CHAPTER 14

                 The Net and the Future of Politics:
		     The Ascendency of the Commons
				By Michael Hauben
				hauben@columbia.edu

	"What democracy requires is public debate, and not
	information. Of course, it needs information, too, but the
	kind of information it needs can be generated only by
	vigorous popular debate. We do not know what we need to know
	until we ask the right questions, and we can identify the
	right questions only by subjecting our own ideas about the 
	world to the test of public controversy. . . ." 

		(Christopher Lasch, "Journalism, Publicity, and the
		Lost Art of Argument,"in Media Studies Journal
		Winter, 1995, Vol 9 no 1, p. 81)

	"Throughout American history, the town meeting has been the
	premier, and often the only, example of 'direct democracy.'...The
	issue of whether the town meeting can be redesigned to empower
	ordinary citizens, as it was intended to do, is of vital concern for
	the future."

		(Jeffrey B. Abramson, "Electronic Town Meetings: Proposals
		for Democracy's Future," Aspen Institute Communications and 
		Society Program)


			   I. Introduction

        Democracy, or rule by the people, is by definition a popular
form of government. Writers throughout the ages have thought about
democracy, and understood the limitations imposed by various
factors. Today, computer communications networks, such as the
Internet, are technical innovations which make moving towards a true
participatory democracy more feasible.

        James Mill, a political theorist from the early nineteenth 
century, and the father of philosopher John Stuart Mill, wrote about 
democracy in his 1825 essay on "Government" for that year's Supplement 
for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Mill argues that democracy is the only 
governmental form that is fair to the society as a whole. Although he 
does not trust representative government, he ends up advocating it. But 
he warns of its dangers,

	"Whenever the powers of Government are placed in any hands 
	other than those of the community, whether those of one man, of a 
	few, or of several, those principles of human nature which imply 
	that Government is at all necessary, imply that those persons 
	will make use of them to defeat the very end for which Government 
	exists."(1)

	Democracy is a desirable form of government, but Mill found it
to be impossible to maintain. Mill lists two practical obstacles in
his essay. First, he finds it impossible for the whole people to
assemble to perform the duties of government. Citizens would have to
leave their normal jobs on a regular basis to help govern the
community. Second, Mill argues that an assembled body of differing
interests would find it impossible to come to any agreements. Mill
speaks to this point in his essay:

	"In an assembly, every thing must be done by speaking and
	assenting. But where the assembly is numerous, so many persons desire
	to speak, and feelings, by mutual inflammation, become so violent,
	that calm and effectual deliberation is impossible."(2)

	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...."(3)

	A more recent scholar, the late Professor Christopher Lasch of
the University of Rochester, also had qualms about representative
government. In his essay, "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of
Argument"(4), Lasch argued that any form of democracy requires
discourse and debate to function properly. His article is critical of
modern journalism failing in its role as a public forum to help raise
the needed questions of our society. Lasch recommended the recreation
of direct democracy when he wrote,

	"Instead of dismissing direct democracy as irrelevant to
	modern conditions, we need to recreate it on a large scale.
	And from this point of view, the press serves as the
	equivalent of the town meeting." (5)

	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 
developers catering to tourism bought property in a farming 
community; the farmers and developers had such opposed interests 
about zoning ordnances that debate collapsed into angry shouting 
matches." (6)

	The development of the Internet and of Usenet is an investment in 
a strong force towards making direct democracy a reality. These new 
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.(7) 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 
discussions 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 towards a more responsible government is possible with these 
new technologies. While the future is discussed and planned for, it will 
also be possible to use these technologies to assist in the citizen 
participation in government. Netizens are watching various government 
institutions on various newsgroups and mailing lists throughout the 
global computer communications network. People's thoughts about and 
criticisms of their respective governments are being aired on the 
currently uncensored networks.

