of property and privatization
in Chapter 5, “Of Property” of his The Second Treatise of Government
(c.1680-1683).
2
Locke considers the original state of human society before the
creation of political institutions. He assumes that the earth and its
resources were available “to mankind in common.” He wants to show
Page 52
“how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which
God gave to mankind in common.” (sec 25) This raises for me the
question, what is the original state of the Internet and what might
privatization mean and do to the Internet. By privatization of the Internet
I mean the ending of the governmental fostering and oversight that have
been in place from the beginning of the Internet
3
and replacing them by
control of the crucial functions by non governmental, private entities.
The Internet is still young, less than 30 years old. There are disputes
over what the Internet actually is and over its history and potential im-
pact. It is considered by some to be wires and routers and perhaps
protocols and the domain name system. For others it is the interconnec-
tion of all computers using a particular set of communication agreements
called the Transmission Control Protocol/ Internet Protocol suite
(TCP/IP).
It is important for my investigation that I state my understanding of
what the Internet is. The Internet from its beginning and still today is an
interconnection of diverse, independent, packet switching networks. A
computer network is an interconnection of computers. The Internet is a
meta network, something in addition or “above” its component net-
works. There is a significant difference between interconnecting
computers, no matter how different they are and interconnecting
networks. Computers may differ in operating systems, character sets,
hardware, etc. These are all technical aspects. The networks that
interconnect to make up the Internet each have their own purposes,
system administrations and architectural principles. They have been set
up by different political and economic administrations to serve different
functions. The Internet was designed to solve the problem of sharing
resources and communicating among such diverse networks while
respecting their differences. Fundamental to the Internet is its principle
of open architecture which requires respect for the autonomy, purpose
and local sovereignty of the networks that become part of the Internet.
The technology of the Internet is based on the successful develop-
ment of computer time-sharing and packet switching technologies. The
impetus behind the development of time-sharing and then packet switch-
ing was for greater accessibility of computing. There was a fear among
some scientists and engineers that the power of computer-aided decision
Page 53
making would otherwise be concentrated in too few hands.
4
There was
also the expectation that a great benefit would arise when computer
resources and user created content would be sharable by a large com-
munity of users.
The guidance and investment that made the original networking and
internetworking research possible and lead to time-sharing, packet
switching, protocol development, the original hardware and software,
leasing of long telephone lines, was all public. It was leadership from
scientists under government contract and public money mostly U.S. but
also British, French, Norwegian and NATO public money, some
supplied via military budgets.
The original vision guiding these developments was to unite
communities of human beings via computer communications into an
Intergalactic Network as J. C. R. Licklider called it, a vast human-
computer symbiosis.
5
The developments that have made the Internet
possible were achieved by an international collaboration among
scientists fostered by a public administration of research projects
encouraging openness and resource sharing. Just as Locke sees the
original state of people as sharing the resources of the earth in common,
I take this public funding, original social purpose, and cooperative
origins to have created an electronic, public commons.
6
For Locke, things in common are only valuable if they can be used
for “the support and comfort” of people. And all such things should be
available for the needs of all people. But does not the use of some of
those things to satisfy the needs of one individual require the making of
common things into private things (i.e., privatization)? Locke resolves
this apparent difficulty by arguing that in the original conditions of
human society the things of the earth were plentiful so that “he that
leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take
nothing.” (Sec 33) Personal use of things in this stage still leaves the
whole as a commons. “Nobody could think himself injured by the
drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a
whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst.” (sec 32)
Such use leaves the commons intact. Use of the Internet does not require
a taking from it either. There is no less of the Internet after I use it than
before. That is because digital resources are not diminished when they
Page 54
are copied. And the technology of the Internet is such that no simple use
of the Internet adds any but an insignificant cost to anyone. Each
network provides its resources for its own users but at the same time
those resources become available to the whole Internet at no necessary
new cost.
There are enough resources on the Internet and many people who
use it, far from taking, are actually contributing something by their use
like posting an opinion or answering a question. For the moment the
only result of many other people using it at the same time as you, is that
you may experience a slightly longer delay than if the others were not
using it. But such delay is a result of the early stage of technological
development. There is every reason to believe that significantly greater
capacity and interconnection are technically possible. So just use or
increasing the universality of access to the Internet does not diminish its
common or public nature or utility to those already using it.
Also, the Internet has the character of a common good. For Locke,
in the original state of human society the resources of the earth that are
needed for food, clothing or shelter are common goods. Already to some
extent but potentially to a much greater degree, the well being of each
person will also depend upon the quality of his or her access to the
Internet. What Licklider and Robert Taylor wrote in 1968 is closer to
reality now:
... Life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people
with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by
commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity.
...For the society, the impact will be good or bad depending mainly
on the question: Will ‘to be on line’ be a privilege or a right? If only
a favored segment of the population gets a chance to enjoy the
advantage of ‘intelligence amplification,’ the network may exagger-
ate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity.
7
Licklider and Taylor are arguing that to be online will be essential
to a full life. If something like the Internet is crucial to human “support
or comfort” it is a common good and in the view of Locke all people
have a common right to be included in its use.
As long as people gather from the commons what they need for
their own use, Locke says they have a right to what they gather.
Page 55
“Whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others.”
(sec 30) He argues that small populations and gathering for use gave rise
to “little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.”
(sec 31) Locke considers property not in the modern sense of private
property and ownership but in the sense of having the right of use. Even
improvement of a part of the commons through the application of the
labor of an industrious person leaves enough for others. Therefore, as
long as his product is for the use of his family and not allowed to spoil,
the industrious person has a right to his cultivated area.
