The Amateur

Computerist

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

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 the Professional News Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

The Net and the Future of Politics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24

Exploring New York City’s Online Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 73

Introduction

The year 2022 marks the 25

Anniversary of the May 1, 1997 pub-

lication of the print edition of Netizens: 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 Anniversary. 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 Collective / The Man-Computer News Symbio-

sis” quotes Victor Hugo about the cathedral and the book, “Alas, this will

kill that.” This article raises the question about the Net and the profes-

sional 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 manufacturer, was forced to recall faulty Pentium chips

Page 1

because of the online pressure. The online discussion led to people

becoming active and getting the manufacturers of their computers and

Intel to fix the problem despite requiring a costly recall. The article con-

cludes that Netizen reporters are challenging the premise that authoritative

professional reporters are the only possible reporters of the news.

Therefore, the professional news media must evolve a new role or will be

increasingly 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 Meeting via online communi-

cation and discussion. The bulk of the article is about the 1994 Virtual

Conference on Universal Service and Open Access to the Telecommunica-

tions 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 participants

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 selected 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 problems were posted and the newsgroup community

responded with a spectrum of opinions. As an example: “My boss is going

to fire me” which led to a discussion of collecting unemployment com-

pensation. 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 concludes that online

communications can help to enrich local community and community

Page 2

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

Page 3

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 reconsidered in a variety of

ways. There are journalists and media critics like the late Professor

Christopher Lasch, who have challenged the fundamental premises of pro-

fessional 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 approaches 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 established 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 informa-

tion. Of course, it needs information, too, but the kind of infor-

mation it needs can be generated only by vigorous 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:

Page 4

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 the questions raised by the event. Soon after the explosion,

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

critics 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 discontent 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 criticism of the news

media. In his article, “Encounters Online,” Thomas Valovic recognizes

some of the advantages 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 journalism, 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

Page 5

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

impassioned arguments. Their comments are much more persuasive 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 announced their discontent

with the traditional one-way media, often leading to their refusal to

seriously read newspapers again. In a discussion about a Time magazine

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 traditional 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 formidable foe Zoes

continued:

Your top-down model of journalism allows traditional media

to control the debate, and even if you provide opportunity for

opposing views, the editor *always* had the last word. In the

Page 6

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, coupled with discussion

groups (Usenet) and mail lists provide for a ‘market place of

ideas’ hitherto not possible since perhaps 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 Newsweek. 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 except when

someone puts something in front of me or I’m riding the bus

to work … .

These responses are just some of the recent examples of people

voicing their discontent with the professional 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 influencing 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 dissatis-

faction writes:

The net is a special problem for reporters, because bad

reporting in other areas is protected 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 equidistant from the user and

Page 7

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 training or total immer-

sion 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 general 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 bombing.

In Usenet’s formation of a community, that community has devel-

oped the self-awareness to respond 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 commentary 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 because of what the media was saying fed

debates 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 address.” 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

responsible for the lies and distortions.

Page 8

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 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 connected to the global computer communica-

tions network (or the Net) are the prototype for a new public form of

communication. This new form of human communication will either

supplement the current forms of News or replace them. One person on a

newsgroup succinctly 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 information

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 discourse. Individuals outside of the traditional power

structures are finding a forum in which to contribute, where those con-

tributions 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 effect(s) of having access to alternative view-

Page 9

points to the published and usually (although 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

knowledge available to the common populace, instead of held

in the tight fists of the clergy and ruling classes.

This change in who makes the news is also apparent to Keith Cowing:

How one becomes a ‘provider’ and ‘receiver’ of information

is being totally revamped. 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 sorting

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

Australia notes that it is common to post refutations of inaccurate 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 drastically alter the flow or quality of dis-

cussion. The multiplicity 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 individualism is that the

individual is in control and is the prime mover of society. Others believe

that it’s not the individual 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 – whether those corporations are the media, manu-

facturers, etc. The global computer communications networks currently

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:

Page 10

There is nothing like finding a group of people who share your

same interests and background knowledge. Some of my

interests 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 matter – political prisoners, democratic uprisings,

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 com-

mercial media to shape public opinion, voter attitudes, select

candidates, influence legislation, 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 opportunity for Usenet,

namely that the professional content providers will be directly

confronted with and by their audience. The prevailing

infostructure privileges certain individuals by virtue of insti-

tutional affiliation. But cyberspace is a far more meritocractic

environment – the free exchange of ideas can take place

regardless of institutional affiliation.

Page 11

Pike continues by arguing that online forums are becoming a place where

“news” is both made and reported, and thus traditional sources are often

scooped. He writes:

This has tremendously exciting possibilities for democratizing

the infostructure, as the ‘official’ hardcopy implementations

are increasingly lagging cyberspace in breaking news.

An example of news being made online occurred when Intel, the

computer chip manufacturer, was forced 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 companies put pressure

on Intel because people using Usenet discovered problems with the

Pentium. The online 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, before the Internet got hot and the media caught

on, Intel might have escaped a public 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 reporters 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, reporter Fara Warner

focused on the impact of the online news on Intel. “[Intel] offered con-

sumers 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

Page 12

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 traditionally 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 absolutely changing how

journalism is practiced in ways that aren’t fully developed.”

These

journalists acknowledge that the field of journalism is changing as a result

of the existence of the online complaints. The online connection of people

is forming a large and important 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 stories 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 avail-

able 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 discus-

sion.

With Usenet it is not necessary to rely on any single piece of infor-

mation. 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

Page 13

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. Discussing 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

important, 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 population 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 connection 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, com-

paring 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 Kemeny 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

Page 14

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 accumulate 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 one individual is no longer

presented as the whole truth.

Karl Krueger describes some of the value of Usenet 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-sym-

biont’ with each user – the user is a part of Usenet and benefits

Usenet (with a few exceptions …), and Usenet includes the

user and benefits him/her.

Krueger points out how experienced Usenet users contribute to the Usenet

community. He writes:

As time increases normally, the experienced Usenet user uses

Usenet to make himself more knowledgeable and successful.