	These networks can revitalize the concept of a democratic
"Town Meeting" via online 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 Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a
branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce sponsored this e-mail and
newsgroup conference and encouraged public access sites to allow
broad-based discussion. Several public libraries across the nation
provided the most visible public sites in the archives of the
conference. This NTIA online conference is an example of an online
"town meeting." This prototype of what the technology facilitates also
demonstrated some of the problems inherent in non-moderated computer
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
3) The clarification of a public question
4) The testing of new technological means to make more democracy 
   possible.

Following is a case study of the archives of this prototype
conference, including some analysis for the future.

     David J. Barram, the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Commerce, closed the National Telecommunications and Informa-
tion Administration's (NTIA) (8) Virtual Conference on Universal and
Service and Open Access by stating the conference was:

     "...a tremendous example of how our information infrastruc-
     ture can allow greater citizen participation in the develop-
     ment of government policies."

To hear such a comment from a government representative is important.
Such a statement indicates that many users of the Net have demonstrated
to the U.S. government that they oppose the recent conversion of
the communications-based Internet into the commerce-based National
Information Infrastructure.

     The goals of the two-week conference, were stated in the
Welcoming Statement.(9) 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 community representatives, college students, normal everyday 
people and others, made this clear in their contributions to the 
discussion. Though the NTIA Virtual Conference was not advertised broadly 
enough, the organizers did establish 80 public access points across the 
U.S. in places like public libraries and community centers. This helped 
to include the opinions of people in the discussion who might not have 
been heard otherwise.

A. The Importance of the Internet to our Society
------------------------------------------------

	The Internet and Usenet represent important developments in 
technology which will have a profound effect on human society and 
intellectual development. We are in an early stage of the development and 
distribution of these technologies, and it is important to look towards 
the future. Some areas of human society which these new communications 
technologies are likely to affect include government, human communication 
and community formation. Democracy is government by the people, and both 
Usenet and mailing lists allow everyone to have speak out without the 
fear that their voices would not be heard. Individuals can still be 
uncooperative, but these new communications technologies make it possible 
to have one's voice presented equally. These technologies could be 
integrated with other 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 so are computers and training. 
Participants felt it important to make access to Internet accounts and 
computers easily available.

	The number of subscribers averaged about 400 people per 
conference. The conferences sponsored a debate on the issues, and people 
with different ideas contributed. However, there was a clear cry by many 
participants that the U.S. government should stay 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 interstate system given over to a
few large toll companies, and I believe the Internet will be on the
scale of economic and cultural benefit as the interstate system.(12)

From: Bob Summers

In order for the nation to access a common pool of information, such as the 
library of congress, an efficient system must be in place to handle the load 
of thousands of library's and other users to access the information.  Yes, I 
believe that there will have to be an outlay of funds to provide such a 
system, not to mention the cost of putting the information online.  These 
funds must come from the Federal government, since it is for the public.(13)

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.(14)

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.(15)

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.(16)

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 
financial plan proposes that business uses and enhanced services shall be 
charged a fee that underwrites the first Amendment communication 
functions of the Net as well as its educational employment.

This entire argument hinges on defining communication and education (and 
I recognize that there are grey areas that would need to be ironed out) 
as PUBLIC GOODS.  This is not, in my judgement simply a matter of 
determining whether Net communication is "divisible" etc. as the economic 
profession would tend to analyze the problem.  It deals with fundamental 
philosophies of the social value of education and communication in a 
democracy. If, to email my County Commissioners on a topic that affects 
me, I have to pay a charge that I really can't afford, while  Mr. Thickwallet
has no such impediment, then this means something to democratic 
participation in an electronic world.