Likewise, the component networks of the Internet can be developed
and improved as much as their local owners and administrators want
based on whatever principles they choose without encroaching on the
commons of the Internet. What constitutes the commons of the Internet
does not get used up or diminished by such improvement but in most
cases gets augmented by it. The original goal of packet switching
networks was resource sharing. The Internet carries resource sharing
beyond the individual network to the whole community of Internet users.
The increase in resources on any one network is an increase in general
of the resources for all users.
The Internet has been designed and developed based on the
principle of open architecture. That means the Internet makes the most
minimal requirements possible on the networks that it interconnects.
What is required, i.e., what is in common, is the agreed upon protocols
(the TCP/IP protocol suite) that allow for the sharing of resources
without intruding on the local sovereignty of the component networks.
The Internet protocol (IP) creates a pool of unique numerical addresses,
currently 4.3 billion. Each network administration which adopts the
TCP/IP protocol suite and arranges for Internet connectivity needs to
receive a range of these unique addresses for use by computers within
its network. As long as a mechanism is in place that insures equitable
distribution of these numerical addresses the Internet can continue to
function and grow.
The TCP/IP protocol suite and these IP numerical addresses are the
main technical aspects of the Internet commons. But what makes the
Internet attractive and crucial in the lives of people are the other people.
The Internet makes more people than ever before in essence shared
Page 56
resources for each other. And these people make available or point to
still other resources available via the Internet or off line. This commun-
ication and the transfer of files and information never leaves anything
less for other users.
The protocols and numbers and what they require are what the
Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO 1962-1986) of the
U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) originally fostered
and funded. These protocols and numbers along with all the people and
other shared resources are the commons of the Internet. There are also
parameters known as port numbers that are common to users of the
Internet. And there is at present a domain name system that is a common
way to map names to the numerical IP addresses. From the beginning,
the U.S. government has overseen the distribution of the pool of IP
numbers and the protocol development process. These along with the
oversight of the Domain Name System (DNS) and its central root server
system are precisely what the executive branch of the U.S. government
is trying to privatize by creating the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN, currently a so called non-profit, private
corporation registered in the U.S. state of California).
Locke has taken us as far as to see that, in his analysis, all people at
the origins of human society had a right not to be excluded from the
things of life. The use by one person of the things in common did not
exclude another’s use of as many things as he or she needed. The right
of use was not a right of abuse or alienation. When one’s labor improved
something, that for Locke gave the laborer the right to a property in what
was improved, as long as there remained in the commons other
resources for other people’s use. That is, the person who added his labor
to something had a right to exclude others from taking or using it. For
Locke the question of privatization is the question of the right to
exclude. But privatization is not unlimited. It is only permissible if there
remains enough of the things of life that no one is without what is
needed.
At a first glance it is not clear that the privatization of the Internet’s
essential or common functions is also a question of exclusion and loss
to some people. But putting these functions in private hands means that
the oversight and administration of the IP number distribution and
Page 57
protocol development process can no longer be at public expense. So
who will pay for these and the other added costs that come with the
payment of, e.g., a private board of directors? The costs in private
situations always get passed onto the end users. Thus use of the
privatized Internet will inevitably have a higher economic barrier to
scale than if the commons of the Internet remained publicly overseen
and administered. Also, by its very nature, private control of the
development of the Internet will be focused on different objectives than
has been the public direction. That can be seen already where the private
sector sees e-commerce as more attractive as a goal than universal
access to a global communication system. Both higher cost and different
purpose will tend to exclude many people from Internet usage or so
change the content that the universal value of the Internet will be lost.
Locke argues that, “there is land enough in the world to suffice
double the inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the tacit
agreement of men to put a value on it, introduced (by consent) larger
possessions and a right to them.” (sec 36) After the introduction of
money there was eventually no longer the same plenty for all, and then
exclusion led to quarrels and contentions. The gathering into cities and
the introduction of money made efforts to exclude more attractive to
some and required a response by society. That response was the
introduction of political institutions or civil society in replacement of the
natural state of society. “The several communities settled the bounds of
their distinct territories, and, by laws, within themselves, regulated the
properties of the private men of their society, and so, by compact and
agreement, settled the property which labour and industry began.”(sec
45) What is the fate of the commons in political society? Locke points
out that “in England or any other country, where there are plenty of
people under government who have money and commerce, no one can
enclose or appropriate any part [of the commons] without the consent of
all his fellow-commoners; because this is left common by compact- i.e.,
by the law of the land, which is not to be violated.” The consent of all
the commoners is necessary because “after such enclosure, [what is left]
would not be as good to the rest of the commoners as the whole was,
when they could all make use of the whole.” (sec 35) And political
society and laws are necessary so as to enforce the receipt of that
Page 58
consent before, not after, the proposed enclosure that will deny many
some previous benefit.
Of course the Internet has developed in an era long after political
society has taken deep roots but also especially at a time when money
and commercial considerations play a dominant role. That is why the
need for a public role in the Internet is so great. As with the English
Commons, if the general public interest is not protected, the particular
private interests will significantly diminish what is available to the rest
of society. The tension between common purpose and private exclusion
exists and will cause contentions and quarrels which require procedures
in accordance with law for their resolution.
By Locke’s reasoning, for the common aspects of the Internet to be
privatized the consent of all the Internet commoners is necessary. But
who are the Internet commoners? It would seem that the Internet users
should be considered the Internet commoners. The development and
expansion of the Internet to all parts of the world originally had been for
public use and not for private profit. The Internet is composed of
diverse, independent and sovereign networks each embedded in a
political society determined by geographic location. The question of
whose consent is needed to make decisions like whether or not to
privatize the essential functions of the Internet needs to be studied,
debated and acknowledged as important. But at a minimum, the system
administrators, political representatives and the users themselves seem
to require central roles in such decisions. And the Internet itself seems
to be giving rise to a new political and social phenomenon, the netizens,
those Internet users who take a responsibility to spread and safeguard the
development of the Internet.