Experienced users also contribute back to Usenet, primarily in

the forms of conveying knowledge (answering questions,

compiling FAQs), conveying experience (being part of the

environment a newbie interacts with), and protecting Usenet

(upholding 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

Page 15

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 con-

nect to Usenet and other discussion forums, the collective global popula-

tion will contribute back to the human community in this new form of

news.

VI. Journalists and the Internet

Professional journalists are beginning to understand 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 Magazine 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 journalist, 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 communi-

Page 16

cations. 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 feedback, 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 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 responsibility 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 newspapers.

I do think, however, that the introduction 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

Page 17

Net as a new information source, and some look for people to interview.

Lastly, there are those who are actually joining the community or

responding to their reading audience. A growing number of journalists are

participating 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 online counterparts of

their print editions (e.g., San Jose Mercury News, and Business Week) on

commercial online 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 online offerings sometimes provide another interface between

journalists and readers. Message areas or public discussion boards are

offered along with publicized email 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 newspa-

pers 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 significant 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

printing. This would allow for the convenience of the traditional newspa-

per 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 element of interactivity. Still, it could be a

temporary solution until the time when ubiquitous slate computers with

mobile networks would allow the combination of a light, easy to handle

screen, with a continuous connection into the Internet from anyplace.

Newspapers could continue to provide entertainment in the form of

Page 18

cross-word puzzles, comics, classified ads, and entertainment sections

(e.g., entertainment, lifestyles, sports, fashion, gossip, reviews, coupons,

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 reporting 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 proper functioning of

an open, free society such as ours. In recent years, the func-

tioning of this society has been impaired by the monolithic

control of our means of communication and news gathering

(through television and conglomerate-owned newspapers).

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 perspec-

tives from all sides to be seen.

Journalists may survive, but they will be secondary 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 everyone does it – by cross-posting, fol-

lowing-up, forwarding relevant articles to other places, main-

taining 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 ex-

tends).

Page 19

He continues:

Journalists will never replace software. The purpose of

journalists is similar to scribes in medieval times: to provide an

information service when there is insufficient technology or

insufficient general skill at using it. I’m not insulting journal-

ism; it is a respectable 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 journalism.

Professional media critics writing in the Freedom Forum’s Media Studies

Journal acknowledge that online critics and news gatherers are presenting

a challenge to the professional news media that can lead to their over-

throw. 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.

Page 20

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 91.

4. Jared Sandberg, “Oklahoma City Blast Turns Users Onto Internet 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 <af38[email protected]>

Date: 7 April, 1995

Subject: Re: Future of print journalism

Newsgroups: alt.journalism

Message-ID:<1995Apr7.214157.1[email protected]>

11. From: John Pike <johnpike@clark.net>

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-20079413[email protected]et>

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>

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. From: Catherine Stanton <cat@uunet.uu.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 <[email protected]>

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

Subject: Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Page 21

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]>

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 <kcowing@aibs.org>

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]43.0.239>

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

Subject: Re: Is hobby computing dead?

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers

Message-ID: <1993Apr6.121613[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 <norman[email protected]m>

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

Subject: Re: Impact of the Net on Society

Page 22

Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet

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

30. From: John Pike <johnpike@clark.net>

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.107.2[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: <1993Aug26.022528.637[email protected]>

39. From: Miskatonic Gryn <[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]ons-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: lg105@columbia.edu

Page 23

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.

[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 informa-

tion. Of course, it needs information, too, but the kind of

information it needs can be generated only by vigorous popular

debate. We do not know what we need to know until we ask

the right questions, and we can identify the right questions

only by subjecting our own ideas about the world to the test of

public controversy … .

Christopher Lasch,

“Journalism, Publicity,

and the Lost Art of Argument”

Throughout American history, the town meeting has been the

Page 24

premier, and often the only, example of ‘direct democracy’….

The issue of whether the town meeting can be redesigned to

empower ordinary citizens, as it was intended to do, is of vital

concern for the future.

Jeffrey B. Abramson,

“Electronic Town Meetings:

Proposals for Democracy’s Future”

I. Introduction

Democracy, or rule by the people, is by definition a popular form of

government. Writers throughout the ages have thought about democracy,

and understood the limitations imposed by various factors. Today, com-

puter communications networks, such as the Internet, are technical inno-

vations 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 Encyclo-

pedia 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 Government is at all necessary, imply that those

persons will make use of them to defeat the very end for which

Government exists.

Democracy is a desirable form of government, but Mill found it to

be impossible to maintain. Mill lists two practical obstacles in his essay.

First, he finds it 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

Page 25

assenting. But where the assembly is numerous, so many

persons desire to speak, and feelings, by mutual inflammation,

become so violent, that calm and effectual deliberation is

impossible.

In lieu of participatory democracies, republics have arisen as the

actual form of government. Mill recognizes that an elected body of

representatives serves to facilitate the role of governing society in the

interests of the body politic. However, that representative body needs to

be overseen so as to not abuse its powers. Mill writes:

That whether Government is entrusted to one or a few, they

have not only motives opposite to those ends, but motives

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

evils… .

A more recent scholar, the late Professor Christopher Lasch of the

University of Rochester, also had qualms about representative govern-

ment. In his essay, “Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument,”

Lasch argued that any form of democracy requires discourse and debate

to function properly. His article is critical of modern journalism failing in

its role as a public forum to help raise the needed questions of our society.

Lasch recommended the 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 equivalent 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 commu-

nity; the farmers and developers had such opposed interests

about zoning ordinances that debate collapsed 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

Page 26

technologies present the chance to overcome the obstacles preventing the

implementation of direct democracy. Online communication forums also

make possible Lasch’s desire to see the discussion necessary to identify

today’s fundamental questions. Mill could not foresee the successful

assembly of the body politic in person at one time. The Net 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 convenient, 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 discus-

sions that interest them within their daily schedules.