This is nothing new:  witness C-Span, local access channels, and the 
like.  If we adopt a concept and policy like the above, more and more 
citizens, over time, would be able to join the virtual community as a 
full member.  To have this membership driven by one's personal income 
will surely result in two societies that are separate and unequal.
Can we afford this future?(17)

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.(18)  

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 government 
access.  Movies on demand,  games, and electronic shopping 
(ala the shopping channels) should be charged at an additional 
rate.(19)

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.(20)

From: Daniel Lieberman

We are looking towards the future. Anyone who hopes to participate in 
the society will need to have access.  Banking,schooling,books, its all 
coming very fast. Just think of the rate of change in the last five 
years or the last six months on the WWW. Voters handbooks, policy papers 
etc. How can one hope to be a knowledgeable citizen without access. The 
hardware will trickle down like automobiles. But the communication links 
must be available.(21)

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 recommend public education, because he
knew that it was vital to a healthy democracy.  We must all be
informed and capable of contributing to the governing of our country.
The public does not have the means to act in concert and it is not the
interest of the current power players to afford us those means. The
Internet ... is a means to create vocal, active, communities that
transcend race, geography, and wealth.  It is entirely necessary that
we recognize this fact and make a stand now to maintain this highway
to real Democracy.(22)

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 extended to all, for reasons
already explored in other posts this week.(23)

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 provides at least an e-mail bridge to the worldwide
Internet at an equitable price.  It is just plain not fair for urban
cybernauts to pay zero while rural cybernauts pay ten cents per
minute for telephone connection to the net.(24)


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 dimension on top of the phone line notion.  It is the 
expansion to as many homes as possible of the communication and 
educational benefits of a community Net over the phone lines.(25) 

From: Harvey Goodstein

Taking into consideration the needs and rights of deaf and
hard of hearing individuals in particular (and individuals with
disabilities in general).

That is, federal regulations on minimum standards are necessary to enhance
equal access for all....  Thus, universal service provisions should not
discriminate against individuals with disabilities (irrespective of their
financial status) who invariably would have to pay abnormally high costs
for technical connectivity.(26)

From: Ellen Davis Burnham

This whole segment of the conference is about "Availability and 
Affordability" to all NOT just some that live in a largely populated area.
People in Mississippi NEED the Internet just like everyone, probably more 
so than people who live in large areas with ready access to libraries or 
any form of research. Should we teach just **SOME** of our children to 
read, maybe just a few should learn Algebra, and heaven knows no one 
needs to know grammar rules. We can't pick and choose who is allowed access
we live in a democratic society that says everyone is equal and should 
receive equal access to schooling among other inalienable rights.

The rural area should be addressed first because we have such a hard time 
to find access (affordable access). If you could just go into a school 
one day and help students who are struggling to find the needed 12 
sources for a research paper, students who know what they need is out 
there SOMEWHERE if only they had access to it.

YES, WE MUST PROVIDE INTERNET ACCESS TO **EVERYONE**, not just to those
who are easy to put on-line.

The competition may be greater in larger cities BUT the need is not. I 
don't mean to berate anyone but if you could only see first-hand the 
great need in our schools you would understand. I teach in a school that 
has only 3700 books total in the library. Our situation is extreme because 
the school burned a couple of years ago. I try to help the students by 
hunting for needed items on the Internet. Until I began teaching there 
this year *ONLY* one student knew about the Superhighway.
What about ... the children who have parents that have never heard of
the Internet either. We have to start somewhere and I believe the
population of America as a whole is as good a place to begin as any.(27)

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."(28)

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 towards 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

Because the government would be the main beneficiaries of an *information*
infrastructure. The government is a major producer and consumer of
information, most of which is inaccessible to the public in practice.

Information without charge (other than low network charges). That means
every public library, school, government office, business or home could
have access to everything.(29)

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 libraries 
to have Internet access, and a reason for citizens and businesses 
to acquire it.