Enclosure of the commons according to Locke begins the process
that leads to the need to establish national borders. How does this apply
to the proposed privatization of the Internet? Locke reminds U.S. that
questions that effect people across national borders are solved by
“leagues that have been made between several states and kingdoms,
either expressly or tacitly disowning all claim and right to the land in the
other’s possession, ...and so have, by positive agreement, settled a
property amongst themselves, in distinct parts of the world.” (sec 45)
The Internet is a commons that reaches across national boundaries. Its
Page 59
spread too was facilitated by agreements but these took the form of
Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). For example, the U.S. National Science
Foundation prohibited commercial use of the NSFNET and only allowed
interconnection with other networks that had a similar policy. It seems
likely, following the analysis of Locke, that the continuation of the
growth (scaling) of the Internet will require agreements or treaties
among leagues of the nations involved. Such agreements are the
opposite of privatization. They are in a sense a public internationaliza-
tion in recognition of the global reach and importance of the Internet.
When Locke analyzes why privatization is a problem for society, he
envisions an isolated island where there is nothing “fit to supply the
place of money...”. He asks “what reason could anyone [there] have to
enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his family ...?” (sec 48).
Unless there were hopes of commerce with other parts of the world to
draw money to the enclosure by the sale of products, it would not be
worth the enclosing.
The Internet is a wonderful global electronic commons. For its own
sake it does not appear that anyone or any organization would want it as
a private possession. So the questions need to be raised: To whom or to
what will the benefit of privatizing the Internet accrue? And what role
are such forces playing in bringing about for example the creation of the
Internet Corporation for Names and Numbers (ICANN)? This private
corporation, under a board chosen in secret, has been working since
November, 1998 to take over the functions of the Internet still under the
oversight and management of the U.S. government or its contractors. In
over two years of ICANN activity the secret of how this board was
chosen, by whom and for what purpose is still impenetrable. Secrecy is
a clue that these are important questions. The other clue is that the
supporters of privatization have never been willing to discuss or debate
the question of why or how privatization might serve the general
welfare. They say commercialization will spread the Internet but they
are not willing to allow debate over this question in the media they
control.
Guided by Locke’s theory of property, my conclusion about the
privatization of the essential functions of the Internet now being
attempted is that the commons of the Internet should be protected not
Page 60
privatized. Locke suggests that this protection is the responsibility and
obligations of governments in league with each other. He writes, “For
in government the laws regulate the right of property, and the protection
of the land is determined by positive constitution.” (sec 50) The history
so far of the Internet suggests that acceptable use policies and voluntary
gatherings of network administrators with online forums might also play
a crucial role. However at present it is especially the U.S. government
that has the obligation and responsibility to protect the Internet com-
mons since the central functions of the Internet are for historical reasons
under its supervision.
The U.S. Constitution has in the Preamble six purposes for which
the U.S. government is established: 1) to form a more perfect union, 2)
to establish justice, 3) to insure domestic tranquility, 4) to provide for
the common defense, 5) to promote the general welfare, and 6) to secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The development
of the Internet falls under at least 1 and 5. The privatization does not
seem to fit any of these six purposes allowed to the U.S. government by
its own constitution. The fundamental purpose of the U.S. government
would appear to be to promote the general welfare. Locke agrees that all
that governments do must be “only for the public good.” (sec 3) My
analysis indicates that the privatization of a commons is in general not
for the public good. So that the efforts of the U.S. government executive
branch to privatize the essential functions of the Internet are inappropri-
ate. The U.S. General Accounting Office has also warned that if
privatizing the crucial functions of the Internet involved the transfer of
any public property it would be contrary to the U.S. Constitution. For
Locke, the legislative is the supreme power (sec 132) not the executive.
In the U.S. there is a law, the Government Corporation Control Act of
1945, which prohibits the transfer of government functions to corporate
entities like ICANN without specific authorizing legislation. Presently
there is no such legislation and there have been questions from the U.S.
Congress concerning the privatization and the lack of appropriate
authorization to do it. Locke points out that should ICANN get “into the
exercise of any part of the power, by other ways, than what the laws of
the community have prescribed, [it would have]...no right to be obeyed”
(sec 198). That is because it would not then be the body the laws have
Page 61
appointed, and consequently not the body the people have consented to.
In such a case, even if some network administrations obey ICANN, there
will be others for local reasons that will not. Then fragmentation of the
Internet is a likely result.
Private property in the analysis of Locke is not a natural right but a
conventional right based on civil law. A commons necessary for the well
being of a people needs to be protected from becoming private property.
Locke has an answer if the U.S. Congress and executive branch and the
other governments of the world allow the privatization of the Internet
commons. “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy
the property of the people, ...they put themselves into a state of war with
the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.”
(sec 222) So at least in Locke’s analysis, the result of privatizing the
Internet on which people’s lives are coming more and more to depend
will be a greater instability in society. We may not have come that far
yet but my reading of Locke puts the privatization of the Internet
commons in line with the other violations of the public purpose of
government that more and more characterize our time today at the
beginning of the 21
st
Century.
Notes
1. See for example, “Management Of Internet Names and Addresses,” (63 Fed. Reg.
3, 741-42, 1998), the White Paper issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce, June
5, 1998. To achieve its privatization the U.S. Executive Branch set up in Fall, 1998 a
private corporation, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN). But as of 2001 the central functions of the Internet are still under the
oversight of the U.S. Department of Commerce. ICANN is acting in a way as IANA
before it as a government contractor.