Mill’s second observation was that people would not be able to

communicate peacefully after assembling. Online discussions do not have

the same characteristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to the

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, participants have to think quickly to respond. In addition, online

discussions allow everyone to have a say, whereas finite length meetings

only allow a certain number of people to have their say. Online meetings

allow everyone to contribute their thoughts in a message, which is then

accessible to whomever else is reading and participating in the discussion.

These new communication technologies hold the potential for the

implementation of direct democracy in a country as long as the necessary

computer and 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 participa-

tion 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.

Page 27

These networks can revitalize the concept of a democratic “Town

Meeting” via online communication and discussion. Discussions involve

people interacting with others. Voting involves the isolated thoughts of an

individual on an issue, and then his or her 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 broadest possible viewpoint.

Public and open discussions and debates are grass-roots, bottom-up

development which enable people to participate in democracy with

enthusiasm and interest more so than the current system of secret ballots

allows. Of course, at some point or other, votes might be taken, but only

after time has been given to air an issue in the commons.

II. The NTIA Virtual Conference

A recent example and prototype of this public and open discussion

was the Virtual Conference on Universal Service and Open Access to the

Telecommunications Network in late November 1994. The National Tele-

communications and Information Administration (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 discus-

sion. Several public libraries across the nation provided the most visible

public sites in the 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 demonstrated some of the problems inherent

in non-moderated computer communication. The NTIA conference was

a new social form made possible by the Net and actually occurred as a

prototype of one form of citizen 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 government 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

Page 28

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 confer-

ence, 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 infrastructure can allow greater citizen

participation in the development of government policies.” To hear such a

comment from a government representative is important. Such a statement

indicates that many users of the Net have demonstrated to the U.S. gov-

ernment that they oppose the recent conversion of the communications-

based Internet into the commerce-based National Information Infrastruc-

ture.

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 Universal 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 com-

munity representatives, college students, normal everyday people and

others, made this clear in their contributions to the discussion. Though the

NTIA Virtual Conference was not advertised broadly enough, the organ-

izers did establish 80 public access points across the U.S. in places like

public libraries and community centers. This helped to include the opin-

ions of people in the discussion who might not have been heard otherwise.

Page 29

A. the Importance of the Internet to Our Society

The Internet and Usenet represent important developments in

technology which will have a profound effect on human society and

intellectual development. We are in an early stage of the development and

distribution of these technologies, and it is important to look toward the

future. Some areas of human society which these new communications

technologies are likely to affect include government, human communica-

tion and community formation. Democracy is government 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 uncooper-

ative, but these new communications technologies make it possible to have

one’s voice presented equally. These technologies could be integrated with

other online information and communication technologies 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 communication technologies and discussed the

need for universal access to the technology. The Internet was identified to

be a “public good,” worthy and necessary to be accessible to all of the

population and throughout the land. This led to the understanding that it

was important 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 opportunity with everyone else to access and utilize the

Internet. These particular cases were described and explored as being

unprofitable for businesses to provide equal access for equal payment.

Businesses make profits off of the mass production of like goods or

services. Parts of society which cannot use the common product wind up

paying extra. This was 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

handicaps would need to purchase expensive input/output devices in order

to compensate for their individual disadvantage. Access is expensive, but

Page 30

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 confer-

ence. The conferences sponsored a debate on the issues, and people with

different ideas contributed. However, there was a clear cry by many par-

ticipants that the U.S. government should stay involved 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 government. I

believe most of the citizenry would not care to see the inter-

state 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 informa-

tion, 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

Page 31

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 activities 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 privatized we will see more

ads. Seems logical. Why would someone pay good money to

be on the Net and not advertise their wares. I imagine it is

inevitable but I would like the inevitable forestalled or better

yet somehow modified so that information and the kinds of

information is not compromised.

From: BNN Television

Public access is a ‘public good’, not only because it allows

people from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to use

new technology, but also because it increases the collective

pool of information from which even newer technology is

born. Analyze this increase from a business perspective if you

must – I’ll keep on rooting for the future of my species.

From: Brent Wall

The draft financial plan for the Leon County Free-Net project,

while proposing a number of different financial opportunities

to make universal service a reality to the community, will

emphasize an old notion practiced for years in this and other

countries: cross-subsidies. Based on the view that citizen

communication and education are public goods and should not

be constrained by cost of service pricing mechanisms, the

Page 32

financial plan proposes that business uses and enhanced

services shall be charged a fee that underwrites the first

Amendment communication functions of the Net as well as its

educational employment.

This entire argument hinges on defining communication and

education (and I recognize that there are grey areas that would

need to be ironed out) as PUBLIC GOODS. This is not, in my

judgement simply a matter of determining whether Net

communication is “divisible” etc. as the economic profession

would tend to analyze the problem. It deals with fundamental

philosophies of the social value of education and communica-

tion in a democracy. If, to email my County Commissioners on

a topic that affects me, I have to pay a charge that I really can’t

afford, while Mr. Thickwallet has no such impediment, then

this means something to democratic participation in an

electronic world.

This is nothing new: witness C-Span, local access channels,

and the like. If we adopt a concept and policy like the above,

more and more citizens, over time, would be able to join the

virtual community as a full member. To have this membership

driven by one’s personal income will surely result in two

societies that are separate and unequal. Can we afford this

future?

From: Stephen Brenner

We are dealing with a major paradigm shift when it comes to

this lateral flow of communication and the kinds of community

building processes and empowerment that this can catalyze.

We need to put some thought into how a real democracy could

function, given these new communication tools.

From: Lew McDaniel

In my opinion, information access is sufficiently important to

be a guaranteed right. By guaranteed information access, I

mean for K-12, adult education, health services, and govern-

ment access. Movies on demand, games, and electronic

Page 33

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 commu-

nication links must be available.

From: Sean Connell

The Internet offers a chance for us to follow through on a

promise of democracy that was betrayed over two hundred

years ago. Our Constitution, clever as it may be, was written

to *prevent* civic action. [Jefferson] was the first to recom-

mend public education, because he knew that it was vital to a

healthy democracy. We must all be informed and capable of

contributing to the governing of our country. The public does

not have the means to act in concert and it is not the interest of

the current power players to afford us those means. The

Internet … is a means to create vocal, active, communities that

transcend race, geography, and wealth. It is entirely necessary

that we recognize this fact and make a stand now to maintain

this highway to real Democracy.