The US has been subsidizing access to paper information, for the sake 
of knowledge and self-government; we have found a more efficient way to 
provide this information; where possible, we should subsidize this more 
efficient way instead. It isn't as whizbang attractive as giving 
everyone realtime video, but it would be useful immediately.(30)

From: Carl Hage

The largest single producer of information is the federal government,
most of which is public. Although these days virtually all documents
are produced in electronic form on a word processor, etc., very little
of the information is available in electronic form. Nearly all information
is distributed in paper form, typically obtained by calling over
a telephone. A similar case can be made for state and local 
governments.(31)

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 worthwhile to most
people.  (Examples: Renewing drivers' license, hunting licenses,
finding the right official for your problem the first time, getting
on-line help on your income tax where you didn't just talk to someone
but showed them the calculations in real time, etc.)(32)

C. Necessary for Knowledge of Why This is All Important
-------------------------------------------------------

	Early in the "redefining universal service" segment of the
virtual conference, people started discussing how to determine access
rates. One participant, Bob Johnson, 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 individual or
organization should pay for access to the Internet or its successors,
but why they should have access, individually and collectively?  Once
you figure this out, and define access to suit, you can figure on
pricing. Everything else is premature, unless people get out their
basic premises on which they are operating.(33)

From: Carly Henderson

I agree with Bob; this is a very important question that deserves a well 
thought out answer. Why should people have access to the Internet?  In 
response, I pose the question, why should every community have a library 
and allow its citizens access to all that it contains?(34)


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.(35)

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.(36) 

D. What the Internet Can Do for People
----------------------------------------

     The signficance of Internet access for all in society is not 
obvious because it is a new way to think about communication between 
people. Before the Internet and Usenet, 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 communication is vastly different from 
personal information and communication. Participants recognized this 
difference, and voiced their opinion on how it is important to keep the 
Net as an open channel for non-commercial voices.

     The picture of the Internet painted by the U.S. government has 
been one of an "information superhighway" or "information infrastructure" 
where people could connect, download some data or purchase some goods and 
then disconnect. This vision is one that is very different from the 
current cooperative communications forums on Usenet where everyone can 
contribute. Even worse has been the description by much of the news media 
where people's contributions are misportrayed as pornography or otherwise 
vice-related, such as bomb production or drug-related. The important 
aspect of the Internet and Usenet is that they provide a place where 
people can share ideas, observations and questions. The transfer of 
information is secondary.

From: R. M. 

Overlooked in the current free market vs regulated access debate is any
argument convincing me why the average American will want access to the net.
Apart from the "information elite" (most already on the net), I don't know
too many people 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?(37)

From: Dr. Robert LaRose 

In response to Woody Dowling's comment that the average American is 
not interested in advanced communications infrastructure, at least 
not those who don't already have it.

Not so.  We did a national survey a couple of years ago and asked 
about interest in videotex, ISDN, etc., found interest levels far 
beyond those of then-current penetration levels.  Found the most 
intense interest among low income homes, in fact, suggesting that it 
is cost and not interest that holds them back.  Want a killer 
application for low income households?  Email.  Many can't afford 
long distance rates, some move too often or have no home, can't keep a
phone line. . . The applications already exist, but the people 
who need them most can't afford them -- or don't constitute an 
attractive enough market.(38)

From: Curt Howland

While the inverse relation between cost and pervasiveness is certainly
true, I must take issue with comparing the Net to TV.

Such comparisons allow for the taking of information, but not for the
tremendous possibilities involved with ease of *providing* info.  There
is no reason to think that a future Stephen Hawkings isn't sitting
right now in front of a boob-tube sucking down Mighty Morhpin Power
Rangers because there is no way for his ideas to be expressed.

Without the facility to put ideas out, with each person acting as a
information provider assumed from the outset, we are doing ourselves a
great dis-service.(39) 

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.(40)

From: Michael Hauben

 I. Universal Access Basic Principles

In order for communications networks to be as useful as	possible, it is
necessary for it both to

		A) Connect every possible resource and opinion,
		B) Make this connection available to all who desire it.

A and B call for Universal Interconnection, rather than Universal Access. 
The usage of "interconnection" highlights the importance and role of 
every user also being an information provider. The term "access" stresses 
the status-quo understanding of one-way communication, the user accesses 
information that other "authorized" information providers make available. 
This is the old model. The new model is of interconnection of many 
different types of people, information, and ideas. The new model stresses 
the breakdown of old definitions of communication and information. 
Diversity allows for both the increasing speed in the formation of new 
ideas, and the ability for previously unauthorized ideas to have the 
airing and consideration they rightfully deserve.
	
