The Amateur

Computerist

January 2023 Toward 25 Years of the Netizen Book (Part 4) Volume 35 No. 4

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Effect of the Net on Professional News Media. . . . Page 2

The Net and the Future of Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 12

Exploring New York City’s Online Community . . . Page 34

Introduction

The year 2022 marks the 25

Anniversary of the

May 1, 1997 publication of the print edition of Net-

izens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben. This

issue is again part of the celebration of that Anniver-

sary. The articles here are Chapters 13, 14 and 15 by

Michael Hauben in that book. In these chapters, he

examines the effect the net and netizens are having on

the media, politics and local questions and changes.

The first article, “The Effect of the Net on the

Professional News Media: The Usenet News Collec-

tive / The Man-Computer News Symbiosis” quotes

Victor Hugo about the cathedral and the book, “Alas,

this will kill that.” This article raises the question

about the Net and the professional news media, Will

this kill that? After examining criticism of the current

press, the article examines the role of Usenet and the

growing role of the Internet as people’s sources of

news. But also that the very concept of news is being

reinvented as people come to realize that they can

provide the news. As an example, the 1995 Pentium

Chip story is told. Intel, the computer chip manufac-

turer, was forced to recall faulty Pentium chips be-

cause of the online pressure. The online discussion led

to people becoming active and getting the manufactur-

ers of their computers and Intel to fix the problem

despite requiring a costly recall. The article concludes

that Netizen reporters are challenging the premise that

authoritative professional reporters are the only possi-

ble reporters of the news. Therefore, the professional

news media must evolve a new role or will be increas-

ingly marginalized.

The second article projects that the net may lead

to more democracy, The Ascendancy of the Commons.

It does that by examining James Mill’s understanding

of the obstacles to direct democracy and how the net

can revitalize the concept of a democratic Town Meet-

ing via online communication and discussion. The bulk

of the article is about the 1994 Virtual Conference on

Universal Service and Open Access to the Telecom-

munications Network sponsored by the U.S. National

Telecommunications Information Administration. This

NTIA online conference was a prototype of an online

town meeting facilitated by the net. The over 800 par-

ticipants across the U.S. and abroad contributed a wide

spectrum of thoughtful opinions on the importance of

the internet, its benefit to society, and the need for a

government role including to ensure widespread and

equal access. The article serves as an archive of select-

ed posts from the conference and an argument that it

should set a precedent for future conferences which

will start as the basis of a new social contract between

people and their government.

The third article, “Exploring New York City’s

Online Community: A Snapshot of nyc.general,” raises

the question of what is a community and does the net

broaden the answer? The article is a case study using

a few threads posted on the Usenet newsgroup

nyc.general during one week in 1995. Everyday pro-

blems were posted and the newsgroup community

responded with a spectrum of opinions. As an exam-

ple: “My boss is going to fire me” which led to a dis-

cussion of collecting unemployment compensation.

Concerns posted included about life in the city and

how to survive, especially finding an affordable decent

place to live. The examples paint a picture of people

with a common interest, and only secondarily of a

common location, making themselves available to be

helpful to others with that interest. The article con-

cludes that online communications can help to enrich

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Page 1

local community and community relations.

[Editor’s Note: A version of this article appears as Chapter 13 of

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben published in 1997 by the

IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 222-240. An earlier version

was presented at INET '96 in Montreal, Quebec, in June 1996. It

also appeared in the Amateur Computerist Vol. 7 No. 2 (Winter

1997).]

The Effect of the Net on the

Professional News Media:

The Usenet News Collective /

The Man-Computer News

Symbiosis

by Michael Hauben

The archdeacon contemplated the gigantic

cathedral for a time in silence, then he

sighed and stretched out his right hand

toward the printed book lying open on his

table and his left hand toward Notre-Dame,

and he looked sadly from the book to the

church:

‘Alas,’ he said, ‘this will kill that’ … .

This was the presentiment that as human

ideas changed their form they would

change their mode of expression, that the

crucial idea of each generation would no

longer be written in the same material or in

the same way, that the book of stone, so

solid and durable, would give way to the

book of paper, which was more solid and

durable still.

Victor Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris

I. Media-criticism

Will this kill that? Will the new online forms of

discourse dethrone the professional news media? The

French writer Victor Hugo observed that the printed

book rose to replace the cathedral and the church as the

conveyor of important ideas in the fifteenth century.

Will Usenet and other young online discussion forums

develop to replace the current news media? Various

people throughout society are currently discussing this

question.

The role of modern journalism is being recon-

sidered in a variety of ways. There are journalists and

media critics like the late Professor Christopher Lasch,

who have challenged the fundamental premises of

professional journalism. There are other journalists

like Wall Street Journal reporter Jared Sandberg, who

cover an online beat, and are learning quickly about

the growing online public forums. These two ap-

proaches are beginning to converge to make it possible

to understand the changes in the role of the media in

our society brought about by the development of the

Internet and Usenet.

Media critics like Christopher Lasch have estab-

lished a theoretical foundation which makes it possible

to critique the news media and challenge the current

practice of this media. In “Journalism, Publicity, and

the Lost Art of Argument,” Lasch argued:

What democracy requires is public debate,

and not information. Of course, it needs

information, too, but the kind of informa-

tion it needs can be generated only by vig-

orous popular debate.

Applying his critique to the press, Lasch wrote:

From these considerations it follows the

job of the press is to encourage debate, not

to supply the public with information. But

as things now stand the press generates

information in abundance, and nobody

pays any attention.

Lasch explained that more and more people are getting

less and less interested in the press because, “Much of

the press … now delivers an abundance of useless,

indigestible information that nobody wants, most of

which ends up as unread waste.”

Reporters like Jared Sandberg of the Wall Street

Journal, on the other hand, recognize that more and

more of the information which the public is interested

in, is starting to come from people other than profes-

sional journalists. In an article about the April 1995

Oklahoma Federal building explosion, Sandberg

wrote:

In times of crisis, the Internet has become

the medium of choice for users to learn

more about breaking news, often faster

than many news organizations can deliver

it.

People curious and concerned about relatives and

others present on the scene turned to the Net to find

out timely information about survivors and to discuss

Page 2

the questions raised by the event. Soon after the ex-

plosion, it was reported and discussed live on IRC and

in newsgroups on Usenet such as alt.current-events

.amfb-explosion and elsewhere online. Sandberg noted

that many logged onto the Internet to get news from

first-hand observers rather than turning on the TV to

CNN or comparable news sources.

Along with the broader strata of the population

which has begun to report and discuss the news via the

Internet and Usenet, a broader definition of who is a

media critic is developing. Journalists and media cri-

tics like Martha Fitzsimon and Lawrence T. McGill

present such a broader definition of media critics when

they write, “Everyone who watches television, listens

to a radio or reads … passes judgment on what they

see, hear or read.”

Acknowledging the public’s dis-

content with the traditional forms of the media, they

note that, “the evaluations of the media put forward by

the public are grim and getting worse.”

Other journalists have written about public crit-

icism of the news media. In his article, “Encounters

Online,” Thomas Valovic recognizes some of the ad-

vantages inherent in the new online form of criticism.

Unlike old criticism, the new type “fosters dialogue

between reporters and readers.”

He observes how this

dialogue “can subject reporters to interrogations by

experts that undermine journalists’ claim to speak with

authority.”

Changes are taking place in the field of journ-

alism, and these changes are apparent to some, but not

all journalists and media critics. Tom Goldstein, Dean

of University of California Berkeley Journalism

School observes that change is occurring, but the

results are not fully understood.

II. Examining the Role of Internet/Usenet

and the Press

There are discussions online about the role of the

press and the role of online discussion forums. The

debate is active, and there are those who believe the

print press is here to stay, while others contend that

interactive discussion forums are likely to replace the

authority of the print news media. Those who argue for

the dominance of the online media present impas-

sioned arguments. Their comments are much more per-

suasive than those who defend the traditional role of

the print media as something that is handy to read over

breakfast or on the train. In a newsgroup thread dis-

cussing the future of print journalism, Gloria Stern

stated:

My experience is that I have garnered more

information from the internet than I ever

could from any newspaper. Topical or not,

it has given me community that I never had

before. I touch base with more informed

kindred souls than any tonnage of paper

could ever bring me.

Regularly, people are commenting on how they

have stopped reading newspapers. Even those who

continue to read printed newspapers, note that Usenet

has become one of the important sources for their

news. For example, a user wrote:

I _do_ get the NYT every day, and the Post

and the Washington Times and the Wall

Street Journal (along with about 100 other

hardcopy publications), and I_still_find

Usenet a valuable source of in-depth news

reporting.

More and more people on Usenet have an-

nounced their discontent with the traditional one-way

media, often leading to their refusal to seriously read

newspapers again. In a discussion about a Time mag-

azine article about the Internet and Usenet, Elizabeth

Fischer wrote:

The point of the whole exercise is that for

us, most of us, paper media is a dead issue

(so to speak).

In the same thread, Jim Zoes stated the challenge

posed for reporters by the online media:

This writer believes that you (the tradi-

tional press) face the same challenge that

the monks in the monastery faced when

Gutenberg started printing Bibles.”

Describing why the new media represents such a form-

idable foe Zoes continued:

Your top-down model of journalism allows

traditional media to control the debate, and

even if you provide opportunity for op-

posing views, the editor *always* had the

last word. In the new paradigm, not only do

you not necessarily have the last word, you

no longer even control the flow of the

debate.

He concludes with his understanding of the value of

Usenet to society:

The growth and acceptance of email, cou-

pled with discussion groups (Usenet) and

mail lists provide for a ‘market place of

ideas’ hitherto not possible since perhaps

Page 3

the days of the classic Athenians.

Others present their views on a more personal level.

One poster writes:

I will not purchase another issue of News-

week. I won’t even glance through their

magazine if it’s lying around now given

what a shoddy job they did on that article.

Another explains:

My husband brought [the article] home …

for me to read and [I] said, ‘Where is that

damn followup key? ARGH!’ I’ve pretty

much quit reading mainstream media ex-

cept when someone puts something in front

of me or I’m riding the bus to work … .

These responses are just some of the recent ex-

amples of people voicing their discontent with the pro-

fessional news media. The online forum provides a

public way of sharing this discontent with others. It is

in sharing ideas and understandings with others with

similar views that grassroots efforts begin to attempt to

change society.

While some netusers have stopped reading the

professional news media, others are interested in influ-

encing the media to more accurately portray the Net.

Many are critical of the news media’s reporting of the

Internet, and other events. Users of the Internet are

interested in protecting the Internet. They do this by

watchdogging politicians and journalists. Concern with

the coverage of the Internet in the press comes from

first-hand experience with the Internet. One netuser

expressing such dissatisfaction writes:

The net is a special problem for reporters,

because bad reporting in other areas is pro-

tected by distance. If someone reports to

the Times from Croatia, you’re not going to

have a better source unless you’ve been

there (imagine how many people in that

part of the world could correct the reports

we read). All points of Usenet are equi-

distant from the user and the reporter – we

can check their accuracy at every move.

And what do we notice? Not the parts that

the reporter gets right, just the errors. And

Usenet is such a complete culture that no

reporter, absent some form of formal train-

ing or total immersion in the net, is going

to get it all right.

Another online critic writes:

It’s scary when you actually are familiar

with what a journalist is writing about.

Kinda punches a whole bunch of holes in

the ‘facts’. Unfortunately it’s been going

on for a looooooong time … we, the gen-

eral viewing public, just aren’t up to speed

on the majority of issues. That whole ‘faith

in media’ thing. Yick. I can’t even trust the

damn AP wire anymore after reading an

enormous amount of total crap on it during

the first few hours of the Oklahoma bomb-

ing.

In Usenet’s formation of a community, that

community has developed the self-awareness to re-

spond to and reject an outside description of the Net.

If the Net was just the telephone line and computer

infrastructure making up a machine, that very machine

couldn’t object and scold journalists for describing it

as a pornography press or a bomb-production press.

Wesley Howard believes that the critical online com-

mentary is having a healthy effect on the press:

The coverage has become more accurate

and less sloppy in its coverage of the Net

because it (the Net) has become more de-

fined itself from a cultural point of view.

Partly because of growth and partly be-

cause of what the media was saying fed de-

bates and caused a firmer definition within

itself … . This does not mean the print

media was in any way responsible for the

Net’s self definition, but was one influence

of many.

Another person, writing from Japan, believed

that journalists should be more responsible, urging that

“all journalists should be forced to have an email ad-

dress.” He explained:

Journalists usually have a much bigger

audience than their critics. I often feel a

sense of helplessness in trying to counter

the damage they cause when they abuse

their privilege. Often it is impossible even

to get the attention of the persons respons-

ible for the lies and distortions.

Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists provide a

media where people are in control. People who are

online understand the value of this control and are

trying to articulate their understandings. Some of this

discussion is being carried on Usenet. Having the

ability to control a mass media, also encourages people

to try and affect other media. The proposal to require

print journalists to make available an email address is

an example of how online users are trying to apply the

Page 4

lessons learned from the online media to change the

print media.

III. People as Critics: the Role the Net Is

Playing and Will Play in the Future:

People online are excited, and this is not an

exaggeration. The various discussion forums connect-

ed to the global computer communications network (or

the Net) are the prototype for a new public form of

communication. This new form of human communica-

tion will either supplement the current forms of News

or replace them. One person on a newsgroup suc-

cinctly stated: “The real news is right here. And it

can’t get any newer because I watch it as it happens.”

The very concept of news is being reinvented as

people come to realize that they can provide the news

about the environment they live in; that people can

contribute their real-life conditions and this informa-

tion proves worthwhile for others. The post continued:

As other segments of society come online,

we will have less and less need for some

commercially driven entity that gathers the

news for me, filters it, and then delivers it

to me, hoping fervently that I’ll find

enough of interest to keep paying for it.

Such sentiment represents a fundamental challenge to

the professional creation and dissemination of news.

The online discussion forums allow open and free dis-

course. Individuals outside of the traditional power

structures are finding a forum in which to contribute,

where those contributions are welcomed. Describing

the importance of the open forum available on the Net,

Dolores Dege wrote:

The most important and eventually most

powerful aspect of the net will be the ef-

fect(s) of having access to alternative view-

points to the published and usually (al-

though not always either intentionally or

consciously) biased local news media. This

access to differing ‘truths’ is similar to the

communication revolution which occurred

when the first printing presses made know-

ledge available to the common populace,

instead of held in the tight fists of the cler-

gy and ruling classes.

This change in who makes the news is also apparent to

Keith Cowing:

How one becomes a ‘provider’ and ‘receiv-

er’ of information is being totally revamp-

ed. The status quo hasn’t quite noticed –

yet – THIS is what is so interesting.

While this openness also encourages different

conspiracy theorists and crack-pots to write messages,

their contributions are scrutinized as much as any other

posting. This uncensored environment leads to a sort-

ing out of mis-truths from thoughtful convictions.

Many people online keep their wits about them, and

seek to refute half-truths and lies. A post from Austra-

lia notes that it is common to post refutations of inac-

curate posts:

One of the good things about Usenet is the

propensity of people to post refutations of

false information that others have posted.

Because the online media is in the control of

many people, no one person can come online and dras-

tically alter the flow or quality of discussion. The mult-

iplicity of ideas and opinions make Usenet and mailing

lists the opposite of a free-for-all.

IV. Qualities of this New Medium

A common assumption of the ethic of individual-

ism is that the individual is in control and is the prime

mover of society. Others believe that it’s not the indi-

vidual who is in control, but that society is being con-

trolled by people organized around the various large

corporations that own so much of our society – wheth-

er those corporations are the media, manufacturers, etc.