From: Colette Brooks

And many of us feel that the Infobahn is not primarily a

private preserve but a national/world resource which should be

Page 34

extended to all, for reasons already explored in other posts this

week.

From: Bill Russell

What SERVICES should be guaranteed to every citizen. The

old definition of universal service has been called POTS: Plain

Old Telephone Service. As I understand it, the NEED for this

service was so great that it is public policy that every one

(hence universal) should have it. It has been also called “life

line service.” … IMHO universal service needs to be defined

as a set of SERVICES that are so important to our civilization

that they should be made universally available. Foremost

among them is POTS. Next is access to a network that pro-

vides 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 conference 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 individual from the

Anneberg NPR group suggested that, as a beginning, universal

access, as defined from the consumer’s and not the supplier’s

viewpoint, merely entails, at present, a phone line to every

home. The implicit definition of availability in the Leon

County library Tallahassee Free-Net adds one important di-

mension on top of the phone line notion. It is the expansion to

as many homes as possible of the communication and educa-

tional benefits of a community Net over the phone lines.

From: Harvey Goodstein

… [T]aking into consideration the needs and rights of deaf and

Page 35

hard of hearing individuals in particular (and individuals with

disabilities in general). … federal regulations on minimum

standards are necessary to enhance equal access for all … .

Thus, universal service provisions should not discriminate

against individuals with disabilities (irrespective of their

financial status) who invariably would have to pay abnormally

high costs for technical connectivity.

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 al-

lowed access we live in a democratic society that says every-

one is equal and should receive equal access to schooling

among other inalienable rights.

The rural area should be addressed first because we have such

a hard time to find access (affordable access). If you could just

go into a school one day and help students who are struggling

to find the needed 12 sources for a research paper, students

who know what they need is out there SOMEWHERE if only

they had access to it.

YES, WE MUST PROVIDE INTERNET ACCESS TO

**EVERYONE**, not just to those who are easy to put

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 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

Page 36

*ONLY* one student knew about the Superhighway. What

about … the children who have parents that have never heard

of the Internet either. We have to start somewhere and I

believe the population of America as a whole is as good a

place to begin as any.

From: Lucy Co

Hearing the real-life experiences of people like Ellen Davis

Burnham, who wrote of introducing school children in rural

Mississippi to the Internet – is one of the best aspects of this

conference. Helps ward off the tendency to discuss concepts

such as “availability” as though they were theoretical only.

Keep up the good work, Ellen – and don’t apologize for your

“preaching.”

B. Government as Producer and Disseminator of Information

The 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 handed 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. citizens will now have to pay a profit-

making company overhead to access the very information we pay for with

our taxes. In any case, if the 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* infrastructure. The government is a major

producer and consumer of information, most of which is

inaccessible to the public in practice … . We need a new kind

Page 37

of information, 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 agencies involved

and of anyone who needs frequent access to government

publications. This is an obvious reason for schools and li-

braries to have Internet access, and a reason for citizens and

businesses to acquire it.

The U.S. has been subsidizing access to paper information, for

the sake of knowledge and self-government; we have found a

more efficient way to provide this information; where possible,

we should subsidize this more efficient way instead. It isn’t as

whizbang attractive as giving everyone realtime video, but it

would be useful immediately.

From: Carl Hage

The largest single producer of information is the federal gov-

ernment, most of which is public. Although these days vir-

tually 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 available in electronic form there

would be a package of stuff … that should make the net

Page 38

worthwhile to most people. (Examples: Renewing drivers’

license, hunting licenses, 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

calculations in real time, etc.)

C. Why it Is Important for All to Have Access

Early in the “redefining universal service” segment of the virtual

conference, people started discussing 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 Internet for both its information and

communication benefits. 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 understanding 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 individ-

ual or organization should pay for access to the Internet or its

successors, but why they should have access, individually and

collectively? Once you figure this out, and define access to

suit, you can figure on pricing. Everything else is premature,

unless people get out their basic premises on which they are

operating.

From: Carly Henderson

I agree with Bob; this is a very important question that de-

serves a well thought out answer. Why should people have

access to the Internet? In response, I pose the question, why

should every community have a library and allow its citizens

access to all that it contains?

Page 39

From: Robert J. Berrington III

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

we’re talking about providing 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 communication

were owned and operated by large companies. Other more democratic

forms of broadcast which provide one-to-many communication exist for

small segments of the population in particular regions: public access cable,

various self-produced newsletters or zines, “pirate” radio and so on. The

Internet 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 com-

munication is vastly different from personal information and communica-

tion. 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 superhighway” 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 communications forums on Usenet where everyone

Page 40

can contribute. The transfer of information is secondary. The descriptions

by much of the news media pop, portraying people's contributions as being

pornographic or otherwise illegal are tn contrast to the reality that the

Internet and Usenet provide a place where people can share ideas,

observations, and questions. Those participating 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 “infor-

mation elite” (most already on the net), I don’t know too many

people interested in communications capability not already

available using existing infrastructures. How many people do

you know, not associated with research or education, who care

about access to government information repositories? Or

virtual conferences?

From: Dr. Robert LaRose

In response to Woody Dowling’s comment that the average

American is not interested in advanced communications infra-

structure, at least not those who don’t already have it.

Not so. We did a national survey a couple of years ago and

asked about interest in videotex, ISDN, etc., found interest

levels far beyond those of then-current penetration levels.

Found the most intense interest among low income homes, in

fact, suggesting that it is cost and not interest that holds them

back. Want a killer application for low income households? E-

mail. Many can’t afford long distance rates, some move too

often or have no home, can’t keep a phone line … . The appli-

cations 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.