II. Definition of "Services" to be available on this Universal 
Interconnection

The new era of interconnection and many-to-many communication 
afforded by Netnews and Mailing lists (among other technologies) brings 
to the forefront a model of bottom-up rather than top-down communication 
and information. It is time to reexamine society and welcome the 
democratizing trends of many-to-many communication over the one-to-many 
models as represented by broadcast television, radio, newspapers and 
other media. 

As such, I would say it would be important to highlight, discuss
and make available interactive modes of communication instead of the
passive transfer of information. Thus I am suggesting emphasizing
of forms of multiple way of communication and broadcasting. Forms
currently defined by newsgroups, mailing lists, talk sessions,
IRC sessions, MOO experiences, and other forms of sharing and
collaboration. These type of forums are where this new technology
excels. Plenty of media exist which facilitates the passive
transfer of information and goods. (Such as mail-order, stores,
telephone orders, etc) It would be best to explore and develop
the new forms of communication which this new media facilitates,
and which was less possible and present in the past.(41)

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.(42)
                 
From: Eric Rehm

Conception of access, I would posit, demands a much more 
interactive use of the medium and perhaps the bandwidth needs are 
more balanced: This example can then be extended to any number of 
community organizations with members as avid information 
producers.

In other words,  basic service based on enabling "many producers"  
might actually prompt a larger share to be allocated to bandwidth OUT
of the home than that 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.(43)

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 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.(44)

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.(45)

From: Rey Barry

> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:56:57 CDT
> From: gunzerat@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu
> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.docgov

> 2) To debbie: I think it's shortsighted to equate "video on demand," or
> video in any form in the new age with what we can presently pick up at
> Blockbuster.  For that matter, to think in terms of video as a passive, 
> "something to watch" form seems to me to ignore its potential.
>
> That's why I don't think it's right at this point to dismiss Al Gore; video
> has the potential to allow for perhaps even greater educational and
> expressive possibilities than text.  To limit ourselves at the outset could
> mean missing out on the greatest possibilities.

Creative video is a neat concept.  Thanks for bringing that up.  The fear
that Gore is bursting with desire to sell out to commercial interests is
the opposite of what comes through when you talk to him or look at the
work he focused his life on.(46)

From: Ron Choura 

	Advanced telecommunications services should not be 
legislatively mandated for inclusion in the definition of universal 
service.  Universal service funding of such services is not appropriate 
unless and until a critical mass of demand develops.  Inclusion of such 
services in the definition would yield anticompetitive results, since 
services typically included in universal service do not have all relevant 
costs allocated to them.(47)

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.(48)

From: Carl Hage

But according to the polls, the public is skeptical about the ways in
which the industry is touting the NII and they see other more important
uses. With the focus on video entertainment, my fear is that the less
glitzy uses will be delayed and left out. Also, the focus towards
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.(49)

From: Carl Hage

Here are some tables showing the relative sizes of data in different forms:
                                        
   The following table gives a comparision of a page of text
   (obtained from an OTA report on the NII) in various
   forms, either in compressed or uncompressed ASCII text
   (averaged), as a page of fax, voice where the text was
   read aloud, or in video form where the speaker read the
   information aloud.

        Relative Sizes for Multi-Media Information

						Text
        Type                                    Pages   MB

        Compressed Text                         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 (currently used)     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 trasmitted via modem, or 100 times if the text is 
not compressed.