The global computer communications networks cur-

rently allow uncensored expression from the individual

at a bottom rung of society. The grass-roots connection

of people around the world and in local communities

based on common interests is an important step in

bringing people more control over their lives. Lisa

Pease wrote in alt.journalism:

There is nothing like finding a group of

people who share your same interests and

background knowledge. Some of my inter-

ests I didn’t know one person in a hundred

that shared – and now I’ve met many.

What makes it a community is ultimately

in-person meetings.

She continued on in her message to state why

such connections and discussions are important:

The net … requires no permissions, no

groveling to authority, no editors to deal

with – no one basically to say ‘no don’t say

that.’ As a result – far more has been said

here publicly than has probably been said

in a hundred years about issues that really

Page 5

matter – political prisoners, democratic up-

risings, exposure of disinformation – THIS

is what makes the net more valuable than

any other news source.

Similar views are expressed by others about the

power of the Internet to work in favor of people rather

than commercial conglomerates:

The internet is our last hope for a medium

that will enable individuals to combat the

overpowering influence of the commercial

media to shape public opinion, voter atti-

tudes, select candidates, influence legisla-

tion, etc. … .

People are beginning to be empowered by the

open communications the online media provides. This

empowerment is beginning to lead toward more active

involvement by people in the societal issues they care

about.

V. The Pentium Story

In discussions about the future of the online

media, people have observed how Usenet makes it

possible to challenge the privileges inherent in the

traditional news media. John Pike started a thread de-

scribing the challenge the Net presents to the former

content providers:

To me this is the really exciting oppor-

tunity for Usenet, namely that the profes-

sional content providers will be directly

confronted with and by their audience. The

prevailing infostructure privileges certain

individuals by virtue of institutional af-

filiation. But cyberspace is a far more mer-

itocractic environment – the free exchange

of ideas can take place regardless of insti-

tutional affiliation.

Pike continues by arguing that online forums are be-

coming a place where “news” is both made and re-

ported, and thus traditional sources are often scooped.

He writes:

This has tremendously exciting possibili-

ties for democratizing the infostructure, as

the ‘official’ hardcopy implementations are

increasingly lagging cyberspace in break-

ing news.

An example of news being made online occurred

when Intel, the computer chip manufacturer, was forc-

ed to recall faulty Pentium chips because of the online

pressure and the effect of that pressure on computer

manufacturers such as IBM and Gateway. These com-

panies put pressure on Intel because people using

Usenet discovered problems with the Pentium. The on-

line discussion led to people becoming active and

getting the manufacturers of their computers, and Intel

to fix the problems.

In the article “Online Snits Fomenting Public

Storms,” Wall Street Journal reporters Bart Ziegler

and Jared Sandberg, commented:

Some industry insiders say that had the

Pentium flub occurred five years ago, be-

fore the Internet got hot and the media

caught on, Intel might have escaped a pub-

lic flogging and avoided a costly recall.

Buried in the report is the acknowledgment that

the traditional press would not have caught the defect

in the pentium chip, but that the online media forced

the traditional media to respond. The original reporting

about the problem was done in the Usenet newsgroup

comp.sys.intel and further online discussion took place

in that newsgroup and other newsgroups and on

Internet mailing-lists. The Wall Street Journal report-

ers recognized their debt to news that people were

posting online to come up with a story which dealt

with a major computer company and with the real

world role that Usenet played.

In another article in the Wall Street Journal, re-

porter Fara Warner focused on the impact of the online

news on Intel. “[Intel] offered consumers a promise of

reliability and quality, and now that promise has been

called into question,” she writes quoting the CEO of a

consulting firm.

The people who did this questioning

were the users of the computers with the faulty chips.

Communicating about the problem online, these users

were able to have an impact not otherwise possible.

Ziegler and Sandberg noted that the discussions were

online rather than in “traditional public forums like

trade journals, newspapers or the electronic media.”

Online users were able to work together to deal with a

problem, instead of depending on other forums tradi-

tionally associated with reporting dissatisfaction with

consumer goods. After all of the criticisms, Intel had

to replace faulty chips in order to keep their reputation

viable. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and

other newspapers and magazines played second fiddle

to what was happening online. In their article, Ziegler

and Sandberg quote Dean Tom Goldstein: “It’s abso-

lutely changing how journalism is practiced in ways

that aren’t fully developed.”

These journalists ac-

knowledge that the field of journalism is changing as

a result of the existence of the online complaints. The

Page 6

online connection of people is forming a large and im-

portant social force.

As a community where news is made, reported

and discussed, Usenet has been a hotbed of more than

just technical developments. Other late breaking stor-

ies have included the Church of Scientology and the

suppression of speech. An Australian reporter, John

Hilvert, commented on the value of being online:

It [Usenet] can be a great source of leads

about the mood of the Net. The recent GIF-

Unisys-Compuserve row and the Intel

Pentium bug are examples of USENET

taking an activist and educative role.

Nevertheless, Hilvert, warned about the authenticity of

information available online:

However the risk is you can easily be

spooked by stuff on the Net. Things have

to be shaped, confirmed and tested off-line

as well. One of the interesting side-effects

of Usenet is that we have to work even

harder to get a good story because, there is

not much value-added in just summarizing

a Usenet discussion.

With Usenet it is not necessary to rely on any

single piece of information. Usenet is not about ideas

in a vacuum. Usenet is about discussion and discourse.

Tom Kimball, in a Usenet post, writes about the value

of a public Usenet discussion:

I have great respect for the usenet ideal of

everyone having the chance to respond to

the ideas of others and the resulting ex-

changes of information and clashes of ideas

I think is of some value (despite the flame-

war garbage that gets in the way).

The great number and range of the unedited posts

on Usenet brings up the question of whether editors are

needed to deal with the amount of information. Dis-

cussing the need to take time to deal with the growing

amount of information, a post on alt.internet.media-

coverage explained:

The difference being that for the first time

in human history, the general populace has

the ability to determine what it finds im-

portant, rather than relying on the whims of

those who knew how to write, or controlled

the printing presses. It means that we as

individuals are going to have to deal with

sifting through a lot of information on our

own, but in the end I believe that we will

all benefit from it.

Such posts lead to the question of what is meant

by the notion of the general populace and a popular

press. The point is important as those who are on the

Net make up but a small percentage of the total popu-

lation of either the USA or the world. However, that

online population of an estimated 27.5 million people

make up a significant body of people connecting to

each other online. The fast rate of growth also makes

one take note of the trends and developments. Defining

what is meant by ‘general populace and a popular

press’ the post continues:

By general populace, I mean those who can

actually afford a computer, and a connec-

tion to the net, or have access to a public

terminal. As computer prices go down, the

amount of people who fit this description

will increase. At any rate, comparing the 5-

10 million people with Usenet access, to

the handful who control the mass media

shows that even in a nascent stage, Usenet

is far more the ‘people’s voice’ than any

media conglomerate could ever be.

The comments from the last two people lead to

asking whether or not the new technologies are helping

the human species to evolve or to deal with the ever

increasing amount of information. Computer pioneers

like Norbert Wiener, J.C.R. Licklider and John Keme-

ny discussed the need for man-computer symbiosis to

help humans deal with the growing problems of our

times.

The online discussion forums provide a new

form of man-computer symbiosis. They are helpful

intellectual exercises. It is healthy for society if all

members think and make active use of their brains –

and Usenet is conducive to thinking. It is not the role

of journalists to provide us with the answers, the

objective truth of life. Even if someone’s life is busy,

what happens when they come to depend on the

opinions and summaries of others as their own? Usenet

is helping to create a mass community which works

communally to aid the individual. Usenet works via

the active involvement and thoughtful contributions of

each user. The Usenet software facilitates the creation

of a community whose thought processes can accumu-

late and benefit the entire community. The creation of

the book, and the printed book helped to increase the

speed of the accumulation of ideas. Usenet now speeds

up that process to help accumulate the thoughts of the

moment. The resulting discussion seen on Usenet

could not have been produced beforehand as the work

of one individual. The bias or point of the view of any

Page 7

one individual is no longer presented as the whole

truth.

Karl Krueger describes some of the value of Use-

net in a posting to Usenet:

Over time, Usenetters get better at being

parts of the Usenet matrix – because their

*own* condensations support Usenet’s,

and this helps other users. In a way, Usenet

is a ‘meta-symbiont’ with each user – the

user is a part of Usenet and benefits Usenet

(with a few exceptions …), and Usenet in-

cludes the user and benefits him/her.

Krueger points out how experienced Usenet users con-

tribute to the Usenet community. He writes:

As time increases normally, the experi-

enced Usenet user uses Usenet to make

himself more knowledgeable and success-

ful. Experienced users also contribute back

to Usenet, primarily in the forms of con-

veying knowledge (answering questions,

compiling FAQs), conveying experience

(being part of the environment a newbie

interacts with), and protecting Usenet (up-

holding responsible and non-destructive

use, canceling potentially damaging spam,

fighting ‘newsgroup invasions’, etc.).

As new users connect to Usenet, and learn from

others, the Usenet Collective grows and becomes one

person richer. Krueger continues:

Provided that all users are willing to spend

the minimal amount of effort to gain some

basic Usenet experience then they can be

added to this loop. In Usenet, old users

gain their benefits from other old users,

while simultaneously bringing new users

into the old-users group to gain benefits.

The collective body of people, assisted by the

Usenet software, has grown larger than any individual

newspaper. As people continue to connect to Usenet

and other discussion forums, the collective global pop-

ulation will contribute back to the human community

in this new form of news.

VI. Journalists and the Internet

Professional journalists are beginning to under-

stand that the online discussion forums will change

their field, though they may not fully understand what

the changes will be. In posing the question: “What, if

any, effect do Usenet News and mailing lists have on

reporters and editors you are in contact with?” several

journalists responded. Some stated that Usenet and

mailing lists are valuable information and opinion

gathering tools which also help them to get in touch

with experts, while others are either timid about the

new technology or did not want to bother with yet

another reporting tool. Several of the reporters stated

that they do not participate in any discussion forums

per se, but rather lurk in these areas and contact posters

by email who they feel will have valuable information

for a story. Their main concern was that they might

waste time online trying to get information when there

would only be a small amount of worthwhile material

in a lot of waste. Lastly, one or two did not see any

value in online discussion forums, and have stayed

away from them after initial negative impressions.

These reporters were asked if they sensed any

pressure to get Internet accounts or to connect to

Usenet and mailing lists. Josh Quittner of Time Mag-

azine said the pressure came from the publishing side,

where publishers are looking for the development of

new markets. John Verity of Business Week and

Lorraine Goods of Time Interactive said editors are

responding to interest about the Internet and want

stories about it. Brock Meeks, an independent journal-

ist, stated that the pressure comes from reporters such

as himself who have been online for some time and

have beaten other reporters to stories because of the

power of online communications. Some reported that

they understood that it was important to get online

without knowing why. A few said there is no push to

go online.

Asked whether it is important to be online, some

did not see it as necessary, given that they are already

connected to those they consider to be experts in their

respective field without being online. Others felt the

speed of email helped to gather timely information for

the stories they were working on. Farhon Memon of

the New York Post compared today’s online forums to

conferences because they make contacting experts

much easier both in terms of time and place.

When asked about the best forms of reader feed-

back, a number of the journalists stated that letters to

the editor and op-ed pages were helpful. One reporter

noted that letters to the editor were not particularly

heeded. Email was named as the next most important

means for readers to send in commentary. Whether this

commentary is listened to or not is another story. One

reporter did suggest that the online criticism, correct or

not, encourages journalists to do the best possible job.

When it came to the question of whether online

Page 8

discussion forums would ever replace newspapers, the

journalists almost universally stated that each form has

its own role to play. Quittner didn’t think traditional

journalists would evolve into online discussion leaders.

Such a job might emerge, but not as an additional re-

sponsibility of the regular journalist. Maia Szalavitz

responded:

The print media can’t beat online stuff for

interactivity; online stuff can’t beat print

journalism for organization, ease of port-

ability and use at this point.

Goods offered a similar analysis:

An online news outfit can obviously do

things that print cannot. However, there are

certain things you can do with a newspaper

that you can’t do on a computer (like read

it on the subway on the way to work, or in

the bathroom). Just as TV did not replace

radio, computers will not replace news-

papers. I do think, however, that the intro-

duction of new media will have an effect

on traditional media. What those effects

will be, however, I don’t know.

There is a growing trend of journalists coming

online for various reasons. Coming online could mean

one of several things. Some use the Net as a new in-

formation source, and some look for people to inter-

view. Lastly, there are those who are actually joining

the community or responding to their reading aud-

ience. A growing number of journalists are partic-

ipating in such newsgroups as alt.internet.media-

coverage, alt.journalism.criticism, alt.news-media, also

in forums on some of the commercial online services

and in online communities such as the Well, among

other places.

Reporters are entering the discussion

and both asking for people’s suggestions on how to

improve their coverage of the Internet and for remarks

on their stories.

Newspapers and magazines are developing on-

line counterparts of their print editions (e.g., San Jose

Mercury News, and Business Week) on commercial on-

line services such as Prodigy and America Online, and

are experimenting with new content differing from

their print editions on the World Wide Web (WWW)

(e.g., HotWired, Time Online, NandoNet). These on-

line offerings sometimes provide another interface be-

tween journalists and readers. Message areas or public

discussion boards are offered along with publicized e-

mail addresses for emailing letters to the editor or

particular journalists.

VII. Conclusion

Newspapers and magazines are a convenient

form for dealing with information transfer. People

have grown accustomed to reading newspapers and

magazines wherever and whenever they please. The

growing dissatisfaction with the print media is more

with the content than with the form. There is a sig-

nificant criticism that the current print media does not

allow for a dynamic response or follow-up to the

articles in hand. One possible direction would be

toward online distribution and home or on-site print-

ing. This would allow for the convenience of the tradi-

tional newspaper and magazine form to be connected

to the dynamic conversation that online Netnews

allows. The reader could choose at what point in the

conversation or how much of the discussion to make a

part of the printed form. But this leaves out the ele-

ment of interactivity. Still, it could be a temporary

solution until the time when ubiquitous slate com-

puters with mobile networks would allow the com-

bination of a light, easy to handle screen, with a con-

tinuous connection into the Internet from anyplace.

Newspapers could continue to provide entertain-

ment in the form of cross-word puzzles, comics, clas-

sified ads, and entertainment sections (e.g., entertain-

ment, lifestyles, sports, fashion, gossip, reviews, cou-

pons, and so on). However, the real challenge comes in

what is traditionally known as news, or information

and newly breaking events from around the world.

Citizen, or now Netizen reporters are challenging the

premise that authoritative professional reporters are the

only possible reporters of the news. The news of the

day is biased and opinionated no matter how many

claims for objectivity exist in the world of the reporter.

In addition, the choice of what becomes news is clearly

subjective. Now that more people are gaining a voice

on the open public electronic discussion forums, pre-

viously unheard “news” is being made available. The

current professional news reporting is not really report-

ing the news, rather it is reporting the news as decided

by a certain set of economic or political interests. Todd

Masco contrasts the two contending forms of the news

media:

Free communication is essential to the pro-

per functioning of an open, free society

such as ours. In recent years, the function-

ing of this society has been impaired by the

monolithic control of our means of com-

munication and news gathering (through

television and conglomerate-owned news-

Page 9

papers). This monolithic control allows

issues to be talked about only really in

terms that only the people who control the

media and access to same can frame … .

Usenet, and News in general, changes this:

it allows real debate on issues, allowing

perspectives from all sides to be seen.