Page 41

Such comparisons allow for the taking of information, but not

for the tremendous possibilities involved with ease of *provid-

ing* info. There is no reason to think that a future Stephen

Hawkings isn’t sitting right now in front of a boob-tube

sucking down Mighty Morhpin Power Rangers because there

is no way for his ideas to be expressed. Without the facility to

put ideas out, with each person acting as a information

provider assumed from the outset, we are doing ourselves a

great 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

provide 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 importance and role of every user also being an informa-

tion provider. The term “access” stresses the status-quo

understanding of one-way communication, the user accesses

information that other “authorized” information providers

make available. This is the old model. The new model is of

interconnection of many different types of people, information,

and ideas. The new model stresses the breakdown of old

definitions of communication and information. Diversity

allows for both the increasing speed in the formation of new

ideas, and the ability for previously unauthorized ideas to have

the airing and consideration they rightfully deserve.

Page 42

II. Definition of “Services” to be available on this Universal

Interconnection

The new era of interconnection and many-to-many communi-

cation afforded by Netnews and Mailing lists (among other

technologies) brings to the forefront a model of bottom-up

rather than top-down communication and information. It is

time to reexamine society and welcome the democratizing

trends of many-to-many communication over the one-to-many

models as represented by broadcast television, radio, newspa-

pers and other media.

As such, I would say it would be important to highlight,

discuss and make available interactive modes of communica-

tion instead of the passive transfer of information. Thus I am

suggesting emphasizing of forms of multiple way of communi-

cation and broadcasting. Forms currently defined by news-

groups, mailing lists, talk sessions, IRC sessions, MOO exper-

iences, and other forms of sharing and collaboration. These

type of forums are where this new technology excels. Plenty of

media exist which facilitates the passive transfer of informa-

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

etc.) It would be best to explore and develop the new forms of

communication which this new media facilitates, and which

was less possible and present in the past.

From: B. Harris

Summary of the Affordability and Availability Conference

The Internet and the Global Computer Network are providing

a very important means for the people of our society to have an

ability to speak for themselves and to fight their own battles to

better the society.

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

Page 43

to any number of community organizations with members as

avid information producers.

In other words, basic service based on enabling “many produc-

ers” might actually prompt a larger share to be allocated to

bandwidth OUT of the home than that envisaged by the Baby

Bells and cable companies.

It seems to me, in rural America, there would be even more

fear of not having ample “basic” bandwidth to be a producer

because the distance to such an “access point” might be

enough to effectively deny community production.

E. Efficiency of Email vs Video, Etc.

In the discussion about universal and equal access to the Internet,

access to live video and the problems it creates was introduced. Some

participants argued that “video on demand” would be a resource hog, and

again introduce inequality into the online world based on who could pay,

and also creating a different priority in use of network bandwidth. One

participant contributed a message titled “Net Economics 101” which gave

tables showing the relative sizes of different forms of data. Carl Hage

made his comparisons clear by writing, “A single video movie is

equivalent to 6 million people sending a one page email message.” He

concluded his message by writing, “Why should we provide subsidized

video access to a few when we could use those resources to provide

textual information to millions?”

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

Page 44

modem exchange.

>> Tomorrow is something else, but that should be the

minimum today.

> What would a basic basket of services be in five years? In

ten? And, by

> what process do we change our minds and expand our

definition?

Whatever the basket will be in 5, 10, etc. years, it should not

include Al Gore’s idea of video on demand … unless it is for

educational uses – if you want to see a movie, go to your

nearest movie theater or rent a video from Blockbuster.

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 educa-

tional and

> expressive possibilities than text. To limit ourselves at the

outset could

Page 45

> mean missing out on the greatest possibilities.

Creative video is a neat concept. Thanks for bringing that up.

The fear that Gore is bursting with desire to sell out to com-

mercial 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 legisla-

tively 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 devel-

ops. Inclusion of such services in the definition would yield

anti-competitive results, since services typically included in

universal service do not have all relevant costs allocated 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

expensive.

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 entertain-

ment, my fear is that the less glitzy uses will be delayed and

left out. Also, the focus toward high-end technology is a

diversion of resources which could be used to provide low end

data communications to all instead of video for a few.

From: Carl Hage

Page 46

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.

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 sponsored 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

directions). Fax images are about 50 times more than the

equivalent compressed text in disk storage space, but consume

about 300 times the telecommunications resources when

transmitted via modem, or 100 times if the text is not com-

pressed.

Page 47

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

Page 48

Libraries were proposed as a central public location 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 discussion

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.

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

general public. Not everyone will have a microcomputer and

modem at home in the future just like everyone doesn’t have

plain old telephone service now. Librarians are trained in

facilitating access to information and are an integral part of the

emerging information superhighway.

According to a recent survey by the National Commission on

Libraries and Information Science, 21% of the public libraries

in the United States are accessing the Internet now. That

number is growing monthly. Most academic libraries and

many school and special libraries also are using the Internet

regularly to meet their patrons’ needs.

From: Solomon Philip Hill

Until the time comes when everyone can afford a personal

Page 49

terminal of some sort, I think that the community center or

library model of access works pretty well. This leaves open the

question of training which seems to be the least talked about,

but possibly most important aspect here.

From: Dave W Mitchell

It is indeed true that the public library model provides a

philosophical and structural underpinning, yet the immense

popularity of talk radio (for example) shows a strong underly-

ing hunger for communication of individual reactivity and

creativity. In its satisfaction may lie the tool wherein we

redefine the compact with one another on which this society

was founded.

From: 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 microfilm form. Actually, due to budget

problems, many libraries, including my own, are cutting back

on this material. If this material were available electronically,

then purchases of microfilm, etc. could be discontinued and the

money saved could be used for hardware and network access

fees.

I believe that better dissemination of information could be used

to provide more cost effective access for libraries, where the

equipment, software, and methods of access can be tailored to

the needs for libraries.

From: Lew McDaniel

I believe that better dissemination of information could be used

to provide more cost effective access for libraries

Page 50

The ideas which follow the above are good ones. To me, they

show the concept of “library” evolving from common source

of information and repository to “facilitator of access” in

addition to today’s functions. Particularly if all the have-nots

are going to head for the library I-way access point.