2. My quotes from Locke are from the Everyman edition of Two Treatises of
Government, edited by Mark Goldie reprinted in 1998. I indicate after each quote the
section in “The Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Origin,
Extent, and End of Civil Government” from which it is taken.
My analysis has benefitted from a reading of A Discourse On Property: John Locke
and His Adversaries by James Tully, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
I take from this reading the understanding that Locke used the unqualified word
Page 62
‘property’ to mean the right to use of, not ownership in the modern sense of property.
Then the things of the commons can be the property of someone in the sense that he or
she has the right to use them to the exclusion of other people’s use as long as there are
still in the commons resources to meet the needs of the other people.
3. The role of the U.S. government in the chain of events that lead to the Internet started
with J. C. R. Licklider’s vision and his creation of the IPTO in 1962. Some of
Licklider’s vision can be understood from the papers noted below in notes 5 and 7. See
also Ronda Hauben’s work on IPTO, the Advanced Research Project Agency office
created by Licklider (work in progress).
4. For the documentation of these concerns among the scientific and engineering
community see Computers and the World of the Future, edited by Martin Greenberger,
MIT Press, Cambridge Ma., 1962. This book of lectures and discussions from MIT’s
Centennial Celebration in 1961 contains the keynote address by C. P. Snow and
contributions from many of those who went on to play significant roles in the
development of time-sharing, packet switching and networking. For an analysis of the
impetus for these developments see Chapter 6, “Cybernetics, Time-sharing, Hu-
man-Computer Symbiosis and Online Communities: Creating a Supercommunity of
Online Communities,” in Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the
Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, Los Alamitos, Ca. IEEE Computer
Society Press, May 1997. Also this theme was explored in “The Internet: History,
Technical, Principles, Social Impact,” an Horizons mini-course, Columbia University,
Spring 1999 and Spring 2000.
5. See, “Man-Computer Symbiosis”, in IRE Transactions on Human Factors in
Electronics HFE-1, March, 1960, pages 4 to 11. Also reprinted in In Memoriam: J. C.
R. Licklider 1915-1990, Aug. 7, 1990, p. 40, Digital Research Center.
6. See Michael Hauben, “Preface”, in Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet
and the Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, Los Alamitos, Ca. IEEE
Computer Society Press, May 1997 .
7. In Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider 1915-1990, Aug. 7, 1990, p. 40, reprinted by Digital
Research Center; originally published as “The Computer as a Communication Device,”
in Science and Technology, April, 1968.
Page 63
MsgGroup Questioning What Should
Be Discussed
Part V
[Editor’s Note: The following is the last installment of this article. The
whole article can be accessed at:
Not surprisingly there were managers at Xerox who were not happy
about the kind of frank discussion ongoing on the ARPAnet mailing
lists. A post by David Liddle, Vice President of the Office Products
Division at Xerox explained his reluctance to have Xerox products
discussed by Xerox employees on the ARPAnet:
63
Many of you in Xerox are aware of a newly created ARPAnet
distribution list named Apollo. It was established to promote
discussion of personal workstation computers. As you might expect,
much of the recent discussion has involved the Xerox 8010 Star
information system. Because many of the messages ask for
information about this product and its associated development
software, you may feel tempted to reply to some of them.
It is ARPA policy that the ARPAnet be used only for govern-
ment supported research and development. It is against Xerox
policy to use the ARPAnet to discuss products.... Xerox employees
use the ARPAnet for ARPA related research purposes only, not for
answering questions or distributing information about our products.
Questions from potential customers about the Xerox 8010 and
other OPD products should be referred to Arnold Palmer, Field
Sales Manager, Xerox Corporation, 1341 West Mockingbird Lane,
Dallas, Texas 75247, phone (214) 689-6689.
David E. Liddle
Vice President
Office Products Division
A response to Liddle’s post challenged the reasons he had given for
limiting discussion. Lars Ericson at CMU wrote:
64
Page 64
The use of the ARPAnet for informal discussion of computer
science-related issues is a primary win. It is clear that such discus-
sion is beneficial to ongoing government research projects –
DARCOM and Office Automation for example, are well repre-
sented on the Work Station.
Ericson continued:
Mr Liddle also seems to forget that the reason PARC efforts are
so immensely saleable these days is precisely BECAUSE of their
participation and openness (as opposed to IBM, say) in the
ARPA/university research community, and not in spite of it.
“Mr. Liddle’s Xerox policy announcement,” Ericson wrote,
“represents the sort of irrelevant (to ARPAnet interests) administrative
miserlyness that we may come to expect from Xerox now that the
13-piece suits have brought PARC to market.”
Also responding Little’s post, Joe Newcomer emphasized ARPA’s
policy forbidding commercial use of the ARPAnet.
65
Joining the controversy, Crocker explained:
66
It is my understanding that the purpose of this discussion is to
consider the technical aspects of personal workstations. Arpa and
the rest of the military are investing quite a bit of money in this
area, so that this discussion would seem to be extremely appropriate
to the ARPAnet mission.
He added:
I do not believe that conformance with the ARPAnet proscrip-
tions necessarily requires commercial participants to be prohibited
from voicing opinions about the technology in general or from
answering specific questions about their product. Touting their
product is another matter.
Crocker’s proposal was that, “I suggest that each company assign
one technical (not marketing) person to respond to queries. This will
permit direct information, while making ‘tone-control’ easier.”
Page 65
Part VI
Limited Distribution?
Not only was there reluctance on the part of representatives of some
commercial entities to have open conversation of all issues on ARPAnet
mailing lists ported to Usenet, but also there was a sense among
ARPAnet participants that their contributions should be considered
privileged private publications and their distribution strictly limited. A
conversation describing this issue developed on FA.digest-p carried on
the ARPAnet and on Usenet. In January 1982 a post noted that Com-
puter World magazine had gotten copies of the TCP digest from
someone and published verbatim quotes from the digest.