Journalists may survive, but they will be second-

ary to the symbiosis that the combination of the Usenet

software and computers with the Usenet community

produces. Karl Krueger observes how the Usenet Col-

lective is evolving to join man and machine into a

news gathering, sorting and disseminating body. He

writes:

There is no need for Official Summarizers

(a.k.a. journalists) on Usenet, because ev-

eryone does it – by cross-posting, follow-

ing-up, forwarding relevant articles to

other places, maintaining FTP archives and

WWW indexes of Usenet articles (yes,

FTP and WWW are Internet things, not

Usenet things – but if Usenet articles are

stored in them, the metaphor extends).

He continues:

Journalists will never replace software. The

purpose of journalists is similar to scribes

in medieval times: to provide an informa-

tion service when there is insufficient tech-

nology or insufficient general skill at using

it. I’m not insulting journalism; it is a re-

spectable profession and useful. But you

won’t *need* a journalist when you have a

good enough news-reader/browser and

know how to use it.

These online commentators echo Victor Hugo’s

description of how the printed book grew up to replace

the authority that architecture had held in earlier times.

Hugo wrote:

This was the presentiment that as human

ideas changed their form they would

change their mode of expression, that the

crucial idea of each generation would no

longer be written in the same material or in

the same way, that the book of stone, so

solid and durable, would give way to the

book of paper, which was more solid and

durable still.

Today, similarly, the need for a broader, and

more cooperative gathering and reporting of the news

has helped to create the new online media that is

gradually supplanting the traditional forms of journal-

ism. Professional media critics writing in the Freedom

Forum’s Media Studies Journal acknowledge that

online critics and news gatherers are presenting a chal-

lenge to the professional news media that can lead to

their overthrow. They write:

News organizations can weather the blasts

of professional media critics, but their

credibility cannot survive if they lose the

trust of the multitude of citizens critics

throughout the United States.

As more and more people come online, and

realize the grassroots power of becoming a Netizen

reporter, the professional news media must evolve a

new role or will be increasingly marginalized.

Notes

1. Christopher Lasch, “Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of

Argument,” Media Studies Journal, Vol. 9 no. 1, Winter 1995, p.

81.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 91.

4. Jared Sandberg, “Oklahoma City Blast Turns Users Onto Inter-

net for Facts, Some Fiction,” Wall Street Journal, April 20, 1995,

p. A6.

5. Martha Fitzsimon and Lawrence T. McGill, “The Citizen as

Media Critic,” Media Studies Journal, Vol. 9 no. 2, Spring 1995,

p. 91.

6. Ibid.

7. Thomas S. Volovic, “Encounters Online,” Media Studies

Journal, Vol. 9 no. 2, Spring 1995, p. 115.

8. Ibid.

9. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg, “Online Snits Fomenting

Public Storms,” Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1994.

10. From: Gloria Stern <af3[email protected]>

Date: 7 April, 1995

Subject: Re: Future of print journalism

Newsgroups: alt.journalism

Message-ID:<1995Apr7.214157.11293@lafn.org>

11. From: John Pike <j[email protected]>

Date: 24 April, 1995

Subject: Re: Usenet’s political power (was Re: Content Providers

– Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet)

Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet

Message-ID: <3ngntr$giu@clarknet.clark.net>

12. From: Elizabeth Fischer <efischer@wimsey.com>

Date: 20 July, 1994

Subject: Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Newsgroups: Alt.internet.media-coverage

Message-ID: <efischer-200794133[email protected]>

13. From: Jim Zoes <mustang@mcs.com>

Date: 22 July, 1994

Subject: Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

Message-ID: <30nmf4$bgg@News1.mcs.com>

Page 10

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. From: Catherine Stanton <[email protected].net>

Date: 21 July, 1994

Subject: Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

Message-ID: <30ltmc$huu@rodan.UU.NET>

17. From: Abby Franquemont-Guillory <abbyf[email protected]>

Date: 22 Jul 1994 13:45:19-0500

Subject: Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

Message-ID: <30p43[email protected]>

18. From: The Nutty Professor <flixman@news.dorsai.org>

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 13:35:34 GMT

Subject: Re: Reporter Seeking Net-Abuse Comments

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

19. From: Mikez <[email protected]> .

Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 03:58:55 GMT

Subject: Re: Mass media exploiting ‘cyberspace’ for ratings …

Newsgroups: alt.journalism.criticism

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

20. From: Wesley Howard <[email protected]>

Date: 8 Apr 1995 05:39:43 GMT

Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media?

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

21. From: John DeHoog <[email protected].or.jp>

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 20:01:24 +0900

Subject: Make journalists get an email address!

Newsgroups: alt.journalism

Message-ID: <ABBDBF94966820B78D@ppp017.st.rim.or.jp>

22. Message-Id: <elknox.35.0[email protected]>

23. Ibid.

24. Delores Dege, “Re: Impact of the Net on Society,” email

message, February 21, 1995.

25. From: Keith L. Cowing <kcow[email protected]>

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 12:33:23-0500

Subject: Re: Content Providers – Professionals versus Amateurs

on Usenet

Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet

Message-ID: <kcowing-17049512332300[email protected]3.0.239>

26. From: William Logan Lee <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Is hobby computing dead?

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers

Message-ID: <1993Apr6.121613.1[email protected]>

27. From: Lisa Pease <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 23:17:24 GMT

Subject: Re: Future of print journalism

Newsgroups: alt.journalism

Message-ID: <lpeaseD6L4p0.2K0@netcom.com>

28. Ibid.

29. From: Norman <[email protected]>

Date: 20 Mar 1995 21:05:54-0500

Subject: Re: Impact of the Net on Society

Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet

Message-ID: <3klca2$ma1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>

30. From: John Pike <j[email protected]et>

Date: 17 Apr 1995 12:21:49 GMT

Subject: Content Providers – Professionals versus Amateurs on

Usenet

Message-ID: <3mtm[email protected]>

31. Ibid.

32. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg.

33. Fara Warner, “Experts Surprised Intel Isn’t Reaching Out To

Consumers More,” Wall Street Journal, December 14, 1994.

34. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg.

35. Ibid.

36. From: John Hilvert <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 03:40:57 GMT

Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media?

Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet

Message-ID: <hilvertj.107.2F8[email protected]>

37. Ibid.

38. From: Tom Kimball <tom@europa.lonestar.org>

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 02:25:28 GMT

Subject: Usenet impact upon reading habits and skills

Message-ID: <1993Aug26.022528.63[email protected]>

39. From: Miskatonic Gryn <m[email protected]>

Date: 17 Apr 1995 15:31:22-0400

Subject: Re: Cliff Stoll

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

Message-ID: <3muf[email protected]>

40. The number of people accessible via email was placed at 27.5

million as of October 1994 according to John Quarterman and

MIDS at http://www.tic.com/mids/howbig.html

41. Miskatonic Gryn

42. See John Kemeny, Man and the Computer, J. C. R. Licklider,

“Man Computer Symbiosis,” Norbert Wiener, God & Golem, Inc.

43. From: Karl A. Krueger <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 08:58:33 GMT

Subject: Re: Special Issue of TIME: Welcome to Cyberspace

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

Message-ID: <[email protected]rock.edu>

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Maia Szalavitz, “Re: Questions about the effect of Usenet on

journalism,” email message, April 18, 1995.

47. Goods, Lorraine. (1995, April 23) “Questions about the effect

of Usenet on journalism” [email to M. Hauben], [Online].

Available email: lg[email protected]

48. While I was writing this paper, there was a debate online over

moving discussion from alt.internet.media-coverage into a new

newsgroup tentatively called talk.media.net-coverage.

49. Jennifer Wolff wrote an interesting article entitled “Opening

Up, OnLine: What Happens When the Public Comes At You

From Cyberspace” in the Columbia Journalism Review, Nov/Dec

1994, pp. 62-65.

50. From: L. Todd Masco <[email protected]>

(No Subject Line)

Newsgroups: news.future, comp.society.futures, ny.general

51. Karl A. Krueger.

52. Ibid.

53. Victor Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris, translated by John

Sturrock, Penguin Books, London, 1978, p. 189.

54. Fitzsimon and McGill, p. 201.

Page 11

[Editor’s Note: A version of this article appears as Chapter 14 of

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben published in 1997 by the

IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 241-279. An early version

appeared in Proceedings of Telecommunities '95: Equity on the

Internet, August 19-23, 1995]

The Net and the Future of

Politics: The Ascendancy

of the Commons

by Michael Hauben

What democracy requires is public debate,

and not information. Of course, it needs

information, too, but the kind of informa-

tion it needs can be generated only by

vigorous popular debate. We do not know

what we need to know until we ask the

right questions, and we can identify the

right questions only by subjecting our own

ideas about the world to the test of public

controversy … .

Christopher Lasch,

“Journalism, Publicity,

and the Lost Art of Argument”

Throughout American history, the town

meeting has been the premier, and often the

only, example of ‘direct democracy’ … .

The issue of whether the town meeting can

be redesigned to empower ordinary citi-

zens, as it was intended to do, is of vital

concern for the future.

Jeffrey B. Abramson,

“Electronic Town Meetings:

Proposals for Democracy’s Future”

I. Introduction

Democracy, or rule by the people, is by defini-

tion a popular form of government. Writers throughout

the ages have thought about democracy, and under-

stood the limitations imposed by various factors.

Today, computer communications networks, such as

the Internet, are technical innovations which make

moving toward a true participatory democracy more

feasible.

James Mill, a political theorist from the early

nineteenth century and the father of philosopher John

Stuart Mill, wrote about democracy in his 1825 essay

on “Government” for that year’s Supplement for the

Encyclopedia Britannica. Mill argues that democracy

is the only governmental form that is fair to the society

as a whole. Although he does not trust representative

government, he ends up advocating it. But he warns of

its dangers:

Whenever the powers of Government are

placed in any hands other than those of the

community, whether those of one man, of

a few, or of several, those principles of

human nature which imply that Govern-

ment is at all necessary, imply that those

persons will make use of them to defeat the

very end for which Government exists.

Democracy is a desirable form of government,

but Mill found it to be impossible to maintain. Mill

lists two practical obstacles in his essay. First, he finds

it impossible for the whole people to assemble to

perform the duties of government. Citizens would have

to leave their normal jobs on a regular basis to help

govern the community. Second, Mill argues that an

assembled body of differing interests would find it

impossible to come to any agreements. Mill speaks to

this point in his essay:

In an assembly, every thing must be done

by speaking and assenting. But where the

assembly is numerous, so many persons

desire to speak, and feelings, by mutual

inflammation, become so violent, that calm

and effectual deliberation is impossible.

In lieu of participatory democracies, republics

have arisen as the actual form of government. Mill

recognizes that an elected body of representatives

serves to facilitate the role of governing society in the

interests of the body politic. However, that representa-

tive body needs to be overseen so as to not abuse its

powers. Mill writes:

That whether Government is entrusted to

one or a few, they have not only motives

opposite to those ends, but motives which

will carry them, if unchecked, to inflict the

greatest evils … .

A more recent scholar, the late Professor Christo-

pher Lasch of the University of Rochester, also had

qualms about representative government. In his essay,

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

ment,”

Lasch argued that any form of democracy

requires discourse and debate to function properly. His

article is critical of modern journalism failing in its

role as a public forum to help raise the needed ques-

Page 12

tions of our society. Lasch recommended the re-

creation of direct democracy when he wrote:

Instead of dismissing direct democracy as

irrelevant to modern conditions, we need to

recreate it on a large scale. And from this

point of view, the press serves as the equiv-

alent of the town meeting.

But even the traditional town meeting had its

limitations. For example, everyone should be allowed

to speak, as long as they share a common interest in

the well-being of the whole community, rather than in

any particular part. One scholar wrote that a:

well-known study of a surviving small

Vermont town meeting traces the breaking

apart of the deliberative ideal once devel-

opers catering to tourism bought property

in a farming community; the farmers and

developers had such opposed interests

about zoning ordinances that debate col-

lapsed into angry shouting matches.

The development of the Internet and of Usenet is

an investment in a strong force toward making direct

democracy a reality. These new technologies present

the chance to overcome the obstacles preventing the

implementation of direct democracy. Online communi-

cation forums also make possible Lasch’s desire to see

the discussion necessary to identify today’s fundamen-

tal questions. Mill could not foresee the successful

assembly of the body politic in person at one time. The

Net allows for a meeting which takes place on each

person’s own time, rather than all at one time.

Usenet

newsgroups are discussion forums where questions are

raised, and people can leave comments when conve-

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

place. As a computer discussion forum, individuals can

connect from their own computers, or from publicly

accessible computers across the nation to participate in

a particular debate. The discussion takes place in one

concrete time and place, while the discussants can be

dispersed. Current Usenet newsgroups and mailing

lists prove that citizens can both do their daily jobs and

participate in discussions that interest them within their

daily schedules.

Mill’s second observation was that people would

not be able to communicate peacefully after assem-

bling. Online discussions do not have the same charac-

teristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to

the discussion forum when they wish, and when they

have time, they can be thoughtful in their responses to

the discussion. Whereas in a traditional meeting, par-

ticipants have to think quickly to respond. In addition,

online discussions allow everyone to have a say,

whereas finite length meetings only allow a certain

number of people to have their say. Online meetings

allow everyone to contribute their thoughts in a mes-

sage, which is then accessible to whomever else is

reading and participating in the discussion.

These new communication technologies hold the

potential for the implementation of direct democracy

in a country as long as the necessary computer and

communications infrastructure are installed. Future

advancement toward a more responsible government

is possible with these new technologies. While the

future is discussed and planned for, it will also be

possible to use these technologies to assist in the

citizen participation in government. Netizens are

watching various government institutions on various

newsgroups and mailing lists throughout the global

computer communications network. People’s thoughts

about and criticisms of their respective governments

are being aired on the currently uncensored networks.

These networks can revitalize the concept of a

democratic “Town Meeting” via online communica-

tion and discussion. Discussions involve people inter-

acting with others. Voting involves the isolated

thoughts of an individual on an issue, and then his or

her acting on those thoughts in a private vote. In

society where people live together, it is important for

people to communicate with each other about their

situations to best understand the world from the broad-

est possible viewpoint.

Public and open discussions and debates are

grass-roots, bottom-up development which enable peo-

ple to participate in democracy with enthusiasm and

interest more so than the current system of secret

ballots allows. Of course, at some point or other, votes

might be taken, but only after time has been given to

air an issue in the commons.

II. The NTIA Virtual Conference

A recent example and prototype of this public

and open discussion was the Virtual Conference on

Universal Service and Open Access to the Telecom-

munications Network in late November 1994. The

National Telecommunications and Information Admin-

istration (NTIA), a branch of the U.S. Department of

Commerce sponsored this email and newsgroup con-

ference and encouraged public access sites to allow

broad-based discussion. Several public libraries across

the nation provided the most visible public sites in the

Page 13

archives of the conference. This NTIA online confer-

ence is an example of an online “town meeting.” This

prototype of what the technology facilitates also dem-

onstrated some of the problems inherent in non-moder-

ated computer communication. The NTIA conference

was a new social form made possible by the Net and

actually occurred as a prototype of one form of citizen

online discussion. It demonstrated an example of

citizen-government interaction through citizen debate

over important public questions held in a public forum

with the support of public institutions. This is a viable

attempt to revitalize the democratic definition of gov-

ernment of and by the people. This particular two-

week forum displayed the following points:

1. Public debate making it possible for previously

unheard voices to be part of the discussion

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

real questions of society

3. The clarification of a public question

4. The testing of new technological means to make

more democracy possible.

Following is a case study of the archives of this

prototype conference, including some analysis for the

future.

David J. Barram, the Deputy Secretary of the

U.S. Department of Commerce, closed the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration’s

(NTIA) Virtual Conference on Universal and Service

and Open Access by stating the conference was: “… a

tremendous example of how our information infra-

structure can allow greater citizen participation in the

development of government policies.” To hear such a

comment from a government representative is impor-

tant. Such a statement indicates that many users of the

Net have demonstrated to the U.S. government that

they oppose the recent conversion of the communica-

tions-based Internet into the commerce-based National

Information Infrastructure.