I see libraries, K-12, and higher education all becoming

significantly more competitive, more virtual, and less corpo-

real if the I-way reaches fruition. Even though each provides

a great deal of value inappropriate to a telecommunications

line – social interaction, community cohesiveness, etc.

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 of the library. In a world where success and (em)pow-

er(ment) may hinge upon immediate access to information, it’s

tough to assume that people who must schlep over to the

library and wait in line for a 1200 baud (when I last checked)

modem and terminal are on an equal footing.

From: Stephen Brenner

I like the library model as well. Unfortunately, our library

bond went down to defeat in the last election and they aren’t

likely to take on this role without funding. In the meantime,

providing free access to the Internet, including public access

terminals, is part of Oregon Public Network’s charter.

From: Carol Deering

I just wanted to mention the large Indian reservation which

surrounds our town. A great many people who live there have

Page 51

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 libraries will allow this.

We do not have a library in my local phone exchange, so that

wouldn’t serve my area and many others. The schools would

be an answer for some, but the school in my district is not

interested, even if I’ll write grants for them. They do not trust

it, they can not see the usefulness in their day-to-day lives, and

they are simply not interested.

G. Debate Over 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 encouraging a gov-

ernmental role understood that the “market” would not work toward

providing access to those living 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 consensus that opening

up these markets to competition will lead to enhanced benefit

for most consumers. But, can we be sure that market forces

alone will achieve the goal of widely available, affordable ser-

vices for all Americans? Is action by state and federal govern-

ments needed? What should be done? States must have the

ability to ensure that high quality service is provided in

markets that are less competitive or attractive for investment.

Page 52

From: Frank Whittle

The term “economic development” has become prominent in

state telecommunication policy during the last ten years as the

states battle to retain and attract industry. It appears from the

preliminary research that the issue of providing universal

access (services) has become less prominent in policy docu-

ments.

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 Motorolas, with their pleas for a wireless

world, and cable companies with their arguments for phone

service, and phone companies with their exhortations for

delivering cable service, one comes away with a sense that

universal access means: supply access – or the ability of

service providers to access the NII (whatever infrastructure

this may turn out to be) and sell their wares.

Yet, there is a second sense ascribed to these terms, one often

advocated by community-based advocates, almost invisible in

the national dialogues of service purveyors. And this is that

universal access refers to access to the net by all, rich and

poor.

Given the tenor of the NII discussions I have monitored, there

is a threat that the latter meaning is being absorbed by the

former.

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 regard-

ing Net access. No one who values their time, money, or

access would seriously consider getting on the Internet through

ANY of the major services, be it Compu$erve, Delphi, Prodigy

Page 53

(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 com-

pared 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

roadblocks 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 man-

date, 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 com-

mon denominator solution.

From: Martin Kessel

There was strong sentiment that the competitive market alone

will not serve the nation’s needs. As Steve Miller said, “The

free market is like a ship with 100 sails blowing full blast and

no rudder. Public policy provides the rudder.”

From: Richard M. Kenshalo

We can’t be led to believe that market forces will eventually

provide for the investments necessary for rural America, where

loop costs remain extremely high. Without existing (and

probably re-defined) price support structures, and an expanded

definition of Universal Service to include guaranteed informa-

Page 54

tion 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 funding 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 propos-

als, 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 Availability 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 business interests and economic develop-

ment rather than on ensuring access for all Americans. The

theme the economic development will not by itself bring uni-

versal 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 duped an uneducated public, and an uneducated govern-

ment.

Page 55

Yes, the free market will *not* provide equal access to rural

areas, etc. However, the solutions for rural areas might be

radically different. It is least likely that there will be much of

any 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 considered either a

necessity or

>>a public good, what effects will the above choices make on

a market

>>that is still in the early stages of development? Specifically,

will

>>public access stunt market and 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 slowed

by such a policy? Certainly industry leaders fear that strict

regulation would hinder their profit-maximizing activities; in

high competition technology markets these profits are often

linked to innovation. Congressman Boucher in '92 agreed with

Bell Atlantic that its deployment time for fiber optic lines

could be halved absent stringent line of business regulation.

Might similar regulations/subsidies for universal access not

cause technological stagnation?

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… .

Page 56

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 unleashing American

business (AND it’s stereotypical greed) in order to let the

invisible hand lead us to the most efficient use of resources. I

certainly trust that our government regulators and court system

will move in at the appropriate time and correct some of the

“wrongs” which are inevitable (whether we’re under a 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 popula-

tion of users.

From: Jawaid Bazyar

In response to [email protected] (Bruce Potter):

>To the NTIA, we ask careful attention to the equity issues of

access, and

>a federal guarantee of access and availability.

Oh my, it looks like the Socialists have grabbed onto the

Internet as their next great crusade … .

If you choose to live on an island in the middle of the ocean

with a small population, you can expect to pay a lot for high-

tech services.

From: Curt Howland

There are left only the people making Universal Access in one

Page 57

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 Conference, noted Michelle Johnson, a

reporter for the Boston Globe. Federal help is needed to

provide libraries with resources and technical expertise.

From: Carl Hage

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion,

and provide my input into the shaping of the future informa-

tion 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 confirmed our conviction that public

access sites are not just important for this virtual conference

but are needed as a permanent aspect of the development of the

NII. Typically, only universities and certain businesses have

Internet access. For the average American, these forms of

Page 58

access are far too limited. Consequently, citizens have little

experience with the net and understanding of what is at stake

in its development. Also, basic computer skills – even as

simple as logging on and typing a message – are lacking for

most Americans.

What is needed in our opinion is on-going, institutionalized

public access sites. We think these should be based in a variety

of community based institutions, including the public libraries,

public schools, and public access cable centers. These sites

need equipment, Internet connection, staffing, and basic

operating support. And, of course, these sites need funding …

If we as a country do not develop a permanent, institutional-

ized and consistently supported system of public access sites,

the NII will develop quickly among the current information

“haves” but will totally leave behind the vast majority of

Americans who are information “have-nots.” Facing this same

situation concerning literacy in the early part of the 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 America. Now, with a new

technology and a new type of literacy, we as Americans should

strive to expand our democracy by developing public access

sites on the NII.