        Comparisons of 1GB of Digital Information       Number/GB
        1 page documents                                1000000
        100 page documents                              10000
        Kodak Photo-CD pictures                         1000
        JPEG Images (640x480 @ 10:1)                    10000
        Minutes of Voice Telephone                      400
        1.44MB Diskette                                 700
        CD-ROM                                          1.5
        2 Hour Movies                                   0.2
                                        
        Purchase cost of hard disk                      $500
        Purchase cost of floppy disks                   $250
                                        
        Equivalent of a 2 Hour Digital Video Movie
        ----------------------------------------------------------
        1 page documents                                6000000
        100 page documents                              60000
        Kodak Photo-CD pictures                         6000
        JPEG Images (640x480 @ 10:1)                    60000
        Minutes of Voice Telephone                      2600
        Hours of Voice Telephone                        43
        1.44MB Diskettes                                4200
        CD-ROMs                                         10
        GigaBytes                                       6


A single video movie is equivalent to 6 million people sending a
one page email message.

Why should we provide subsidized video access to a few when we could
use those resources to provide textual information to millions? For
example, we could make the federal register and congressional record
available to everyone for free rather than have to pay $375 per
person/year to access any part.(50)

F. Libraries as Points of Public Access?
----------------------------------------

     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 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.(52)

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
underlying hunger for communication of individual reactivity
and creativity. In its satisfaction may lie the tool wherein we
redefine the compact with one another on which this society
was founded.(53)

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.(54)

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.(55)

From: Lew McDaniel
 
> I believe that better dissemination of information could be used
> to provide more cost effective access for libraries

The ideas which follow the above are good ones.  To me,
they show the concept of "library" evolving from  common
source of information and repository to "facilitator of
access" in addition to today's functions.  Particularly if 
all the have-nots are going to head for the library I-way 
access point.

I see libraries, K-12, and higher education all becoming 
significantly more competitive, more virtual, and less 
corporeal if the I-way reaches fruition.  Even though each
provides a great deal of value inappropriate to a 
telecommunications line - social interaction, community 
cohesiveness, etc.(56)

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)power(ment) may hinge upon
immediate access to information, it's tough to assume that people who must
schlep over to the library and wait in line for a 1200 baud (when I last
checked) modem and terminal are on an equal footing.(57)

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.(58)

From: Carol Deering

I just wanted to mention the large Indian reservation which surrounds our 
town.  A great many people who live there have no telephones and some 
even no TV.  I have seen mention in this conference of other rural 
situations, but I wanted to be sure to include this type of rural 
instance.  There is no library service to this area, either.(59)

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.(60)


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 
governmental role understood that the "market" would not work towards 
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 services for all Americans?  Is action by
state and federal governments 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.(61)

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 documents.(62)

From: Brent Wall

If one reads the testimony given at the hearings conducted on the NII and 
the global infrastructure by the Dept. of Commerce, one can detect two 
sense[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.(63)  

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 on-line
providers PRIOR to the recent big Internet expansion, and consider their
current policies regarding Net access.  No one who values their time,
money, or access would seriously consider getting on the Internet through
ANY of the major services, be it Compu$erve, Delphi, Prodigy (HA!), or
America Online.

The reason for this is simple: each one of these services has either
restricted the Net services available (hence restricting your access),
and/or charges you way too much for it compared to some of the other
access providers currently around.(64)

From: Rey Barry

Provide any sort of datahighway with near-universal access and people
will spend money developing ways to make a living from it.  The glory of
the system.  Tailor the highway to commercial interests from the start and
you surely build in roadblocks to pro bono services, the danger of the
system.(65)

From: Paul Weismantel

Dr. Priest's observation regarding the Advisory Council is clear....
Business in general is frightened by the very underpinnings of Universal 
Access, because it amounts to a mandate, which is usually a drain on 
profits.

Unless we can approach the discussion so as to fit into the business 
scheme (and that does not necessarily mean full recovery of investment in 
all cases), some members of the council will prevail in pushing off this 
issue by a lowest common denominator solution.(66)

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."(67)

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 information access, we will truly develop a society of
information "haves" and "have-nots".(68)

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 on-line and that universal access will 
need to be built into any proposals, such as was done for universal 
access to the telephone.  Subsidies may be a "dirty" word in D.C. at this 
moment, but they will be necessary if we are to include all of our 
citizens in the technology of the future.(69)

From: B. Harris

Summary of the Affordability and Availability Conference

The territories are not naive in insisting that the information 
infrastructure must accomodate both access and low rates. Without 
both, the territories will receive no benefit and will in fact 
find their needs increasingly marginalized.