The goals of the two-week conference, were

stated in the Welcoming Statement.

The Welcoming

Statement promised to replace the one-way top down

approach with a new form of dialogue among citizens

and with their government.

Open discussion is powerful. Such exchange is

more convincing then any propaganda. The forums on

“Availability and Affordability” and “Redefining Uni-

versal Service and Open Access” demonstrated that the

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

solution for the problem of spreading network access

to all. Usually unheard voices spoke out loud and clear

there is a strong need for government to assure that

online access is equally available to urban, rural,

disabled or poor citizens and to everyone else. The

government must step in to provide Net access in non-

profitable situations that the so-called “free market”

would not touch. Non-governmental and non-profit

organizations along with community representatives,

college students, normal everyday people and others,

made this clear in their contributions to the discussion.

Though the NTIA Virtual Conference was not adver-

tised broadly enough, the organizers did establish 80

public access points across the U.S. in places like

public libraries and community centers. This helped to

include the opinions of people in the discussion who

might not have been heard otherwise.

A. The Importance of the Internet to Our Society

The Internet and Usenet represent important de-

velopments in technology which will have a profound

effect on human society and intellectual development.

We are in an early stage of the development and dis-

tribution of these technologies, and it is important to

look toward the future. Some areas of human society

which these new communications technologies are

likely to affect include government, human communi-

cation and community formation. Democracy is gov-

ernment by the people, and both Usenet and mailing

lists allow everyone to speak out without the fear that

their voices would not be heard. Individuals can still be

uncooperative, but these new communications technol-

ogies make it possible to have one’s voice presented

equally. These technologies could be integrated with

other online information and communication technolo-

gies to make possible a true participatory democracy.

This potential excited several of the participants.

Many participants in the NTIA virtual conference

recognized the value inherent in these new communi-

cation technologies and discussed the need for univer-

sal access to the technology. The Internet was identi-

fied to be a “public good,” worthy and necessary to be

accessible to all of the population and throughout the

land. This led to the understanding that it was impor-

tant to make access equal across all stations of society.

Citizens living in rural areas, people with various

handicaps, or of low-income should have equal oppor-

tunity with everyone else to access and utilize the

Internet. These particular cases were described and

explored as being unprofitable for businesses to pro-

vide equal access for equal payment. Businesses make

profits off of the mass production of like goods or

Page 14

services. Parts of society which cannot use the com-

mon product wind up paying extra. This was seen as

discriminatory by various participants. The problems

described included the high prices involved with long

distance phone rates which most rural inhabitants need

to pay to communicate with most other people. These

rates would have to be paid to connect to the closest

Internet access phone number. Rural access would be

costly, as would access from territories such as the

Virgin Islands. Another concern was the extra cost to

those with hardships to gain access. People with handi-

caps would need to purchase expensive input/output

devices in order to compensate for their individual dis-

advantage. Access is expensive, but so are computers

and training. Participants felt it important to make

access to Internet accounts and computers easily

available.

The number of subscribers averaged about 400

people per conference. The conferences sponsored a

debate on the issues, and people with different ideas

contributed. However, there was a clear cry by many

participants that the U.S. government should stay in-

volved with the U.S. backbone of the Internet to best

provide equal access and service to individuals

throughout U.S. society. One of the arguments in favor

of this understanding was that it was vital for people

from all walks of life and all possible backgrounds to

be using the Internet. Only if there is access for all can

the Internet work as a medium of communication and

discussion, including all the differences, and diversity

of the population. A network only connecting a few

types of individuals together would not benefit society.

The question was raised by one participant whether we

as a society could afford being split into two distinct

societies – those online and those not.

Following are general comments taken from the

archives of the NTIA Virtual Conference about the

importance of the Internet to our society. Subsequent

sections will focus on particular topics discussed

during the conference.

1. The Benefits of the Net

From: Randolph Langley

I agree wholeheartedly – the Internet costs

so little, and benefits so many. As with the

interstate highway system, it is a proper

and effective activity for the federal gov-

ernment. I believe most of the citizenry

would not care to see the interstate system

given over to a few large toll companies,

and I believe the Internet will be on the

scale of economic and cultural benefit as

the interstate system.

From: Bob Summers

In order for the nation to access a common

pool of information, such as the library of

congress, an efficient system must be in

place to handle the load of thousands of

library’s and other users to access the

information. Yes, I believe that there will

have to be an outlay of funds to provide

such a system, not to mention the cost of

putting the information online. These funds

must come from the Federal government,

since it is for the public.

From: W. Curtiss Priest

Government should supply/support activi-

ties where there are public goods (public

information) and when the benefits of this

support exceeds the cost to we taxpayers.

From: Wayne County RESA

The Net is certainly not free, I agree. We

all pay to a certain degree for it. I am a

little concerned about the commercialism

aspect of it, though. I think if it is privat-

ized we will see more ads. Seems logical.

Why would someone pay good money to

be on the Net and not advertise their wares.

I imagine it is inevitable but I would like

the inevitable forestalled or better yet

somehow modified so that information and

the kinds of information is not compro-

mised.

From: BNN Television

Public access is a ‘public good’, not only

because it allows people from disadvan-

taged backgrounds the opportunity to use

new technology, but also because it in-

creases the collective pool of information

from which even newer technology is born.

Analyze this increase from a business per-

spective if you must – I’ll keep on rooting

for the future of my species.

From: Brent Wall

The draft financial plan for the Leon Coun-

Page 15

ty Free-Net project, while proposing a

number of different financial opportunities

to make universal service a reality to the

community, will emphasize an old notion

practiced for years in this and other coun-

tries: cross-subsidies. Based on the view

that citizen communication and education

are public goods and should not be con-

strained by cost of service pricing mecha-

nisms, the financial plan proposes that

business uses and enhanced services shall

be charged a fee that underwrites the first

Amendment communication functions of

the Net as well as its educational employ-

ment.

This entire argument hinges on defining

communication and education (and I recog-

nize that there are grey areas that would

need to be ironed out) as PUBLIC

GOODS. This is not, in my judgement

simply a matter of determining whether

Net communication is “divisible” etc. as

the economic profession would tend to

analyze the problem. It deals with funda-

mental philosophies of the social value of

education and communication in a democ-

racy. If, to email my County Commission-

ers on a topic that affects me, I have to pay

a charge that I really can’t afford, while

Mr. Thickwallet has no such impediment,

then this means something to democratic

participation in an electronic world.

This is nothing new: witness C-Span, local

access channels, and the like. If we adopt a

concept and policy like the above, more

and more citizens, over time, would be able

to join the virtual community as a full

member. To have this membership driven

by one’s personal income will surely result

in two societies that are separate and un-

equal. Can we afford this future?

From: Stephen Brenner

We are dealing with a major paradigm shift

when it comes to this lateral flow of com-

munication and the kinds of community

building processes and empowerment that

this can catalyze. We need to put some

thought into how a real democracy could

function, given these new communication

tools.

From: Lew McDaniel

In my opinion, information access is suffi-

ciently important to be a guaranteed right.

By guaranteed information access, I mean

for K-12, adult education, health services,

and government access. Movies on de-

mand, games, and electronic shopping (ala

the shopping channels) should be charged

at an additional rate.

From: Dave W. Mitchell

I agree that the knowledge base of a society

and the ability of its citizens to use it will

determine the ultimate survival of free

peoples.

From: Daniel Lieberman

We are looking toward the future. Anyone

who hopes to participate in the society will

need to have access. Banking, schooling,

books, its all coming very fast. Just think of

the rate of change in the last five years or

the last six months on the WWW.Voters

handbooks, policy papers, etc. How can

one hope to be a knowledgeable citizen

without access. The hardware will trickle

down like automobiles. But the communi-

cation links must be available.

From: Sean Connell

The Internet offers a chance for us to fol-

low through on a promise of democracy

that was betrayed over two hundred years

ago. Our Constitution, clever as it may be,

was written to *prevent* civic action.

[Jefferson] was the first to recommend

public education, because he knew that it

was vital to a healthy democracy. We must

all be informed and capable of contributing

to the governing of our country. The public

does not have the means to act in concert

and it is not the interest of the current

power players to afford us those means.

The Internet … is a means to create vocal,

active, communities that transcend race,

geography, and wealth. It is entirely neces-

sary that we recognize this fact and make a

stand now to maintain this highway to real

Page 16

Democracy.

From: Colette Brooks

And many of us feel that the Infobahn is

not primarily a private preserve but a na-

tional/world resource which should be

extended to all, for reasons already ex-

plored in other posts this week.

From: Bill Russell

What SERVICES should be guaranteed to

every citizen. The old definition of univer-

sal service has been called POTS: Plain

Old Telephone Service. As I understand it,

the NEED for this service was so great that

it is public policy that every one (hence

universal) should have it. It has been also

called “life line service.” … IMHO univer-

sal service needs to be defined as a set of

SERVICES that are so important to our

civilization that they should be made uni-

versally available. Foremost among them is

POTS. Next is access to a network that

provides at least an email bridge to the

worldwide Internet at an equitable price. It

is just plain not fair for urban cybernauts to

pay zero while rural cybernauts pay ten

cents per minute for telephone connection

to the net.

2. The Cry for Equal Access and Universal

Access

Following are some messages from the confer-

ence demonstrating concern that access to the Internet

be available universally, with respect both to access

and to price.

From: Brent Wall

An early post to this group from an individ-

ual from the Anneberg NPR group sug-

gested that, as a beginning, universal ac-

cess, as defined from the consumer’s and

not the supplier’s viewpoint, merely en-

tails, at present, a phone line to every

home. The implicit definition of availabil-

ity in the Leon County library Tallahassee

Free-Net adds one important dimension on

top of the phone line notion. It is the ex-

pansion to as many homes as possible of

the communication and educational bene-

fits of a community Net over the phone

lines.

From: Harvey Goodstein

… [T]aking into consideration the needs

and rights of deaf and hard of hearing in-

dividuals in particular (and individuals

with disabilities in general). … federal reg-

ulations on minimum standards are nec-

essary to enhance equal access for all … .

Thus, universal service provisions should

not discriminate against individuals with

disabilities (irrespective of their financial

status) who invariably would have to pay

abnormally high costs for technical con-

nectivity.

From: Ellen Davis Burnham

This whole segment of the conference is

about “Availability and Affordability” to

all NOT just some that live in a largely

populated area. People in Mississippi need

the Internet just like everyone, probably

more so than people who live in large areas

with ready access to libraries or any form

of research. Should we teach just *SOME*

of our children to read, maybe just a few

should learn Algebra, and heaven knows

no one needs to know grammar rules. We

can’t pick and choose who is allowed

access we live in a democratic society that

says everyone is equal and should receive

equal access to schooling among other in-

alienable rights.

The rural area should be addressed first

because we have such a hard time to find

access (affordable access). If you could just

go into a school one day and help students

who are struggling to find the needed 12

sources for a research paper, students who

know what they need is out there SOME-

WHERE if only they had access to it.

YES, WE MUST PROVIDE INTERNET

ACCESS TO **EVERYONE**, not just to

those who are easy to put online … .

The competition may be greater in larger

cities BUT the need is not. I don’t mean to

berate anyone but if you could only see

first-hand the great need in our schools you

would understand. I teach in a school that

Page 17

has only 3700 books total in the library.

Our situation is extreme because the school

burned a couple of years ago. I try to help

the students by hunting for needed items on

the Internet. Until I began teaching there

this year *ONLY* one student knew about

the Superhighway. What about … the chil-

dren who have parents that have never

heard of the Internet either. We have to

start somewhere and I believe the popula-

tion of America as a whole is as good a

place to begin as any.

From: Lucy Co

Hearing the real-life experiences of people

like Ellen Davis Burnham, who wrote of

introducing school children in rural Missis-

sippi to the Internet – is one of the best

aspects of this conference. Helps ward off

the tendency to discuss concepts such as

“availability” as though they were theoreti-

cal only. Keep up the good work, Ellen –

and don’t apologize for your “preaching.”

B. Government as Producer and Disseminator of

Information

The U.S. government is a major producer of

information in American society, most of which is

public and printed on paper. As a distributor of that

information, the government would save money if it

distributed it electronically and let the user decide

whether or not to print that information. Having hand-

ed over the Internet backbone to commercial entities,

the U.S. government no longer has the capability of

distributing that information without the increased cost

of contributing to some companies’ profit margins. A

U.S. government-run backbone would have allowed

the efficient distribution of governmental information

without the increased cost profits requires. U.S. citi-

zens will now have to pay a profit-making company

overhead to access the very information we pay for

with our taxes. In any case, if the U.S. government

works toward providing governmental information and

services online, more incentive will exist for more of

the U.S. population to get connected to the Internet.

From: Carl Hage

… [T]he government would be the main

beneficiaries of an *information* infra-

structure. The government is a major pro-

ducer and consumer of information, most

of which is inaccessible to the public in

practice … . We need a new kind of infor-

mation, a glasnost for the information age,

in which the public at large can access any

public information without charge (other

than low network charges). That means

every public library, school, government

office, business or home could have access

to everything.

From: Chloe Lewis

We might legislate that all public gov’t

information – stuff that The Public has

already paid for and usually has a right to,

if near enough a G-Doc depository – be

made available to anyone with email. This

will, if done with common sense, reduce

the expenses of both the government agen-

cies involved and of anyone who needs

frequent access to government publica-

tions. This is an obvious reason for schools

and libraries to have Internet access, and a

reason for citizens and businesses to ac-

quire it.

The U.S. has been subsidizing access to

paper information, for the sake of knowl-

edge and self-government; we have found

a more efficient way to provide this infor-

mation; where possible, we should subsi-

dize this more efficient way instead. It isn’t

as whizbang attractive as giving everyone

realtime video, but it would be useful

immediately.

From: Carl Hage

The largest single producer of information

is the federal government, most of which is

public. Although these days virtually all

documents are produced in electronic form

on a word processor, etc., very little of the

information is available in electronic form.

Nearly all information is distributed in

paper form, typically obtained by calling

over a telephone. A similar case can be

made for state and local governments.

From: Susan Hadden

If the federal and state government would

announce a policy of making their services

Page 18

available in electronic form there would be

a package of stuff … that should make the

net worthwhile to most people. (Examples:

Renewing drivers’ license, hunting li-

censes, finding the right official for your

problem the first time, getting online help

on your income tax where you didn’t just

talk to someone but showed them the cal-

culations in real time, etc.)

C. Why it Is Important for All to Have Access

Early in the “redefining universal service” seg-

ment of the virtual conference, people started discuss-

ing how to determine access rates. One participant,

Bob Johnson, proposed the starting point is to figure

out first why it was important for people to have

Internet access. His point is important, and others

echoed it throughout the conference. It is necessary to

understand why it is important for both individuals and

organizations in our society to have access to the Inter-

net for both its information and communication ben-

efits. Another participant, Carly Henderson, raised a

parallel question asking why access to public libraries

is important. Part of the debate taking place publicly

was over a difference in views. One view was that the

USA is a democracy where everyone is equal and

should receive equal opportunities versus the under-

standing that the USA is a nation of individuals and

access should only be for those who strive for it.

From: Bob Jacobson

An appropriate question is not how much a

particular individual or organization should

pay for access to the Internet or its succes-

sors, but why they should have access,

individually and collectively? Once you

figure this out, and define access to suit,

you can figure on pricing. Everything else

is premature, unless people get out their

basic premises on which they are operat-

ing.