I. Importance of Need for Time to Learn at Own Pace

Paying for access limits what someone will do online. First it limits

how much an individual can care to learn, as the time spent will be costly;

people will be selective in what they attempt to learn. Second, it is hard for

people to take the time to be helpful to others when they are paying by the

hour. The Internet and Usenet have grown to be such a cooperative

community because there was no price tag on the cooperation. It will be

a step backward to have to pay to access these communities. Individuals

should be honored for their contributions to the Net and not expected to

pay in proportion to their contribution.

Page 59

From: A public access site in Seattle

Obviously, SCN (Seattle Community Network) has been

wonderful, since it has allowed me to learn at my own (slow!)

pace, without worrying about “wasting money.” I am presently

on NW Nexus, since I purchased the Internet Starter Kit which

came with a coupon for 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 monthly fee for a short time, but unfortunately, I am not in

a financial position to be able to continue at this rate for very

long. It seems a shame that those of us who are not “well off”

cannot reap the benefit of the whole Internet. I am grateful that

SCN is there for us.

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 ac-

cess you provide a person with, the more trouble that person

has to go through JUST to get UP to a sufficiently useful

level.

From: Sean Connell

An open communication infrastructure will allow children

ample opportunity to explore and increase their knowledge at

a pace with which they are comfortable.

J. Need for Openness Because of Development via Open and Free

Standards

The Internet has developed out of connecting networks together

based on open and available standards. These protocols were developed

by many people over the ARPANET and Internet. Commercial develop-

ment is usually proprietary and closed. The Internet will develop much

Page 60

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 Internet. Even with the

astonishing growth of the World Wide Web and Mosaic (and

perhaps soon Netscape), much of the Net is STILL ruled by

text-based standards first set down perhaps a decade or more

ago. The vast majority of 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 E-

mail messages, no one could communicate with anyone else –

thus defeating the very purpose of Email!

Even more important, many of the standards adopted by the

Internet are OPEN standards, freely available to anyone who’s

interested in modifying or improving them. Compare this to

companies which charge you an arm and a leg for their

proprietary code. Now, which one do YOU think people will

be more willing to work with, and improve?

What no one seems to realize is that the Net is anything BUT

a commodity – it’s a means to an end. And that end is not

profit, but *GLOBAL COMMUNITY*.

If we treat the Net as a commodity, then inevitably that’s what

it’s bound to become – a balkanized, divided, proprietary

collection of private networks which neither know nor care

about the existence of the others. It would be like a giant

version of Compu$erve, only many times worse. And in the

end, by putting walls and barriers between the very users who

need to communicate with each other, they will have elimi-

Page 61

nated the sole reason for their own existence – as a means to

COMMUNICATE, quickly and efficiently. And when that

happens, either they will die, or the future which they (and all

of 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 investment in technologies

for the “last mile” to the home?

The key to an investment in products needed and availability

at a mass produced low price, is the establishment of standards

and a detailed goal.

If there is an agreed upon standard and a large market, then a

number of companies will build very low cost products

designed for high volume sales. If the standard is not agreed

upon, and/or deployment is uncertain, then there may not be

cost effective products available.

The best way to establish standards and then insure there is a

rich market of supporting products is to have open, public

domain standards, with public domain reference implementa-

tions and test software.

The Internet standards established by the IETF are a good

example. All the specifications are available electronically and

free to the public. In order to be adopted, there must be a

working implementation, and typically there was a public

domain version available as a starting point and as a compari-

son.

Part of the research money for the NII could go toward

producing some competing designs for these technologies,

which could result in a public version of the specifications, and

a sample reference design. Also, research money could go to

produce testing software and an interoperability laboratory.

Vendors who produce chipsets and boards can take the

standards and reference implementation and use that as a basis

for a specific product, and could then make use of the test

suites and interoperability laboratory.

Page 62

Public funding for the establishment of the standards, reference

implementation, and test suite would eliminate many inter-

operability problems, and would yield low cost products very

quickly, as each vendor would not need to duplicate this basic

research. The money saved in lower cost product availability

for the government’s internal use would more than pay for the

investment in a publicly available technology.

III. Conclusion

Because the NTIA conference was held online, many more points of

view were heard than is normal. Prominent debates included that of

encouraging “economic development” versus mandating “universal ser-

vice” and depending on the “free market” versus recognizing 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 some-

thing completely new. As such, it is important to acknowledge the origin

and significance of the Internet, and to properly study and understand the

contribution the current global computer communications network rep-

resents for society. Many who participated in the online conference ex-

pressed the hope that the government would be helpful to society at large

in providing access to these networks to all who would desire this access.

Despite the 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 depended on the NSFNET might have reported

service disruptions the week or two before while they re-established their

network providers and routing tables. No 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. Something

is deeply ironic in this government-mandated change to increase govern-

Page 63

ment expenses.

But also, on May 1, 1995, there was a presentation at a branch of the

New York Public Library which focused on the value of the Internet and

Usenet as a cooperative network where people could air their 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

overwhelmed 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 disappointing, especially considering the

testimony presented by many Internet and Usenet users who participated

in the November 1994 NTIA Virtual Conference on Universal Service and

Open Access to the Telecommunications Network.

In order to make any socially useful policy concerning 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 available, including establishing

permanent public Internet access computer locations throughout the

country along with local phone numbers to allow citizens to connect their

personal computers to the Net. Secondly, it is wrong to encourage people

to participate in 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.