67
Though the
source of the leak acknowledged what had been done and agreed to stop,
“it gave everybody a real scare,” the post noted. “My temporary solution
to this issue,” the poster proposed, “is to add the following notice to the
Masthead:
“TCP/IP Digest Thursday, 8 Oct 1981 Volume 1: Issue 1
------------------------------------------------------
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
For Research Use Only --- Not for Public Distribution
------------------------------------------------------
At least this ensures that anybody who gets fed a copy knows
that it is not supposed to be shouted to the treetops. Comments?”
Christopher C Stacy at MIT disagreed with such a publication
identifier. He wrote:
68
I think that the explicit banner on the masthead of the Digest is
a bad idea, because this will cause many people to think that if such
a banner is NOT present (i.e.., on any other Digests or on future
TCP Digests) that it is alright to redistribute the material.
In another post, Stacy described his understanding of why ARPAnet
mailing lists had to have limited distribution.
69
He pointed to an incident
that had occurred when MIT had to fight for its continued existence on
the ARPAnet after an article in the journal Datamation about the
WINE-TASTERS mailing list appeared. He also cautioned of the
Page 66
possible liability problems when evaluating and discussing various
commercial products, as with the INFO-TERMS mailing list which
evaluated terminals.
“But laying down the law,” he wrote, “is a fairly useless way of
solving this sort of problem. The problem is one of awareness, coopera-
tion and trust. Only if people understand and care, will they take steps
to protect a fragile institution like the ARPAnet,” he wrote.
Another post noted that the mailing list digests “do not exist as
authorized publications.”
70
He felt that they should be considered
“internal communications between research project members authorized
to use the net.”
A post asking about the implications of the Daniel Ellsberg case to
this issue by Mike Muuss was answered by Paul Karger. Karger wrote:
71
While putting a restricted distribution statement on a digest
may be a psychological limitation on distribution, there are a couple
of problems. First, since ARPA and DCA are part of the DoD, there
are specific regulations on what may or may not be marked as FOR
OFFICIAL USE ONLY. The regulations are in part designed to not
let people invent other kinds of markings. This dates back to the
Ellsberg case and the desire to limit the ability of government
people to conceal information from the “public” (whoever that is).
Though Karger said his familiarity with the regulations was a little
stale, “I would be very careful about developing new ways to restrict
distribution of government information,” he cautioned.
Through this discussion, concerns for limiting the ARPAnet
discussions were raised, and answered with the limitations that the
current state of relevant law allowed U.S. government officials to
impose on the ARPAnet mailing list discussions.
Thus the way was cleared for broader distribution of the posts on
ARPAnet mailing lists, making the transition from the limited circula-
tion available on the ARPAnet to the broader participation Usenet made
possible.
Page 67
Part VII
Usenet Welcomes All
While access to the ARPAnet was limited, Usenet welcomed all
who were willing to connect in a public way.
72
“Usenet is a public
network,” wrote Mark Horton, “and those on it should announce
themselves.”
“It seems to be a common thing,” he wrote, “for a new site to come
upon Usenet without telling anyone they exist.” What happens,” he
explained, “is that someone hears about Usenet from someone already
on the net, who sends them their copy of whatever code they are
running.” He asked, “When you start getting network news, you should
announce your existence to the net by filling out the enclosed form and
posting it to the newsgroup net.general.... This form will be used as your
entry in the Usenet directory. Note,” he continued, that is the policy of
Usenet that all sites receiving public newsgroups (such as net.all and
fa.all) are public in the sense that the fact they are on Usenet is public.
The name and phone number of a contact person, as well as the name
and location of the site, is important. If you are doing some kind of
secret work there is certainly no need to divulge the nature of your work.
If you feel that you must keep your existence a secret, you should not be
joining Usenet,” Horton clarified.
A form was provided for a new site to fill in. Horton asked that
those joining Usenet post their announcement and basic configuration
information in NET.general. NET.general was the one newsgroup that
all were on Usenet during this period were encouraged to read.
73
“net
general,” wrote Horton, “is for stuff that everybody is supposed to at
least consider reading. “It’s useful for INITIAL QUERIES and AN-
NOUNCEMENTS.” However, he noted that “It is NOT there for
discussions.” He explained, “If you see something in net.general you
want to comment on, you should almost always just REPLY to the
author, not follow up to the world. If a continuing discussion is needed,
start a new newsgroup.” He also suggested replying to initial queries
from NET.general in NET.misc. “NET.misc,” he wrote, “is a good way
to keep net.general free of trivia without starting new newsgroups for
Page 68
short lived topics.” He urged those on Usenet to realize that not all might
be interested in a particular topic but “feel obligated to read things in
net.general because of their possible importance.”
Matt Glickman, who with Mark Horton wrote the code for B News,
supported Horton’s request for maintaining NET.general as a newsgroup
that would concern all. He wrote:
74
Just reminding everybody (It feel it is my duty...) that
net.general is no run-of-the-mill newsgroup. No sir. It’s not
net.misc and it’s not net.news. net.general should only contain
GENERAL interest information of interest to the ENTIRE network.
Especially, no dreaded newsgroup discussions whatsoever! Please
behave yourselves.
Therefore, while the posts on NET.general don’t document the
interesting discussion carried on on early Usenet, they do convey some
of the general concerns and views of the pioneering Usenet participants.
Many of those on early Usenet were programmers or system
administrators. As such, they are particularly sensitive to misspellings
and other textual and writing errors. In a post on NET.general, one user
gathered comments from all interested about concerns about what they
considered poor writing that appeared on Usenet. In response, Rob
Glaser from Yale wrote:
75
It is true that many technical people use the English language
sloppily. In an informal setting such as Usenet, however, content
ought to be valued over form, time lines over lengthy deliberation.