From: Carly Henderson

I agree with Bob; this is a very important

question that deserves a well thought out

answer. Why should people have access to

the Internet? In response, I pose the ques-

tion, why should every community have a

library and allow its citizens access to all

that it contains?

From: Robert J. Berrington III

But what I’m willing to bet is that most of

the people that we’re talking about provid-

ing a service to haven’t the slightest clue as

to what the Internet is.

From: Martin Kessel

A final requirement for universal access is

that people need to understand what the

Information Highway can do for them –

how it can benefit their lives.

D. What the Internet Can Do for People

The significance of Internet access for all in

society is not obvious because it is a new way to think

about communication between people. Before the

Internet and Usenet, most broadcast forms of commu-

nication were owned and operated by large companies.

Other more democratic forms of broadcast which pro-

vide one-to-many communication exist for small seg-

ments of the population in particular regions: public

access cable, various self-produced newsletters or

zines, “pirate” radio and so on. The Internet makes

available an alternative to the corporate owned mass

media and allows a grass-roots communication from

the many to the many. As it has taken a struggle for an

individual to be seen as a information provider, it is

not immediately obvious to all that it is possible to

speak out and have your voice heard by many people.

It is also important that people could express their

views and be in contact with others around the world

who are expressing their views. Participants in the

virtual conference were active in defining their interest

in keeping the Internet protected from dominance by

commercial interests. Commercial information and

communication is vastly different from personal infor-

mation and communication. Participants recognized

this difference, and voiced their opinion on how it is

important to keep the Net as an open channel for non-

commercial voices.

The picture of the Internet painted by the U.S.

government has been one of an “information superhigh-

way” or “information infrastructure” where people

could connect, download some data or purchase some

goods and then disconnect. This image is one that is

very different from the current cooperative communi-

cations forums on Usenet where everyone can contrib-

ute. The transfer of information is secondary. The des-

criptions by much of the news media pop, portraying

people's contributions as being pornographic or other-

Page 19

wise illegal are tn contrast to the reality that the

Internet and Usenet provide a place where people can

share ideas, observations, and questions. Those partici-

pating in the virtual conference debated whether and

why people would want access to the Net.

From: R. M.

Overlooked in the current free market vs.

regulated access debate is any argument

convincing me why the average American

will want access to the net. Apart from the

“information elite” (most already on the

net), I don’t know too many people inter-

ested in communications capability not

already available using existing infrastruc-

tures. How many people do you know, not

associated with research or education, who

care about access to government informa-

tion repositories? Or virtual conferences?

From: Dr. Robert LaRose

In response to Woody Dowling’s comment

that the average American is not interested

in advanced communications infrastruc-

ture, at least not those who don’t already

have it.

Not so. We did a national survey a couple

of years ago and asked about interest in

videotex, ISDN, etc., found interest levels

far beyond those of then-current penetra-

tion levels. Found the most intense interest

among low income homes, in fact, suggest-

ing that it is cost and not interest that holds

them back. Want a killer application for

low income households? Email. Many

can’t afford long distance rates, some move

too often or have no home, can’t keep a

phone line … . The applications already

exist, but the people who need them most

can’t afford them – or don’t constitute an

attractive enough market.

From: Curt Howland

While the inverse relation between cost and

pervasiveness is certainly true, I must take

issue with comparing the Net to TV. Such

comparisons allow for the taking of infor-

mation, but not for the tremendous possi-

bilities involved with ease of *providing*

info. There is no reason to think that a

future Stephen Hawkings isn’t sitting right

now in front of a boob-tube sucking down

Mighty Morhpin Power Rangers because

there is no way for his ideas to be ex-

pressed. Without the facility to put ideas

out, with each person acting as a informa-

tion provider assumed from the outset, we

are doing ourselves a great disservice.

From: Don Evans

A two way street for all Americans. Not

only should they be able to receive from

the net, but they also must be able to pro-

vide their unique information.

From: Michael Hauben

I. Universal Access Basic Principles

In order for communications networks to

be as useful as possible, it is necessary for

[them] both to:

A) Connect every possible resource and

opinion,

B) Make this connection available to all

who desire it.

A and B call for Universal Interconnection,

rather than Universal Access. The usage of

“interconnection” highlights the impor-

tance and role of every user also being an

information provider. The term “access”

stresses the status-quo understanding of

one-way communication, the user accesses

information that other “authorized” infor-

mation providers make available. This is

the old model. The new model is of inter-

connection of many different types of peo-

ple, information, and ideas. The new model

stresses the breakdown of old definitions of

communication and information. Diversity

allows for both the increasing speed in the

formation of new ideas, and the ability for

previously unauthorized ideas to have the

airing and consideration they rightfully

deserve.

II. Definition of “Services” to Be Avail-

able on this Universal Interconnection

The new era of interconnection and many-

Page 20

to-many communication afforded by Net-

news and Mailing lists (among other tech-

nologies) brings to the forefront a model of

bottom-up rather than top-down communi-

cation and information. It is time to reex-

amine society and welcome the democra-

tizing trends of many-to-many communica-

tion over the one-to-many models as repre-

sented by broadcast television, radio, news-

papers and other media.

As such, I would say it would be important

to highlight, discuss and make available

interactive modes of communication in-

stead of the passive transfer of information.

Thus I am suggesting emphasizing of

forms of multiple way of communication

and broadcasting. Forms currently defined

by newsgroups, mailing lists, talk sessions,

IRC sessions, MOO experiences, and other

forms of sharing and collaboration. These

type of forums are where this new technol-

ogy excels. Plenty of media exist which

facilitates the passive transfer of informa-

tion and goods. (Such as mail-order, stores,

telephone orders, etc.) It would be best to

explore and develop the new forms of com-

munication which this new media facili-

tates, and which was less possible and

present in the past.

From: B. Harris

Summary of the Affordability and Avail-

ability Conference

The Internet and the Global Computer

Network are providing a very important

means for the people of our society to have

an ability to speak for themselves and to

fight their own battles to better the

society.

From: Eric Rehm

… [C]onception of access, I would posit,

demands a much more interactive use of

the medium and perhaps the bandwidth

needs are more balanced: This example can

then be extended to any number of commu-

nity organizations with members as avid

information producers.

In other words, basic service based on

enabling “many producers” might actually

prompt a larger share to be allocated to

bandwidth OUT of the home than that en-

visaged by the Baby Bells and cable com-

panies.

It seems to me, in rural America, there

would be even more fear of not having

ample “basic” bandwidth to be a producer

because the distance to such an “access

point” might be enough to effectively deny

community production.

E. Efficiency of Email vs Video, Etc.

In the discussion about universal and equal

access to the Internet, access to live video and the

problems it creates was introduced. Some participants

argued that “video on demand” would be a resource

hog, and again introduce inequality into the online

world based on who could pay, and also creating a

different priority in use of network bandwidth. One

participant contributed a message titled “Net Econom-

ics 101” which gave tables showing the relative sizes

of different forms of data. Carl Hage made his compar-

isons clear by writing, “A single video movie is

equivalent to 6 million people sending a one page e-

mail message.” He concluded his message by writing,

“Why should we provide subsidized video access to a

few when we could use those resources to provide

textual information to millions?”

Another participant differed and stated that

providing video is important so that access can be

offered to the percentage of the U.S. population which

is illiterate. A couple of other participants stated that

video has enormous educational expressive potential.

It was important that the virtual conference allowed for

the presentation of different points of views, as that

assists in figuring out the best way forward.

From: Debbie Sinmao

On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Richard Civille

wrote:

>> At 2:26 PM 11/14/94 -0800, Michael

Strait wrote:

>> I think the simple answer to that is:

single-line telephone

>> service capable of supporting touch

tone and computer modem exchange.

>> Tomorrow is something else, but that

should be the minimum today.

> What would a basic basket of services be

Page 21

in five years? In ten? And, by

> what process do we change our minds

and expand our definition?

Whatever the basket will be in 5, 10, etc.

years, it should not include Al Gore’s idea

of video on demand … unless it is for

educational uses – if you want to see a

movie, go to your nearest movie theater or

rent a video from Blockbuster.

From: Robert J. Berrington III

I agree with Debbie. At the current date,

we don’t have the technology to support

such things. It may be 50 years down the

road before that technology is available.

Why clutter up a system that can’t handle

such a load.

From: Rey Barry

> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:56:57 CDT

> From: [email protected].uiowa.edu

> To: [email protected]ov

> 2) To debbie: I think it’s shortsighted to

equate “video on demand,” or

> video in any form in the new age with

what we can presently pick up at

> Blockbuster. For that matter, to think in

terms of video as a passive,

> “something to watch” form seems to me

to ignore its potential.

> > That’s why I don’t think it’s right at

this point to dismiss Al Gore; video

> has the potential to allow for perhaps

even greater educational and

> expressive possibilities than text. To

limit ourselves at the outset could

> mean missing out on the greatest possi-

bilities.

Creative video is a neat concept. Thanks

for bringing that up. The fear that Gore is

bursting with desire to sell out to commer-

cial interests is the opposite of what comes

through when you talk to him or look at the

work he focused his life on.

From: Ron Choura

Advanced telecommunications services

should not be legislatively mandated for

inclusion in the definition of universal

service. Universal service funding of such

services is not appropriate unless and until

a critical mass of demand develops. Inclu-

sion of such services in the definition

would yield anti-competitive results, since

services typically included in universal

service do not have all relevant costs allo-

cated to them.

From: Carl Hage

One thing to keep in mind is that digital

transmission of text, e.g. email is very

efficient. For each user who sends email

instead of fax or telephone call, hundreds

of additional users can send email in the

transmission resource saved.

Access of gopher or www text is similar to

email in efficiency. Pictures, voice/audio

and video are, of course, much more ex-

pensive.

From: Carl Hage

But according to the polls, the public is

skeptical about the ways in which the

industry is touting the NII and they see

other more important uses. With the focus

on video entertainment, my fear is that the

less glitzy uses will be delayed and left out.

Also, the focus toward high-end technol-

ogy is a diversion of resources which could

be used to provide low end data communi-

cations to all instead of video for a few.

From: Carl Hage

Here are some tables showing the relative

sizes of data in different forms:

The following table gives a comparison of

a page of text (obtained from an OTA

report on the NII) in various forms, either

in compressed or uncompressed ASCII text

(averaged), as a page of fax, voice where

the text was read aloud, or in video form

where the speaker read the information

aloud.

Page 22

Relative Sizes for Multi-Media Information Text

Type Pages MB

Compressed 1 0.0011

Uncompressed Text 3 0.003

Fax Image 40 0.04

Fax Modem Transmission 270 0.27

Compressed Voice (8:1) 200 0.2

Compressed Voice (2:1) 800 0.8

Voice Telephone (64Kb) 1600 1.6

Low Quality VideoPhone (H.320) 3200 3.2

Commercial VideoConf 6400 6.4

High Q VideoConf (H.120 1.5Mb/s) 37000 37.5

Compressed Broadcast Video 167000 167

Uncompressed Video 1100000 1100

The last entry of about one million to one

is the size as used in an actual NII spon-

sored video classroom, <http://www.ncih

.net/>. Access for schools costs $4000/mo

for 1 video link or $8000/mo for 2, paid for

by state grants.

An ordinary voice telephone call consumes

more than 3000 times the data inside an

email message (calls use 64Kb in two di-

rections). Fax images are about 50 times

more than the equivalent compressed text

in disk storage space, but consume about

300 times the telecommunications re-

sources when transmitted via modem, or

100 times if the text is not compressed.

Comparisons of 1GB of Digital Information Number/GB

1 page documents 1000000

100 page documents 10000

Kodak Photo-CD pictures 1000

JPEG Images (640x480 @ 10:1) 10000

Minutes of Voice Telephone 400

1.44MB Diskette 700

JPEG Images (640x480 @ 10:1) 1.5

Minutes of Voice Telephone 0.2

Purchase cost of hard disk $500

Purchase cost of floppy disks $250

Equivalent of a 2 Hour Digital Video Movie

1 page documents 6000000

100 page documents 60000

Kodak Photo-CD pictures 6000

JPEG Images (640x480 @ 10:1) 60000

Minutes of Voice Telephone 2600

Hours of Voice Telephone 43

44MB Diskettes 4200

CD-ROMs 10

Gigabytes 6

A single video movie is equivalent to 6

million people sending a one page email

message.

Why should we provide subsidized video

access to a few when we could use those

resources to provide textual information to

millions? For example, we could make the

federal register and congressional record

available to everyone for free rather than

have to pay $375 per person/year to access

any part.

F. Libraries as Points of Public Access

Libraries were proposed as a central public lo-

cation where people could gain access to the Internet.

This would be especially helpful to those who cannot

currently afford to buy a computer. There was dis-

cussion about how the role of libraries might change

from a location where information is stored, to one

where information access is facilitated through training

and individual help from librarians.

There were problems inherent in suggesting

libraries be the public access point. First, library hours

would limit when access would be available for those

without computers and Internet accounts, and libraries

might only be able to provide limited access to the

Internet – if, for example, they could only afford the

cheapest modems. One participant mentioned that his

local library did not receive its latest funding, because

the bond was voted down. This raises the issue of

funding if libraries are to take on the role of Internet

access provider. Another participant brought up the

fact that since many communities do not have a local

library, those communities would also not have any

public access site if libraries were to be the only public

sites for access to the Net.

Page 23

FOR: Libraries as Universal Points of

Access

From: Kathleen L. Bloomberg

Libraries are universal access points to

information for school students, faculty at

higher education institutions, and the gen-

eral public. Not everyone will have a mi-

crocomputer and modem at home in the

future just like everyone doesn’t have plain

old telephone service now. Librarians are

trained in facilitating access to information

and are an integral part of the emerging

information superhighway.

According to a recent survey by the Na-

tional Commission on Libraries and Infor-

mation Science, 21% of the public libraries

in the United States are accessing the Inter-

net now. That number is growing monthly.

Most academic libraries and many school

and special libraries also are using the

Internet regularly to meet their patrons’

needs.

From: Solomon Philip Hill

Until the time comes when everyone can

afford a personal terminal of some sort, I

think that the community center or library

model of access works pretty well. This

leaves open the question of training which

seems to be the least talked about, but pos-

sibly most important aspect here.

From: Dave W Mitchell

It is indeed true that the public library

model provides a philosophical and struc-

tural underpinning, yet the immense popu-

larity of talk radio (for example) shows a

strong underlying hunger for communica-

tion of individual reactivity and creativity.

In its satisfaction may lie the tool wherein

we redefine the compact with one another

on which this society was founded.

From: Susan G.

I agree – the public library is definitely a

good place to start for public access. It isn’t

the only solution, but there is rarely just

one good answer to a complex problem.

Rather multiple good answers.

From: Carl Hage

Currently libraries pay substantial fees to

obtain reference material in print or micro-

film form. Actually, due to budget prob-

lems, many libraries, including my own,

are cutting back on this material. If this

material were available electronically, then

purchases of microfilm, etc. could be dis-

continued and the money saved could be

used for hardware and network access fees.

I believe that better dissemination of infor-

mation could be used to provide more cost

effective access for libraries, where the

equipment, software, and methods of ac-

cess can be tailored to the needs for librar-

ies.

From: Lew McDaniel

I believe that better dissemination of infor-

mation could be used to provide more cost

effective access for libraries

The ideas which follow the above are good

ones. To me, they show the concept of

“library” evolving from common source of

information and repository to “facilitator of

access” in addition to today’s functions.

Particularly if all the have-nots are going to

head for the library I-way access point.

I see libraries, K-12, and higher education

all becoming significantly more compet-

itive, more virtual, and less corporeal if the

I-way reaches fruition. Even though each

provides a great deal of value inappropriate

to a telecommunications line – social inter-

action, community cohesiveness, etc.