It would be valuable if they were available in

print form and available to those involved with policy decisions on the NII

Page 64

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 Publishers, 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 Communications 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 announcement 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 participation 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 <[email protected]>

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

Subject: [AVAIL:57] Re: my question

Message- ID: <1994111714[email protected]>

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

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

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

Message- ID: <1994111801[email protected]>

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

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

Page 65

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

Message- ID: <1994112118[email protected]>

13. From: [email protected]i.us (Wayne County RESA)

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

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

Message- ID: <9411141918.AA0735[email protected]s>

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.C17368-0100[email protected]>

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].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: <1994111422[email protected]sl.or.gov>

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

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

Subject: Competency and access

Message- ID: <1994111722[email protected]>

20. From: Sean <[email protected]>

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

Subject: A Plea

Message- ID: <1994111807[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: <1994111917[email protected]>

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

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>

Page 66

To: [email protected]

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

Message- ID: <Pine.3.89.9411191018.A17368-010000[email protected]>

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_354[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: <9411210252.AA2032[email protected]>

28. From: Chloe Lewis <[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: <9411151321.AA1868[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: <1994111720[email protected]exas.edu>

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

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

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

Message- ID: <9411150604.AA2592[email protected]ashington.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.3.90.941118104318.233[email protected]>

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

Page 67

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

Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access

Message- ID: <1994112320[email protected]>

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 <[email protected]>

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

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

Message-ID: <224FE63[email protected]su.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.TAA11501@noc2.arc.nasa.gov>

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

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 <hauben@columbia.edu>

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

Subject: Need to stress concept of active communication and interconnection

Message- ID: <1994112206[email protected]>

40. From: [email protected]

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

Subject: Interim Summary for Availability List

41. From: [email protected]

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

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

Message- ID: <9411142150.AA0999[email protected]>

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@harmony.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: <1994111722[email protected] .EDU>

45. From: Ron Choura 517-334-6240

Page 68

<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@netcom13>

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

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

Subject: Re: Comments to C. Hage concerns

Message- ID: <1994112400[email protected]>

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

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

Subject: Net Economics 101

Message- ID: <9411180331.AA1958[email protected]>

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

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

Subject: Statement

Message- ID: <1994111416[email protected]sl.or.gov>

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.AA1945[email protected]>

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

Page 69

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

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

57. From: Carol Deering <[email protected]ecn.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 <WHIT[email protected]>

Date: Mon Nov 14 21:53:09 1994

Message- ID: <9411150254.AA5124[email protected]nydutchess.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.A19851-010000[email protected]>

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

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

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

Message- ID: <1994112317[email protected] .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: <1994111722[email protected] .EDU>

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

Organization: NEC America Inc.

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

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

Message- ID: <E15CCA2E011C00[email protected]>

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: <1994112320[email protected]>

66. From: RICHARD M KENSHALO <[email protected]>

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

Subject: Universal Service

Message- ID: <01HJI2DC28PIHSJAJE@UA.ORCA.ALASKA .EDU>

67. From: Jeanne Gallo (using BNN Television) <[email protected] .com>

Page 70

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 Conference)

Message- ID: <1994112402[email protected] .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 <7454[email protected]>

Date: 18 Nov 94 02:33:42 EST

Subject: FOUR DAY CONFERENCE THOTS

Message-ID: <941118073341_74543[email protected]>

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

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

Subject: Re: Need for Federal Oversight of Access and Availability

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: <1994112320[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>

Page 71

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.3.91.941121204346.13[email protected].wa.us>

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

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

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

Message- ID: <1994112317[email protected]>

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.PAA21212@virtconf.digex.net>

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

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

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

Message- ID: <1994111603[email protected]ia .EDU>

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

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

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

Message- ID: <1994112317[email protected] .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: <9411180700.AA1959[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

Page 72

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.

The topic of community is one of the themes which Sally Banes

explores in her book, Greenwich Village 1963. Banes’ study of this

bohemian community at the beginning of the 1960s presents an interesting

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 “prefers 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 (NYSERNET), I can

send email from New York City to someone on a different network, for

example Michnet in Michigan, because the networks automatically route

my message from my network to the intended recipient’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

Page 73

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 communities became a reality, their

possible benefits were envisioned by J. C. R. Licklider, along with Robert

Taylor, in their paper, “The Computer as a Communications Device.”

Bender’s idea of ever-changing, overlapping communities is similar to

what Licklider foresaw for social communities as a result of developments

in computer communications. Already today, computer assisted network-

ing 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 becoming 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). Following

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, responses 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

Page 74

the books, unemployment compensation is guaranteed. Just go to the un-

employment office and do the bureaucracy dance.”

Conceivably neither the original poster nor the person who re-

sponded 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 respond-

ing potentially could be helpful to yet another person reading this dis-

cussion.

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.”

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 previ-

ously tenuous concept of unemployment compensation held by the orig-

inal poster. However, 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 com-

ments 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 – happen on a regular basis. Even an employee of the

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, who claimed to be acting in an

unofficial capacity replied to questions 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

constituency. 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

Page 75

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 answer: “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 unpredictable results in the long term, as deregulation

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 features.

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 reinforces this tendency.”

Page 76

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 approxi-

mately 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 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 interest is

life in New York City. These exchanges appear similar to both the Village

Community presented in Greenwich Village 1963 and to Licklider’s

observations 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 interactive

communities be like?”

He answers by writing, “They will be communi-

ties 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 metropolitan anonymity.”

Villagers also felt a part of the

community because people were active politically to protect their com-

munity 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 growing 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 discussed will be

Page 77

less helpful, and the online lurker will not be in touch with anyone else.

The examples of online activities are not provided 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 community 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 Performance 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]m>

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

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

8. nyc.general, Message-ID: <3beb21$4[email protected].com>

9. nyc.market.housing, Message-ID: <3bdkcr$fn5@syko.cosmic .com>

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

11. nyc.general, Message-ID: <39jbfr$3[email protected]>

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

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

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.

Page 78

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.

• Etc. – All local and serving the community on the associated Internet providers.

Usually only available on the particular 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 Communities

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)

Page 79

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 neces-

sarily the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We welcome

submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

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

All issues of the Amateur Computerist are online.

All issues can be accessed from the Index at:

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

Page 80