I’d rather see a timely article with a few grammatical mistakes (as
long as it is basically coherent) than the same piece, impeccably
written but appearing days later.”
He also observed that the software (inews) for posting sometimes
was problematic and helped create the grammatical or other errors one
saw online. He wrote:
Another factor to keep in mind is that, judging from some of
the submissions we receive over the net, the inews submission
interface is not always conducive to perfection (not a slap at the
news designers, just the incompetents, myself included, who make
dumb mistakes.)
He then went on to describe how he had had to redo even this post
Page 69
twice before getting it right. “For instance,” he wrote, “I messed up two
earlier versions of this flame (one of which may have been sent, my
apologies if it was) before (*pray*) finally getting things right.”
Other posts on NET.general included requests for recommendations
for buying something worthwhile or complaints about problems users
were having with commercial entities to see if others had similar
problems or could help.
For example, a post by Larry Piovano
76
described how he was
planning to buy a color tv with a 13" screen. He asked for recommenda-
tions and experiences of others to help him decide which brand to get.
“I wish to buy one,” he wrote, “that will not die in short order.” Bill
Shannon from Digital Equipment answered,
77
“My 12 inch Sony has
been going strong for 10 years with no repairs, no adjustments, no
problems! And I’m sure they’ve gotten better (and more expensive).” A
response on Usenet responded:
78
Suggest SONY. I have two Trinitrons and they work wonder-
fully....”
The post continued:
I have had my SONY for a couple of years now and have had
no problem. I suggest you get one with an electronic tuner (no
moving parts to wear out). Try the wireless remote control. It’s a
great toy if your lazy.”
A similar question about recommendations regarding the Hayes
Smart modem was posed by John L. McAlpine in Canada at the
Saskatchewan Linear Accelerator. He wrote:
79
Use of HAYES Smart Modem
1) I would appreciate receiving comments on the reliability of
above modem.
2) If anyone has available the appropriate patches to use this
modem with uucp for auto-dialing I would appreciate receiving
same.
A post by Ron Gordon at Bell Labs (Murray Hill) warned other
Volkswagen Rabbit owners of a potential radiator tank leak. He wrote
(80):
Attention VW Rabbit owners, you may have a problem! The
radiator overflow tank on my vehicle developed several cracks
Page 70
which permitted coolant to escape. Because the overflow tank is
directly connected to the radiator system without a valve, a leak in
the overflow tank is just as bad as a leak in the radiator!
He went on to ask if other VW Rabbit owners were having a similar
problem. “My tank failed after 16 months at 15,000 miles,” he wrote,
“Should enough evidence become available, a formal complaint may be
filed with VW and the Consumer Protection Agency.”
Another Usenet poster asked if there could be a consumer forum
newsgroup to monitor companies that ripoff consumers. In his post,
Randy King wrote:
81
What provisions, if any, have been made to provide a sharing
of gripes about national “ripoff” companies and the like? I would
like to hear some comment on this, as well as see the establishment
of a newsgroup (as if any more were needed). It might be very
interesting to see what goes [on -ed] out there and to provide
readers with some insight to companies so that they may not be
smitten by these “invisible stalkers!
“What’s the feeling out there,” his post asked.
Responding to an answer by Andy Tanenbaum from Bell Labs
about the intent of his post, King wrote that he had had in mind an
insurance company, but that the forum could discuss both problematic
and beneficial companies.
82
Several of the posts on NET.general suggested creating new
newsgroups, such as a post by Linda Seltzer at Bell Labs:
83
I would like to start a newsgroup called net.music for commu-
nication among composers, news of concerts and conferences, news
about computer music, news of good new records, etc. Anyone
interested in subscribing to this group please send mail to
research.lin or alice.seltzer
— Linda Seltzer
Another post noted that her e-mail was inaccurate in her post, and
that it should be alice!seltzer.
84
Other posts concerned general questions or problems. For example,
Andy Tanenbaum posted about a piece of junk mail he had received
from a head hunter who seemed to have gotten his name from the list of
conference attendees who attended the previous USENIX winter
Page 71
conference.
85
“I DON’T want junk mail from employment agencies,” he
wrote. “If you want to put up a recruiting note at a USENIX, fine. But
as long as I have a means here to express my dissatisfaction, I want it to
be known that I look with bad feelings toward companies that badger me
by abusing a valuable resource.” His post ended, “I wouldn’t want a
future list of conferees to not have addresses just because some losers
bother some of the good folks on the list with junk mail. Don’t call us,
we’ll call you.”
A post by Jay Lepreau asked if there were any archive of bugs for
software that had been posted on Usenet so he wouldn’t have to do work
others had already done. He wrote:
86
Has anyone out there been archiving any of the “net.*bugs”
newsgroups or just have old stuff still kicking around? We just
joined Usenet around the beginning of November; if anyone has
stuff from before that I’d appreciate hearing from you. I’m TIRED
of fixing bugs I know have been found and fixed before. I can send
you a shell script to pull stuff out of your .nindex if you’ve got A
news; I don’t know how B news works.
A post from Scott Baden announced
87
that he was in the process of
creating an annotated bibliography on two topics: “Functional Program-
ming languages” and about “Applicative architectures.” He asked those
with any references or comments to e-mail them to him, promising, “I’ll
make a copy of the bibliography available to all interested parties. If you
have already started a bibliography I’d be interested in collaborating
with you.”