AGAINST: Libraries Are Not the Solution

of the Access Question

Others disagreed that libraries could solve the

problem of universal access. They presented some of

the problems libraries are having even surviving and

noted that there are many locations that do not have

libraries.

From: MTN

Much as I’d like to believe it, I do not feel

that libraries solve the access problem.

First, access is already limited by the hours

Page 24

of the library. In a world where success and

(em)power(ment) may hinge upon immedi-

ate access to information, it’s tough to as-

sume that people who must schlep over to

the library and wait in line for a 1200 baud

(when I last checked) modem and terminal

are on an equal footing.

From: Stephen Brenner

I like the library model as well. Unfortu-

nately, our library bond went down to de-

feat in the last election and they aren’t

likely to take on this role without funding.

In the meantime, providing free access to

the Internet, including public access termi-

nals, is part of Oregon Public Network’s

charter.

From: Carol Deering

I just wanted to mention the large Indian

reservation which surrounds our town. A

great many people who live there have no

telephones and some even no TV. I have

seen mention in this conference of other

rural situations, but I wanted to be sure to

include this type of rural instance. There is

no library service to this area, either.

From: Marilyn Letitia Korhonen

I agree to the extent that schools and librar-

ies will allow this. We do not have a library

in my local phone exchange, so that would-

n’t serve my area and many others. The

schools would be an answer for some, but

the school in my district is not interested,

even if I’ll write grants for them. They do

not trust it, they can not see the usefulness

in their day-to-day lives, and they are

simply not interested.

G. Debate Over the “Free Market”

A strong debate took place on both conferences

over how Internet access could be best deployed

throughout society. Some people argued the “market”

would provide the best quality service to most people,

while others challenged the notion that “the market”

could provide such access. Therefore many said that it

was important for government to play a strong role in

making access available universally. Those encourag-

ing a governmental role understood that the “market”

would not work toward providing access to those liv-

ing in areas where access would be harder to provide,

or for those with special needs.

1. On the Need for a Government Role

From: Ron Choura

Now, however, there is near universal con-

sensus that opening up these markets to

competition will lead to enhanced benefit

for most consumers. But, can we be sure

that market forces alone will achieve the

goal of widely available, affordable ser-

vices for all Americans? Is action by state

and federal governments needed? What

should be done? States must have the abil-

ity to ensure that high quality service is

provided in markets that are less compet-

itive or attractive for investment.

From: Frank Whittle

The term “economic development” has be-

come prominent in state telecommunica-

tion policy during the last ten years as the

states battle to retain and attract industry. It

appears from the preliminary research that

the issue of providing universal access

(services) has become less prominent in

policy documents.

From: Brent Wall

If one reads the testimony given at the

hearings conducted on the NII and the

global infrastructure by the Dept. of Com-

merce, one can detect two sense[s] of the

terms “universal access” at work. The Mo-

torolas, with their pleas for a wireless

world, and cable companies with their arg-

uments for phone service, and phone com-

panies with their exhortations for deliver-

ing cable service, one comes away with a

sense that universal access means: supply

access – or the ability of service providers

to access the NII (whatever infrastructure

this may turn out to be) and sell their

wares.

Yet, there is a second sense ascribed to

these terms, one often advocated by com-

munity-based advocates, almost invisible

in the national dialogues of service purvey-

ors. And this is that universal access refers

Page 25

to access to the net by all, rich and poor.

Given the tenor of the NII discussions I

have monitored, there is a threat that the

latter meaning is being absorbed by the

former.

From: Henry Huang

The idea that the “free market” is going to

solve all our problems is a MYTH. Go

back and look over the history of most of

the major online providers PRIOR to the

recent big Internet expansion, and consider

their current policies regarding Net access.

No one who values their time, money, or

access would seriously consider getting on

the Internet through ANY of the major

services, be it Compu$erve, Delphi, Prod-

igy (HA!), or America Online.

The reason for this is simple: each one of

these services has either restricted the Net

services available (hence restricting your

access), and/or charges you way too much

for it compared to some of the other access

providers currently around.

From: Rey Barry

Provide any sort of data highway with

near-universal access and people will

spend money developing ways to make a

living from it. The glory of the system.

Tailor the highway to commercial interests

from the start and you surely build in road-

blocks to pro bono services, the danger of

the system.

From: Paul Weismantel

Dr. Priest’s observation regarding the

Advisory Council is clear … . Business in

general is frightened by the very under-

pinnings of Universal Access, because it

amounts to a mandate, which is usually a

drain on profits.

Unless we can approach the discussion so

as to fit into the business scheme (and that

does not necessarily mean full recovery of

investment in all cases), some members of

the council will prevail in pushing off this

issue by a lowest common denominator

solution.

From: Martin Kessel

There was strong sentiment that the com-

petitive market alone will not serve the

nation’s needs. As Steve Miller said, “The

free market is like a ship with 100 sails

blowing full blast and no rudder. Public

policy provides the rudder.”

From: Richard M. Kenshalo

We can’t be led to believe that market

forces will eventually provide for the in-

vestments necessary for rural America,

where loop costs remain extremely high.

Without existing (and probably re-defined)

price support structures, and an expanded

definition of Universal Service to include

guaranteed information access, we will

truly develop a society of information

“haves” and “have-nots.”

From: Jeanne Gallo

We would like to urge the administration

and congress to pass legislation which

mandates the setting up of community sites

where citizens of all ages, etc. can have

access provided. This will mean that fund-

ing will need to be available for setting up

such centers with the technology that is

needed to be online and that universal

access will need to be built into any pro-

posals, such as was done for universal

access to the telephone. Subsidies may be

a “dirty” word in D.C. at this moment, but

they will be necessary if we are to include

all of our citizens in the technology of the

future.

From: B. Harris

Summary of the Affordability and Avail-

ability Conference

The territories are not naive in insisting

that the information infrastructure must

accommodate both access and low rates.

Without both, the territories will receive no

benefit and will in fact find their needs

increasingly marginalized.

General Summary

Several people expressed concern that the

development of the NII has focused on

Page 26

business interests and economic develop-

ment rather than on ensuring access for all

Americans. The theme the economic devel-

opment will not by itself bring universal

service to reality surfaced repeatedly.

From: Carl Hage

I certainly agree with your point, and I

would use these examples as proof that a

free market does not exist. I don’t think

most people fail to value their money, just

that the big advertizing machines, and the

PC magazine-industrial complex have dup-

ed an uneducated public, and an unedu-

cated government.

Yes, the free market will *not* provide

equal access to rural areas, etc. However,

the solutions for rural areas might be radi-

cally different. It is least likely that there

will be much of any competitive market in

rural areas, so co-ops, monopolies, etc.

might be required.

2. Opposition to Government Regulation

From: Viraj Jha

>>While ‘public access’ is sometimes con-

sidered either a necessity or

>>a public good, what effects will the

above choices make on a market

>>that is still in the early stages of devel-

opment? Specifically, will

>>public access stunt market and technol-

ogical development in the long term? >What does

“stunt” mean in this case?

By ‘stunt’ I probably more accurately

meant ‘distort’ – in other words, would the

rate of technological development be slow-

ed by such a policy? Certainly industry

leaders fear that strict regulation would

hinder their profit-maximizing activities; in

high competition technology markets these

profits are often linked to innovation. Con-

gressman Boucher in '92 agreed with Bell

Atlantic that its deployment time for fiber

optic lines could be halved absent stringent

line of business regulation. Might similar

regulations/subsidies for universal access

not cause technological stagnation?

From: Christine Weiss

Another viewpoint to add to the discussion

comes from John Browning in an article

from the Sept. '94 issue of WIRED: “…

universal service is a 1930's solution to a

21 century problem. … the solution is

Open Access.” In a nutshell, it seems that

Open Access would ensure a competitive

marketplace, that would in turn keep costs

low. Another option, for what its worth … .

From: Carl Hage

I believe we can use the free market and

competition to significantly lower the cost

to access the net and provide a wide variety

of options. There are a number of things

that the government could do to enhance

the competition and available services

which would cost very little.

From: Stan Witnov

Dear Conferees,

Why are so many participants against un-

leashing American business (AND it’s

stereotypical greed) in order to let the

invisible hand lead us to the most efficient

use of resources. I certainly trust that our

government regulators and court system

will move in at the appropriate time and

correct some of the “wrongs” which are

inevitable (whether we’re under a govern-

ment OR private enterprise umbrella).

I believe our great advantage here is to let

venture capital risk itself for a profit but in

so doing create and market services which

increase user knowledge, accessibility, and

the population of users.

From: Jawaid Bazyar

In response to a[email protected]

(Bruce Potter):

>To the NTIA, we ask careful attention to

the equity issues of access, and

>a federal guarantee of access and avail-

ability.

Oh my, it looks like the Socialists have

grabbed onto the Internet as their next great

crusade … .

If you choose to live on an island in the

Page 27

middle of the ocean with a small popula-

tion, you can expect to pay a lot for high-

tech services.

From: Curt Howland

There are left only the people making

Universal Access in one form or another

happen, and those that just talk, begging

the Big Friendly Government to wait on

them hand and foot.

H. NTIA Conference as Prototype for Future

Democracy

Some participants understood that the conference

they were participating in could be seen as a model of

citizen participation in government. They were thus

thoughtful in considering the future and how these

technologies could be used. A participant from Boston

suggested it was important that permanent public

access sites be established in order for any policy

decisions to happen.

From: Martin Kessel

Some participants questioned whether it

will be truly feasible to put a computer

terminal in every home. However, there

was strong agreement that access should be

available at public sites, such as libraries,

schools, and other community places. This

would be an extension of the model used

by the NTIA in holding this Virtual Con-

ference, noted Michelle Johnson, a reporter

for the Boston Globe. Federal help is need-

ed to provide libraries with resources and

technical expertise.

From: Carl Hage

Thank you for the opportunity to partic-

ipate in this discussion, and provide my

input into the shaping of the future infor-

mation age in America. I believe that using

the Internet offers the potential to obtain

high quality information needed for proper

decision making, as well as improving the

access of the government to the public.

From: Hubert Jessup

Reading the discussion of the past two days

about redefining universal access has con-

firmed our conviction that public access

sites are not just important for this virtual

conference but are needed as a permanent

aspect of the development of the NII. Typi-

cally, only universities and certain busi-

nesses have Internet access. For the aver-

age American, these forms of access are far

too limited. Consequently, citizens have

little experience with the net and under-

standing of what is at stake in its develop-

ment. Also, basic computer skills – even as

simple as logging on and typing a message

– are lacking for most Americans.

What is needed in our opinion is on-going,

institutionalized public access sites. We

think these should be based in a variety of

community based institutions, including

the public libraries, public schools, and

public access cable centers. These sites

need equipment, Internet connection, staff-

ing, and basic operating support. And, of

course, these sites need funding … .

If we as a country do not develop a perma-

nent, institutionalized and consistently sup-

ported system of public access sites, the

NII will develop quickly among the current

information “haves” but will totally leave

behind the vast majority of Americans who

are information “have-nots.” Facing this

same situation concerning literacy in the

early part of the 19

century, the response

by public spirited Bostonians was the de-

velopment of funding for the first public

schools and public library in America.

Soon, these institutions were quickly

adopted by every city and town in Amer-

ica. Now, with a new technology and a new

type of literacy, we as Americans should

strive to expand our democracy by devel-

oping public access sites on the NII.

I. Importance of Need for Time to Learn at Own

Pace

Paying for access limits what someone will do

online. First it limits how much an individual can care

to learn, as the time spent will be costly; people will be

selective in what they attempt to learn. Second, it is

hard for people to take the time to be helpful to others

when they are paying by the hour. The Internet and

Usenet have grown to be such a cooperative commu-

nity because there was no price tag on the cooperation.

Page 28

It will be a step backward to have to pay to access

these communities. Individuals should be honored for

their contributions to the Net and not expected to pay

in proportion to their contribution.

From: A public access site in Seattle

Obviously, SCN (Seattle Community Net-

work) has been wonderful, since it has

allowed me to learn at my own (slow!)

pace, without worrying about “wasting

money.” I am presently on NW Nexus,

since I purchased the Internet Starter Kit

which came with a coupon for two free

weeks. I am continuing to pay for it, for a

while, because it allows so much more

opportunity to learn all the pluses of the

Internet … . I am willing to pay the month-

ly fee for a short time, but unfortunately, I

am not in a financial position to be able to

continue at this rate for very long. It seems

a shame that those of us who are not “well

off” cannot reap the benefit of the whole

Internet. I am grateful that SCN is there for

us.

From: Henry Huang

Hence, in limiting my time, you limit the

quality of my posts, and hence the general

quality of the discussion.

Many of the people who would want or

NEED such free/cheap access are newbies

– and hence EXACTLY the sort of people

who WOULDN’T have the experience,

knowledge, or time necessary to overcome

the limits on their access. The less access

you provide a person with, the more trou-

ble that person has to go through JUST to

get UP to a sufficiently useful level.

From: Sean Connell

An open communication infrastructure will

allow children ample opportunity to ex-

plore and increase their knowledge at a

pace with which they are comfortable.

J. Need for Openness Because of Development

via Open and Free Standards

The Internet has developed out of connecting

networks together based on open and available stan-

dards. These protocols were developed by many

people over the ARPANET and Internet. Commercial

development is usually proprietary and closed. The

Internet will develop much slower if the pressure

toward commercialism is allowed to overwhelm the

open and cooperative culture of the Net.

From: Henry Huang

The NII is NOT a harbinger of change …

the Internet WAS – hence this conference

(run using list server software on a UNIX

box, and sent mostly over Internet links).

From: Henry Huang

Now look at the development of the Inter-

net. Even with the astonishing growth of

the World Wide Web and Mosaic (and

perhaps soon Netscape), much of the Net is

STILL ruled by text-based standards first

set down perhaps a decade or more ago.

The vast majority of Email is STILL text In

fact, Email and News are often cited as two

of the most useful services offered by the

Net, despite their chunkiness. As quirky

and outdated as they are, they still WORK

– more to the point, everyone HAS them. If

everyone had a different format for Email

messages, no one could communicate with

anyone else – thus defeating the very pur-

pose of Email!

Even more important, many of the stan-

dards adopted by the Internet are OPEN

standards, freely available to anyone who’s

interested in modifying or improving them.

Compare this to companies which charge

you an arm and a leg for their proprietary

code. Now, which one do YOU think peo-

ple will be more willing to work with, and

improve?

What no one seems to realize is that the

Net is anything BUT a commodity – it’s a

means to an end. And that end is not profit,

but *GLOBAL COMMUNITY*.

If we treat the Net as a commodity, then

inevitably that’s what it’s bound to become

– a balkanized, divided, proprietary collec-

tion of private networks which neither

know nor care about the existence of the

others. It would be like a giant version of

Compu$erve, only many times worse. And

in the end, by putting walls and barriers

Page 29

between the very users who need to com-

municate with each other, they will have

eliminated the sole reason for their own

existence – as a means to COMMUNI-

CATE, quickly and efficiently. And when

that happens, either they will die, or the

future which they (and all of U.S.) sought

to promote will be relegated to obscurity.

And that would be an absolute shame.

From: Carl Hage

How can we devise incentives for invest-

ment in technologies for the “last mile” to

the home?

The key to an investment in products need-

ed and availability at a mass produced low

price, is the establishment of standards and

a detailed goal.

If there is an agreed upon standard and a

large market, then a number of companies

will build very low cost products designed

for high volume sales. If the standard is not

agreed upon, and/or deployment is uncer-

tain, then there may not be cost effective

products available.

The best way to establish standards and

then insure there is a rich market of sup-

porting products is to have open, public

domain standards, with public domain ref-

erence implementations and test software.

The Internet standards established by the

IETF are a good example. All the speci-

fications are available electronically and

free to the public. In order to be adopted,

there must be a working implementation,

and typically there was a public domain

version available as a starting point and as

a comparison.

Part of the research money for the NII

could go toward producing some compet-

ing designs for these technologies, which

could result in a public version of the spec-

ifications, and a sample reference design.

Also, research money could go to produce

testing software and an interoperability

laboratory. Vendors who produce chipsets

and boards can take the standards and

reference implementation and use that as a

basis for a specific product, and could then

make use of the test suites and inter-

operability laboratory.

Public funding for the establishment of the

standards, reference implementation, and

test suite would eliminate many interoper-

ability problems, and would yield low cost

products very quickly, as each vendor

would not need to duplicate this basic

research. The money saved in lower cost

product availability for the government’s

internal use would more than pay for the

investment in a publicly available technol-

ogy.

III. Conclusion

Because the NTIA conference was held online,

many more points of view were heard than is normal.

Prominent debates included that of encouraging “eco-

nomic development” versus mandating “universal ser-

vice” and depending on the “free market” versus re-

cognizing the need for government regulation to make

access available to all. Another issue raised was that

the NII will be an extension of the Internet and not

something completely new. As such, it is important to

acknowledge the origin and significance of the Inter-

net, and to properly study and understand the contribu-

tion the current global computer communications net-

work represents for society. Many who participated in

the online conference expressed the hope that the

government would be helpful to society at large in pro-

viding access to these networks to all who would

desire this access.

Despite the many objections to privatization of

the NSFNET expressed during the NTIA conference in

November, 1994, the public NSFNET (National

Science Foundation Network) was put to death quietly

on May 1, 1995. Users heard about the shut down

indirectly. Universities and other providers who de-

pended on the NSFNET might have reported service

disruptions the week or two before while they re-

established their network providers and routing tables.

No announcements were made about the transfer from

a publicly subsidized U.S. Internet backbone to a com-

mercial backbone. The switch signaled a change in

priorities of what the Internet will be used for. May 1,

1995 was also the opening date of a national electronic

open meeting sponsored by the U.S. government on

“People and their Governments in the Information

Age.” Apparently the U.S. government was sponsoring

this online meeting from various public access sites,

and paying commercial providers in the process.

Page 30

Something is deeply ironic in this government-man-

dated change to increase government expenses.

But also, on May 1, 1995, there was a presenta-

tion at a branch of the New York Public Library which

focused on the value of the Internet and Usenet as a

cooperative network where people could air their

individual views and connect up with people around

the world. The Internet and Usenet have provided the

means for new voices to be heard without being over-

whelmed by the more established voices of society.

This May Day, traditionally a people’s holiday around

the world, the domain of the commons was opened up

to the commercial world. But the commercial world

already has a strong hold on all other broadcast media,

and these media have become of little or no value. The

Internet has been a social treasure for people in the

U.S. and around the world. It is important to value this

treasure and protect it from commercial interests. As

such, this move by the U.S. government is disappoint-

ing, especially considering the testimony presented by

many Internet and Usenet users who participated in the

November 1994 NTIA Virtual Conference on Univer-

sal Service and Open Access to the Telecommunica-

tions Network.

In order to make any socially useful policy con-

cerning the National Information Infrastructure (NII),

it is necessary to bring the greatest possible number of

people into the process of discussion and debate.

The

NTIA online conference is a prototype of possible

future online meetings leading to direct democracy.

There are several steps that need to be taken for the

online media to function for direct democracy. First, of

all, it would be necessary to make access easily avail-

able, including establishing permanent public Internet

access computer locations throughout the country

along with local phone numbers to allow citizens to

connect their personal computers to the Net. Secondly,

it is wrong to encourage people to participate in online

discussions about government policy and then ask

them to pay for that participation. Rather, it would be

important to be able to figure out some system of

paying people who participate in their government.

Payment for participation is not an easy issue to

decide, but it is a necessary step forward in order to

facilitate more participation by more people.

The online archives of the avail forum and the

redefus forum provide very important reading.

would be valuable if they were available in print form

and available to those involved with policy decisions

on the NII and for people around the U.S. and the

world who are interested in the future of the Net. This

online conference was an important landmark in the

study toward the development of the NII. However, it

should not only stand as a landmark, rather it should

set a precedent for future conferences which will

hopefully start as the basis of a new social contract

between people and their government.

Notes

1. James Mill, Essays on Government, Jurisprudence, Liberty of

the Press and Law of Nations, reprint, Augustus Kelley Publish-

ers, New York, 1986, p. 8.

2. Ibid., p. 6.

3. Ibid., p. 13.

4. Christopher Lasch, “Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of

Argument,” Media Studies Journal, Vol 9 no 1, Winter 1995, pp.

81-91.

5. Ibid., p. 89.

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

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

munications and Society Program.

7. The Net is the Internet, Usenet, Mailing Lists, etc.

8. The NTIA virtual conference was sponsored by the National

Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) and the

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

Administration’s National Information Infrastructure initiative.

This study draws on excerpts from the archives. See announce-

ment at:

https://seclists.org/interesting-people/1994/Nov/17

9. The NTIA listed several purposes for the conference. Among

those purposes were:

1) Garner opinions and views on universal telecommunications

service that may shape the legislative and regulatory debate.

2) Demonstrate how networking technology can broaden partici-

pation in the development of government policies, specifically,

universal service telecommunications policy.

3) Illustrate the potential for using the NII to create an electronic

commons.

4) Create a network of individuals and institutions that will

continue the dialog started by the conference, once the formal

sponsorship is over.

10. From: Randolph Langley <langley@dirac.scri.fsu.edu>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:27:51 -0500

Subject: [AVAIL:57] Re: my question

Message- ID: <199411171427.AA9158[email protected]>

11. From: Bob Summers <bsum[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:27:09 -0500

Subject: Re: [AVAIL:96] Re: my question

Message- ID: <199411180135.RAA0768[email protected]>

12. From: W. Curtiss Priest <B[email protected].EDU>

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 09:10:21 EST

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:189] REDEFUS digest 29

Message- ID: <1994112118[email protected]>

13. From: [email protected] (Wayne County

RESA)

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:17:11 -0500

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Access

Message- ID: <9411141918.AA07357@server.great-

Page 31

lakes.k12.mi.us>

14. From: BNN Television <bnn@world.std.com>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:20:01 +0001 (EST)

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:37] Re: Public Access

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411171753.A23713-0100000@world

.std.com>

15. From: Brent Wall <brentw@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:22:46 -0500 (EST)

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411191130.C17368-0100000@free-

net3.scri.fsu.edu>

16. From: Stephen Brenner <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:07:24 -0800

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:31] Re: Public Access

Message- ID: <9411161210.AA1728[email protected]n.org>

17. From: Lew McDaniel <MCDANIEL@wvuadmin3.csc.wvu

.edu>

Organization: WVU Computing Services

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:55:34 EST

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:15] Pilot Projects

Message-ID: <3A45E1049AE@wvuadmin3.csc.wvu.edu>

18. From: Dave W Mitchell <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:12:54 -0800

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:22] Re: Pilot Projects

Message- ID: <19941114221[email protected]r.gov>

19. From: Daniel Lieberman <danlie@ix.netcom.com>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:11:03 -0800

Subject: Competency and access

Message- ID: <19941117221[email protected]>

20. From: Sean <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 23:00:28 -0500 (EST)

Subject: A Plea

Message- ID: <19941118070[email protected]>

21. From: Colette Brooks <crb@well.sf.ca.us>

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 09:30:16 -0800

Subject: my 2$

Message- ID: <19941119173[email protected]>

22. From: Bill Russell <RUSSELL[email protected]rst.edu>

Date: 23 Nov 94 12:45:00

Subject: Re[2]: [REDEFUS:68] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference

universal access.

Message- ID: <2ed3a9cf.ext23@ext23.OES.ORST.EDU>

23. From: Brent Wall <brentw@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>

To: [email protected]

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:00:24 -0500 (EST)

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411191018.A17368-0100000@free-

net3.scri.fsu.edu>

24. From: HARVEY GOODSTEIN <HGOODSTEIN@gallua

.gallaudet.edu>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:18:52 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Universal Service definition

Message- ID: <01HJL7LBBLQQ01ERLS@GALLUA.BITNET>

25. From: Ellen Davis Burnham<[email protected]>

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 22:09:22 -0600 (CST)

Subject: Re: [AVAIL:124] AVAIL digest 29

Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941119212024.9892B-100000@

Isis.MsState.Edu>

26. From: Lucy[email protected]

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 15:09:31 -0500

Subject: Re: [AVAIL:137] AVAIL digest 37

Message- ID: <941120150557_35433[email protected]>

27. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 94 18:52:16 PST

Subject: Glasnost for the Information Age

Message- ID: <941121[email protected]>

28. From: Chloe Lewis <ch[email protected]>

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 14:00:29 TZ

Subject: the Internet’s other ancestor

Message- ID: <9411222159.AA07745@netmail2.microsoft.com>

29. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 05:21:42 PST

Subject: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access

Message- ID: <941115[email protected]>

30. From: Susan Hadden <[email protected]texas.edu>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:52:01 -0600

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:128] REDEFUS digest 14

Message- ID: <199411172052[email protected]texas.edu>

31. From: Bob Jacobson <[email protected]gton.edu>

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 22:04:12 -0800

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Access

Message- ID: <9411150604.AA25921@stein1.u.washington.edu>

32. From: Carly Henderson <cmh@lclark.edu>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:36:33 -0800 (PST)

Message- ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.941117131202.5097A-100000@

sun>

33. From: Robert J. Berrington III <[email protected]>

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 11:11:42 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Public awareness

Message- ID: <Pine.HPP.3.90.941118104318.23355A-

10000[email protected]>

34. From: Martin Kessel <mkessel@world.std.com>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500

Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access

Message- ID: <199411232029.AA16911@world.std.com>

35. From: <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 14:00:16 EST

Subject: universal access but not ubiquitous use

Message- ID: <1994111722[email protected]>

36. From: Dr. Robert LaRose <LAROSE@tc.msu.edu>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:03:37 EST

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:123] universal access but not ubiquitous

use

Message-ID: <224FE63[email protected].edu>

37. From: howlan[email protected]

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:19:23 -0800

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:67] Re: Public Access

Message- ID: <199411170319[email protected]>

38. From: Don Evans <[email protected]m>

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:25:42 -500 (EST)

Subject: Universal Access …

Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411141352.G26106-0100000@dcez

.dcez.com>

39. From: Michael Hauben <[email protected]>

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 01:54:36 -0500

Subject: Need to stress concept of active communication and

interconnection

Message- ID: <1994112206[email protected]

bia.edu>

40. From: [email protected]

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 16:04:59 -0500

Subject: Interim Summary for Availability List

Page 32

41. From: [email protected]

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:50:03 -0800

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:22] Re: Pilot Projects

Message- ID: <9411142150.AA09999@slugbt.zso.dec.com>

42. From: Debbie Sinmao <debbie@harmony.cdinet.com>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:17:18 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:40] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference

KeyNote Address

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411171341.A27812-0100000@har-

mony.cdinet.com>

43. From: Robert J. Berrington III <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:30:11 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:115] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference

KeyNote Address

Message- ID: <Pine.HPP.3.90.941117132629.13213C-100000@

river.it.gvsu.edu>

44. From: Rey Barry <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:19:34 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:133] REDEFUS digest 15

Message- ID: <199411172219.RAA15419@Hopper.itc.Virginia

.EDU>

45. From: Ron Choura 517-334-6240

<CHOURA%A[email protected]E.MI.US>

Posting-date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: NARUC Comments D.J Miller

46. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 14:41:39 -0800 (PST)

Subject: What happens when usage expands?

Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411231431.A11463-0100000@net-

com13>

47. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 16:33:17 -0800

Subject: Re: Comments to C. Hage concerns

Message- ID: <199411240033.[email protected]

com.com>

48. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 19:31:52 PST

Subject: Net Economics 101

Message- ID: <9411180331.AA19584@slick.chage.com>

49. From: Kathleen L. Bloomberg <bloom[email protected]

.edu>

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:03:22 -0600

Subject: Universal access & libraries

50. From: Solomon Philip Hill <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:51:04 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Access

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411141310.A6158-0100000@elaine

30.Stanford.EDU>

51. From: Dave W Mitchell <dm[email protected]>

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 08:17:20 -0800

Subject: Statement

Message- ID: <199411141617.AA259[email protected]v>

52. From: msyssft!microsys!susang@uu6.psi.com

Date: 16-Nov-94 11:35

Message- ID: E0E6C92E01B361E1

53. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 14:14:54 PST

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Access

Message- ID: <9411172214.AA19457@slick.chage.com>

54. From: Lew McDaniel <MCDANIEL@wvuadmin3.csc.wvu

.edu>

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 08:40:12 EST

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:139] REDEFUS digest 16

Message-ID: <3FE206E223A@wvuadmin3.csc.wvu.edu>

55. From: mtn@mtn.org (MTN)

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:39:33 -0600

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss

Message- ID: <aaee6246010210049a8a@[198.174.235.202]>

56. From: Stephen Brenner <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 994 05:07:24 -0800

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:31] Re: Public Accesss

Message- ID: <941116[email protected]>

57. From: Carol Deering <d[email protected]c.whecn.edu>

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:33:14 -700 (MST)

Subject: rural areas

Message-ID: <Pine.SCO.3.90.941118085624.725A-100000@odi

.cwc.whecn.edu>

58. From: Marilyn Letitia Korhonen <korhonen@tenet.edu>

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 07:52:32 -0600 (CST)

Subject: Re: [AVAIL:100] Re: Rural areas

Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411180704.C27478-0100000@Gayle-

Gaston.tenet.edu>

59. From: Ron Choura 517-334-6240

<CHOURA%A[email protected]E.MI.US>

Posting-date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT)

Subject: NARUC Comments D.J Miller

60. From: Frank Whittle <WHITT[email protected]

ess.edu>

Date: Mon Nov 14 21:53:09 1994

Message- ID: <9411150254.AA51246@admaix.sunydutch-

ess.edu>

61. From: Brent Wall <brentw@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:39:09 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Universal Access – an Equivocation

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411161905.A19851-0100000@free-

net3.scri.fsu.edu>

62. From: Henry Huang <hwh[email protected]inia.edu>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500

Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference)

Message- ID: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas

.Virginia.EDU>

63. From: Rey Barry <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:19:34 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:133] REDEFUS digest 15

Message- ID: <199411172[email protected]inia

.EDU>

64. From: Paul Weismantel <w[email protected]>

Organization: NEC America Inc.

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 13:31:46 -0600

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:80] Re: NT67IA Virt

Message- ID: <E15CCA2E011C0000@smtp.esd.dl.nec.com>

65. From: Martin Kessel <mkessel@world.std.com>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500

Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access

Message- ID: <199411232029.AA16911@world.std.com>

66. From: RICHARD M KENSHALO <PMRMK@tundra.alas-

ka.edu>

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:16:08 -0800

Subject: Universal Service

Message- ID: <01HJI2DC28[email protected].ALASKA

Page 33

.EDU>

67. From: Jeanne Gallo (using BNN Television) <bnn@world.std

.com>

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 12:22:53 +0001 (EST)

Subject: Community Centers

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411181228.A2135-0100000@world

.std.com>

68. From: [email protected]

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 16:04:59 -0500

Subject: Interim Summary for Availability List

69. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 18:27:53 -0800

Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Confer-

ence)

Message- ID: <199411240227.SAA08168@netcom13.netcom

.com>

70. From: Viraj Jha <jhav@bcvms.bc.edu>

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 09:48:34 +0000

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:37] Re: Public Accesss

Message- ID: <MailDrop1.0b13.941116094834@onra01p6.bc

.edu.>

71. From: Christine Weiss <chrisw@muskox.alaska.edu>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:28:56 -0900 (AST)

Subject: Who will fund?