News items were posted as was one on the AT&T settlement with
the U.S. government posted on January 8, 1982 by Steve Bellovin. The
post explained:
88
AT&T and the U.S. government have settled their seven-year-
old anti-trust suit out of court. Under the terms of the settlement,
AT&T will divest itself of the local operating companies; it will
retain AT&T Long Lines (the long distance service), Western
Electric, and Bell Labs. The reorganization will be completed
within 18 months.
Questions about Usenet were posted, as in a post by Randy King
asking how long it took a post to get to the majority on Usenet. He
Page 72
wrote:
89
This may have been answered long before my emergence onto
netnews, but I will ask it anyway! Does anybody have a feel for
how long it takes a posted article to reach the majority of the
netnews community? I realize that there are N! variables here, but
a general ordinary run-of-the mill answer would suffice. Two Days?
Three Days? A month? Fifteen minutes? (HA). How ‘bout it.
A response from Horton described the process of distribution of
Netnews during this period. He wrote:
90
It depends on the newsgroup and where you are. If you are
somewhere inside Bell Labs or on a key machine with a dialer
(decvax, duke) it will probably get out to 70 - 80% of the net within
a few hours. If not, you probably have to wait for an overnight poll,
but it will get most places (>90%) overnight. There are some far
reaches that won’t get it for 2-3 days (more if something is down)
and it may take another 2-3 days for a reply or follow-up to get back
to you.
Horton went on to describe how distribution of the Mailing Lists
carried on Usenet occurred. He wrote:
The fa newsgroups are different. They are fed in at Berkeley
which then waits for ihnss [at Bell Labs-ed] and decvax [at Digital
Equipment Corp-ed] to poll. ihnss only polls once a day (in the
early morning). decvax calls often. So Bell Labs (which gets most
stuff from ihnss) tends to have fa stuff each morning from the
previous day. Those getting news from duke or decvax get it ran-
domly, faster depending on when decvax happens to call ucbvax (at
Berkeley-ed) usually several time a day.
Horton also described other delays affecting how users got news
from Usenet. He wrote:
And of course there are the delays from the time the news
shows up on a system to when any given person actually reads it -
often once a day, but some people log in on neighboring machines
to get news and don’t get it that often. I have gotten replies to
queries as much as 3 weeks later, not counting the famous unix-
wizards drought where it took 2 months to reach the masses before
it even got into Usenet!
Page 73
In summary, he wrote, “But a rough rule of thumb is that by
overnight, most of the net will have at least had the chance to read your
article.”
Along with the advantages of being on Netnews were the problems
that users were confronted with. One such problem concerned discussion
over what was appropriate discussion or in bad taste. Others claimed it
was censorship to bar certain discussions. Describing this problem,
Horton wrote:
Also, PLEASE restrict your “questionable taste” stuff to
net.jokes.q for the time being until this whole thing is settled. I am
seeing stuff in net.general about dead babies that certainly offends
me (and no, I’m neither dead nor a baby) and probably half the rest
of the net. I’m still seeing poor taste jokes in net.jokes. There are
people out there that are trying not to get this stuff, and they are
being barraged with it anyway! This includes limericks – most of
them belong in net.jokes.q. If you would be willing to get on your
local TV station and recite what you’re posting (with your mother
and your boss in the audience) you shouldn’t be broadcasting it to
an equally wide audience of random people. Remember, also, that
a record is kept on every machine of everything you say.
He also asked for input from those who found such posts offensive
toward trying to determine an appropriate policy with regard to such
posts. He wrote:
91
I haven’t been hearing from many people who actually ARE
OFFENDED by the net.jokes.q stuff. I’d like to get input from them
(either privately by electronic mail or publicly in net.news) in
regards to the policy that needs to be formed. How you feel about
various proposed solutions is important. Anyone who further
understands the Affirmative Action issues should speak up – I don’t
claim to understand them very well.
Another concern involved what were appropriate posts on Usenet.
J. C. Winterton asked that users not post articles from the wire services
but instead that people subscribe to newspapers for such information
rather than trying to send it around on Usenet. He wrote:
92
Notwithstanding the fact that some persons do work for Bell,
it STILL costs a bundle to send this stuff around the continent on
Page 74
this network when it is being shipped by the wire services anyway.
Why not just subscribe to a large daily newspaper or two. If you
really are interested in the entertainment world you can subscribe
to Variety. The New York Times and the Times of London
probably carry everything else. And where these are unavailable,
there are other major papers. I don’t believe that Usenet should
become an arm of AP, Reuters, etc. I am reasonably sure that they
would be somewhat upset with the infringing of their copyright as
well. That a thing can be done is not a reason to do it! Besides, by
distributing wire service stuff this way (with or without authoriza-
tion) is probably helping to unemploy some poor newspaper carrier,
etc. etc.”
Commenting on the proliferation of new newsgroups and
newsgroup names, Horton promised to issue a list of the newsgroups
“officially blessed” to help resolve the problems of multiple names for
similar groups. But he also encouraged those with various views on the
issue to speak up. He wrote:
93
I am coming to realized that people are waiting for me to say
something. We are discussing what to do about the proliferation of
newsgroups – if you want to be involved in this discussion please
send me mail. (We might even, ahem, start a newsgroup.) I hope to
have a list of active newsgroups, “officially blessed” (whatever that
means), in a few days.
Chain letters also posed a problem on early Usenet. Henry Spencer
from the University of Toronto posted asking users to recognize the
problem and keep it from harming the Net. He wrote:
94
Some turkeys evidently have decided it’s funny, funny, funny
to start sending chain letters around Usenet. With all the mail
headers on them, these messages are many Kbytes. For some
strange reason, when we’re paying phone bills for 300-baud long
distance calls, this does not seem amusing. This is EXACTLY the
sort of thing that could lead to humorless administrators closing
down people’s network connections on the grounds that the money
is being wasted. For heaven’s sake people, STOP IT!!! Your
thoughtless empty-headed practical joke is endangering the network
that many people worked long and hard to set up!