Message- ID: <Pine.HPP.3.90.941117091241.9833A-100000@

muskox.alaska.edu>

72. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 12:23:44 PST

Subject: Re: Cheap Public Access

Message- ID: <9411172023.AA1943[email protected]>

73. From: Stan Witnov <74543.720@compuserve.com>

Date: 18 Nov 94 02:33:42 EST

Subject: FOUR DAY CONFERENCE THOTS

Message-ID: <941118073341_74543.720_EHH62-2@Compu-

Serve.COM>

74. From: Jawaid Bazyar <[email protected]>

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:34:41 GMT

Subject: Re: Need for Federal Oversight of Access and Availabil-

ity

Message-ID: <bazyarCzH7Lu.HoE@netcom.com>

75. From: howlan[email protected]

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 19:35:33 -0800

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:253] REDEFUS digest 56

Message- ID: <199411240335.TAA13844@noc.arc.nasa.gov>

76. From: Martin Kessel <mkessel@world.std.com>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500

Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access

Message- ID: <19941123202[email protected]>

77. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 05:21:42 PST

Subject: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access

Message- ID: <9411151321.AA1868[email protected]>

78. From: Hubert Jessup, General Manager at BNN Television

<bnn@world.std.com>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:20:11 +0001 (EST)

Subject: Need for on-going public access sites

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411171052.A20944-0100000@world

.std.com>

79. From: Public Access Site <[email protected]>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:46:30 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Affordability

Message- ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.941121204346.1399A-

10000[email protected]>

80. From: Henry Huang <hwh[email protected]inia.edu>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500

Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference)

Message- ID: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas.Vir-

ginia.EDU>

81. From: Sean <[email protected]>

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 15:01:16 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:155] REDEFUS digest 20

Message- ID: <199411182309[email protected]>

82. From: Henry Huang <hwh[email protected]inia.edu>

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:04:37 -0500

Subject: Re: [AVAIL:1] NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote

Address

Message- ID: <199411160304.WAA57037@fulton.seas.Virginia

.EDU>

83. From: Henry Huang <hwh[email protected]inia.edu>

Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500

Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference)

Message- ID: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas

.Virginia.EDU>

84. From: Carl Hage <[email protected]>

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 23:00:22 PST

Subject: Comments on Susan G. Hadden Essay

Message- ID: <941118[email protected]>

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

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

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

Web at http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/11s/virtual/ (No longer

available.)

[Editor’s Note: A version of this article appears as Chapter 15 of

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben published in 1997 by the

IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 280-285. An earlier version

appeared in Computer-Mediated Communications Magazine Vol.

2, No. 5, May 1, 1995, p. 9.]

Exploring New York City’s

Online Community:

A Snapshot of nyc.general

by Michael Hauben

Something new is gradually sneaking into every

part of our world. The agent of change is the global

computer communications network, “the full map of

[which] no one knows; it changes every day.”

Not

only is the change on a world scale, the Net is having

local effects as well. Local social communities are

being redefined more and more by the global online

community. This is happening in New York City.

Page 34

The topic of community is one of the themes

which Sally Banes explores in her book, Greenwich

Village 1963. Banes’ study of this bohemian commu-

nity at the beginning of the 1960s presents an interest-

ing model with which to compare today’s growing

online community in the Big Apple. Community has

traditionally been understood to mean a body of people

who affiliate with one another based on family ties,

location, shared religious practices and common work

places.

There are, of course other definitions, such as

that of historian Thomas Bender, who Banes says “pre-

fers to reconceptualize community, suggesting that it

is not a static social form that is disappearing, but

rather that new, dynamic, overlapping forms of small-

scale networks have arisen … .”

Bender proposes that it is important to examine

the technological structure behind a community. The

technological structure upon which today’s online

communities exist is that of the Internet. The Internet

is the interconnection of smaller networks. As such,

the Internet provides the glue which connects other

networks together. This means by being on the New

York State Education and Research Network (NYSER-

NET), I can send email from New York City to some-

one on a different network, for example Michnet in

Michigan, because the networks automatically route

my message from my network to the intended recipi-

ent’s network through intermediate networks. As such,

the global computer communications network consists

of small-scale networks of computers (and in turn of

people) connected to each other.

Banes’ initial definition of community translates

into saying people living in New York City are part of

the community of New York City. As everyone knows,

New York City is a large place. Yet people are proud

to say they are from New York City and relate to

things New York. New York can also be an isolated

and alienating place, however. Thanks to developing

technology, the contemporary concept of community

in New York is evolving in ways similar to Bender’s

model leading to less isolation.

The '60s had the soapbox, the '90s have computer

networks. People are communicating with other people

both locally and globally in public discussion forums

such as Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists and

through private email, forming in the process new

communities of common interests. Before these com-

munities became a reality, their possible benefits were

envisioned by J. C. R. Licklider, along with Robert

Taylor, in their paper, “The Computer as a Communi-

cations Device.”

Bender’s idea of ever-changing,

overlapping communities is similar to what Licklider

foresaw for social communities as a result of develop-

ments in computer communications. Already today,

computer assisted networking allows groups to form to

discuss an idea, focus in or broaden out and reform to

fit the new ideas that have resulted from the process.

In the new forms of communication technologies,

the distinction between a stranger and a friend is be-

coming blurred. Strangers are no longer strange; rather

they are people who might prove to be a valuable re-

source. One example of the public discussion areas is

a Usenet newsgroup called New York City General or

nyc.general (see the appendix for a partial listing of

other New York City-related online resources). Fol-

lowing is only a little of what I found in one day’s

browsing, which represents about a week of discussion

in this public space. Just a warning – you are about to

witness a little of the composite of life in New York

City.

“My boss is going to fire me,” begins the first of

the discussions I decided to read. The subject line read

“Getting Unemployment,” but the message left that as

a last recourse. The person continued in the request for

help, “What can I do? I’m not a minority or member of

a protected group so that rules out the labor board,

EEOC, etc. Could I find a lawyer to take the case on

contingency? Else, how easy is it to get unemployment

after being fired. No questions asked or do they give

you the third degree? Thanks in advance!”

A genuine problem was posted. As such, re-

sponses were likely to be sent by others, and indeed

they were. The first public response went: “If you’re

being fired by your boss, and you’ve been on the job

for a certain period of time (6 months possibly?), and

you were being paid legally on the books, unemploy-

ment compensation is guaranteed. Just go to the un-

employment office and do the bureaucracy dance.”

Conceivably neither the original poster nor the

person who responded knew the other. The fact that

these two are probably strangers and, before this point,

totally unconnected could be why the response was

posted publicly. The time and effort the person put into

publicly responding potentially could be helpful to yet

another person reading this discussion.

The next public response in sequence provided

some clarification which could or could not be seen as

being unfriendly. This man added that unemployment

insurance could not be collected if that person was

“fired for cause, such as stealing.”

Page 35

The last public response in this discussion that I

saved brought up the right of the boss to contest the

granting of unemployment insurance. The response

ends with some support: “It is just another long,

tedious hassle to get you to give up and forget about it.

But if you feel you deserve the unemployment benefits

because he/she did not fire you with just cause, fight

till the very end … .

Good luck.”

All in all, these three public responses helped to

define the previously tenuous concept of unemploy-

ment compensation held by the original poster. How-

ever, the picture is not complete. I am sure the person

with the question, who could be reached via an email

through the Delphi online service, probably received

private email with suggestions and comments which

are not available as part of the public record of

nyc.general.

What other things are discussed? Concerns about

public living conditions – such as discussions about the

past, present, and future of the subway system – hap-

pen on a regular basis. Even an employee of the

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, who claimed

to be acting in an unofficial capacity replied to ques-

tions and concerns about the subway. Nyc.general

presents an open public forum where this person could

talk about his job in a way he felt was helpful to many

people. Such is not yet apparently true for any New

York politicians entrusted to represent their constitu-

ency. However, such attempts are happening. Former

Governor Cuomo ran a gopher information server in

his campaign for re-election, and New York State law

and pending State Assembly bills will be online in the

next few months. The currently proposed method is via

telnet at assembly.state.ny.us.

Some examples of questions by people on how to

survive in Manhattan include where to get cheap

checking accounts (Amalgamated Bank of New York

with true no-fee checking), what dentist or doctor to

visit for particular problems, what rights tenants have,

how and when to approach the Department of Motor

Vehicles, and what’s the best slice of pizza in town

(one person voted for Koronet, while another voted for

Famous Famiglia).

Other issues raised were not so cut and dried.

The pros and cons of rent control were discussed in the

following exchange:

Well, having just moved from the West

Coast, I can tell you this about New York

in general: there is no such thing as a nice

place for a reasonable rent. This place is

absurdly expensive – God only knows how

rents can be so high in a place where

roughly 10 million people live.

The first response was not much of a discussion, but

would definitely start one. The person wrote an an-

swer: “Two words: Rent control.”

A second answer about rent control went like

this:

Your solutions might be okay for the burbs,

but this is New York you’re talking about.

These regulations were not the *cause* of

high rents, they were enacted *because* of

high rents. Removing them will harm the

city in the short term and cause unpredict-

able results in the long term, as deregula-

tion always does.

In these and other cases, the open quality of

debate and discussion on nyc.general make it not only

a helpful neighborhood, but a living newspaper that

both criticizes current newspapers and provides fea-

tures.

My next brief example is a post about the quality

of the New York Times. The Subject of the message

was “New York Times technology coverage.” the

poster argued: “No one should expect the New York

Times … to cover underlying technology well – that’s

not their specialty. The Times is a general-interest

paper.”

One of the responses was, “Sorry, they

should do a better job. That they don’t is an indication

of the generally low level of scientific literacy in the

U.S. Cutting them slack over stuff like this just rein-

forces this tendency.”

From this criticism of the New York Times, we go

to an unusual experience that I could call a feature.

The person wrote:

Reminds me when I was homeless and still

had a valid VISA card which was maxed

out. Apparently, between approximately

2:50 A.M. and 4:25 A.M. at night, Safeway

stores would not check the validity of the

transaction, and would just put it through.

All the charges would show up on my

VISA bill (which I never paid), and I

would eat that day. It’s funny because the

bank decided that I needed a higher limit,

and raised the limit twice, even after seven

months of delinquency! My card wasn’t

canceled until one day I called and asked

what the balance was – and a letter was

Page 36

promptly sent saying there was suspicious

activity, and the card was thus canceled.

Thank god I’ve since filled in the missing

links between me and a job, and may even

start making enough to pay past debts.

Depends on a few factors … .

These examples paint a picture of people today

with a common interest, and only secondarily of a

common location, making themselves available to be

helpful to others with that interest. The obvious inter-

est is life in New York City. These exchanges appear

similar to both the Village Community presented in

Greenwich Village 1963 and to Licklider’s observa-

tions on online communities in the 1960s. Greenwich

Village in 1963 was made up partially of a community

of artists and intellectuals who “formed a constructed

network, based on work, school, and other interests.”

Licklider asked the question, “What will online inter-

active communities be like?”

He answers by writing,

“They will be communities not of common location,

but of common interest.”

The community life made available in Greenwich

Village gave residents “the warmth of face-to-face,

‘authentic’ experience in the midst of escalating metro-

politan anonymity.”

Villagers also felt a part of the

community because people were active politically to

protect their community from large structural changes

which other organizations wanted to make happen.

The online examples both demonstrate a friendliness

of a good neighborhood in the midst of an ever grow-

ing city, along with showing the active character. To

be part of the online community one must become a

part of the discussion, otherwise that which is dis-

cussed will be less helpful, and the online lurker will

not be in touch with anyone else.

The examples of online activities are not pro-

vided to say there are no problems online, and I will

not go into the whole phenomenon of flaming, but I

feel the advantages are more important and overwhelm

the disadvantages. I have presented a snapshot of a

fairly new entity which is both making New York a

much more friendly place and providing a forum for

people of disparate beliefs to meet on equal grounds.

In the end, online communications can help to enrich

local community and community relations rather than

diminish that ability. Taking a serious look at the

actual dynamic of the communication reveals the com-

munity of online New York City.

Notes

1. Ithiel de Sola Pool, Technologies Without Boundaries: On

Telecommunications in a Global Age, edited by Eli Noam,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990, p. 56.

2. Sally Banes, Greenwich Village 1963: Avant-Garde Perfor-

mance and the Effervescent Body, Durham, North Carolina, 1993,

p. 37.

3. Ibid.

4. J. C. R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor, “The Computer as a

Communication Device,” in In Memoriam: J. C. R. Licklider

1915-1990, Digital Research Center, Palo Alto, California, August

7, 1990. (Originally published in Science and Technology, April,

1968).

5. nyc.general, Message-ID: <B6009I1[email protected]>

6. nyc.general, Message-ID: <mbay[email protected]>

7. nyc.general, Message-ID: <[email protected]>

8. nyc.general, Message-ID: <3beb21$461@dockmaster.phan-

tom.com>

9. nyc.market.housing, Message-ID: <[email protected]ic

.com>

10. nyc.market.housing, Message-ID: <3be4jp$8eo@apakabar

.cc.columbia.edu>

11. nyc.general, Message-ID: <[email protected]>

12. nyc.general, Message-ID: <[email protected]>

13. nyc.general, Message-ID: <3bq5hp$s0a@nntp.Stanford.EDU>

14. nyc.general, Message-ID: <[email protected]>

15. Banes, Greenwich Village 1963, p. 78.

16. “The Computer as a Communication Device,” p. 37.

17. Ibid., p. 38.

18. Greenwich Village 1963, p. 15.

19. Ibid.

Appendix

New York City Online Resources

Addresses for most sites listed available at:

http://www.colum

bia.edu/~hauben/nyc-guides.html.

I. Public Decentralized Newsgroups

• nyc.* hierarchy – general, food, market.housing, jobs.*,

politics, announce, seminars, singles, personals, transit, etc.

• ny.* hierarchy for State wide issues – general, for sale,

wanted, seminars, etc.

• alt.sports.* hierarchy – such as baseball.ny-mets, football.

pro.ny-giants, etc.

• Moderated Newsfeed – clari.local.nyc, etc., clari.* groups

II. Public Listserv’s and Mailing Lists

• ebikes – Metro NYC bicycle discussion list

• NYCOMNET – NY Community Networks lists

• NE-RAVES – electronic watercooler for Ravers

• Etc.

III. Local Newsgroup Hierarchies

• panix.*

• dorsai.*

• mindvox.*

• Local hierarchies – serving other communities such as

universities, etc.

Page 37

• Etc. – All local and serving the community on the associ-

ated Internet providers. Usually only available on the partic-

ular system with which it is associated.

IV. Information Servers

• Gopher

N Rutger’s Net Person’s Guide to NYC

N CUNY graduate Center’s Guide to NYC

N NYU’s New York City and Greenwich Village Communi-

ties

N New York Book, Bike, and Art … from Panix

N Echo’s Cool Stuff in NYC contributed by members of

ECHO

N Weather forecasts

• FTP

N Lists of NYC Bookstores

N Lists of NYC Record Stores

N NYC Beer Guide

• WWW

N Lists of WWW web sites in NYC

N Theater on Broadway – listings

N Dining Information and menus

N Web sites for performance spaces (Kitchen, Knitting

Factory)

N Mediabridge.com’s NYC “Tourist” Info (previously

Columbia CS Department)

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:

mailto:[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 from1988 to present of the Amateur Computerist

are at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 38