Page 75
Noting the kinds of problems those on Usenet had to deal with,
Horton observed the obligation to those on Usenet to consider its best
interest. He urged that those with different views of the issues involved
be active and participate in the discussions over what to do.
95
“I propose
that anyone with opinions on this issue discuss it on net.news. I want to
hear from both sides. This is YOUR NETWORK, remember!
Others on Usenet had hoped that it would make it possible to form
a new form of media or to influence the political process in a way not
formerly available. “Not to belittle any new newsgroup,” George Otto
wrote,
96
“but it strikes me that we are developing a real electronic
newspaper here.”
In a similar way, rdg at allegra wrote,
97
“Wouldn’t it be great to use
this electronic medium to send notes to our government officials. I never
seem to write postal letters or telegrams, but we all seem to find these
electric notes enough to use often. Can you image net.reagan with a few
authentic replies.”
Scott Baden added,
98
“Or what if we could lobby our favorite
senator? (net.lobby, net.senator?)”
The dilemma of funding Usenet posed a problem to some sites as
described in the post by Chris Kent at the University of Cincinnati. He
wrote:
99
We at the University of Cincinnati are on a budget crunch.
Therefore, I have been told to cut down on outgoing calls or lose the
ability to place them. I ask you all to cooperate, please; try to avoid
routing program sources through us whenever possible. We will
continue to transship news, so that won’t be a problem, but will
probably poll only every other day...I am sorry it has to come to this
– but some people higher up seem to see this as just wasted money.
I will keep you all posted as to our situation.
Chris Kent (cincy!chris)
Others like Mel Haas at Bell Labs (houxm) reported that the
funding of various sites could be jeopardized by an irresponsible activity
on the net and that all users should be aware of the problems that might
be caused. He wrote:
100
This is a plea to clean up the net. Please! There are whole
sections of the net that are being watched by the payers of the bills,
Page 76
and what shows now is not good. The flame and flash content of the
past few weeks has far outweighed the useful. Don’t revive the “db”
stuff in net.cooks! Don’t send everything to net.general! and,
certainly, don’t send anything to both net.general and another! Put
net.news stuff in net.news, net.records stuff in net.records, etc.
Show some consideration for others in the wording and content of
your submittals.
He pointed out that responsible use would help establish how the
Net was a money saver for the sites participating and thus support
continued use. He wrote:
Try to make the net a useful exchange of useful information
and ideas, that will pay for the service and help people. In other
words, make the net a useful tool, not a place to expose yourself,
your ego and your bad manners. Thank you. Mel Haas, houxm!mel
Explaining his need for access to Usenet even though he was would
no longer have Net access through the University of California Berkeley,
Michael Shilol wrote:
101
I recently graduated from Berkeley where I enjoyed this
network very much, both for entertainment and for receiving the
latest news on many subjects.
I am now starting a job and will soon be losing my account on
the Berkeley Vax. My question is:
Is it possible for me to get access to this network in any way?
Can my company get access to it?
Is there a way to pay for this privilege?
He noted that the useful technical information available on Usenet
was so valuable that a company could benefit financially from being
connected, “This network has been so useful to me for finding informa-
tion that I think it is worth money and/or equipment to get it.”
And he concluded his post:
“Any answers, comments, suggestions appreciated.”
He then had a form of signature giving both UUCP and ARPAnet
address forms.
Michael Shiloh
CSVAX.shiloh@berkekey
UCBVAX!shiloh
Page 77
In another post, George Otto at Indian Hill Bell Labs noted the
technical superiority of Usenet newsgroups to mailing lists. He
described the problem of keeping mailing lists on different computers
in sync. He wrote:
102
Is anyone working on making mailing lists just as efficient as
newsgroups? One problem with using mailing lists for maintaining
communications among those in a small group of people is the
difficulty of keeping the lists on many machines in sync. I tried
looking into setting up a program under my ID that would allow
others to mail to me for automatic redistribution to a list I main-
tained, but never found a good way to do it.
He noted that Usenet solved the problem in a superior way by
making it possible for people connected to different computers to
participate in a common newsgroup. He wrote:
The beauty of using Usenet it that members of affected groups
can be on different machines and need do one or two simple things
to be attached to the common group.
Conclusion
These posts on NET.general show how those using different
computers at a wide variety of different academic and research sites,
many of which were not officially sponsored by any funding agency,
were able to participate in the kind of collaborative communication and
some of the mailing lists formerly only available to those with access to
the ARPAnet. More importantly, Usenet made the process of posing a
problem and collaborating with others to try to determine how to solve
it more widely available. Such a process is needed to solve the difficult
technical and social problems which computers and networking
technology present for our times. Habermas writes that there is a need
to understand such a scientific approach to technical issues and
challenges. What he doesn’t recognize is that the technology itself is
needed to help in the process. The early ARPAnet as demonstrated
through posts on the MsgGroup mailing list and early Usenet provide
beginning insight into how people using and directing technology can be
part of the important scientific and regenerative process that contributing
to the online community makes possible.
Page 78
(*Note: The notes corresponding to the numbers in the above article are
available from the author or at:
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/msghist.txt)
EDITORIAL STAFF
Ronda Hauben
William Rohler
Norman O. Thompson
Michael Hauben (1973-2001)
Jay Hauben
The Amateur Computerist invites submissions. Articles can be
submitted via e-mail:
[email protected] 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.
The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not
necessarily the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We
welcome submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.
ELECTRONIC EDITION
ACN Webpage:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ All issues of the Amateur
Computerist are on-line. Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/
All issues can be accessed from the Index at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf
Page 79