General summary: Several people expressed concern that the
development of the NII has focussed on business interests and
economic development rather than on ensuring access for all
Americans. The theme the economic development will not by itself
bring universal service to reality surfaced repeatedly.(70)

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 government.

Yes, the free market will *not* provide equal access to rural areas,
etc. However, the solutions for rural areas might be radically
different. It is least likely that there will be much of any competitve
market in rural areas, so co-ops, monopolies, etc. might be 
required.(71)

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 technological development in the long
>>     term?
>
>What does "stunt" mean in this case? 

By 'stunt' I probably more accurately meant 'distort' -- in other words, 
would the rate of technological development be slowed by such a policy? 
Certainly industry leaders fear that strict regulation would hinder their 
profit-maximizing activities; in high competition technology markets 
these profits are often linked to innovation. Congressman Boucher in'92 
agreed with Bell Atlantic that its deployment time for fiber optic lines 
could be halved absent stringent line of business regulation. Might 
similar regulations/subsidies for universal access not cause 
technological stagnation?(72)

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 21st 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...(73)

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.(74)

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  government OR private enterprise umbrella).

      I believe our great advantage here is to let venture capital risk 
itself for a profit but in so doing create and market services which 
increase user knowledge, accessibility, and the population of users.(75) 

From: Jawaid Bazyar

In response to ab368@virgin.uvi.edu (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.(76)

From: Curt Howland

There are left only the people making Universal Access in one form or 
another happen, and those that just talk, begging the Big Friendly 
Government to wait on them hand and foot.(77)

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.(78)

From: Carl Hage

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion, and provide
my input into the shaping of the future information age in America. I
believe that using the Internet offers the potential to obtain high
quality information needed for proper decision making, as well as
improving the access of the government to the public.(79)

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 access are far too limited.  Consequently, citizens have 
little experience with the net and understanding of what is at stake in 
its development.  Also, basic computer skills--even as simple as logging 
on and typing a message--are lacking for most Americans.

What is needed in our opinion is on-going, institutionalized public 
access sites.  We think these should be based in a variety of community 
based institutions, including the public libraries, public schools, and 
public access cable centers.  These sites need equipment, Internet 
connection, staffing, and basic operating support.  And, of course, these 
sites need funding. . . .

If we as a country do not develop a permanent, institutionalized and 
consistently supported system of public access sites, the NII will 
develop quickly among the current information "haves" but will totally 
leave behind the vast majority of Americans who are information "have 
nots".  Facing this same situation concerning literacy in the early part 
of the 19th century, the response by public spirited Bostonians was the 
development of funding for the first public schools and public library in 
America.  Soon, these institutions were quickly adopted by every city and 
town in America.  Now, with a new technology and a new type of literacy, 
we as Americans should strive to expand our democracy by developing 
public access sites on the NII.

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.

From: A public access site in Seattle 

Obviously, SCN (Seatle Community Network) has been wonderful, since it has
allowed me to learn at my own (slow!) pace, without worrying about
"wasting money".  I am presently on NW Nexus, since I purchased the
Internet Starter Kit which came with a coupon for 2 free weeks.  I 
am continuing to pay for it, for a while, because it allows so much 
more opportunity to learn all the plusses of the Internet. . . .
I am willing to pay the monthly fee for a short time, but unfortunately, I
am not in a  financial position to be able to continue at this rate for
very long. It seems a shame that those of us who are not "well off" cannot
reap the benefit of the whole Internet.  I am grateful that SCN is there
for us.(81) 

From: Henry Huang 

Hence, in limiting my time, you limit the quality of my posts, and hence
the general quality of the discussion.

Many of the people who would want or NEED such free/cheap access 
are newbies -- and hence EXACTLY the sort of people who WOULDN'T
have the experience, knowledge, or time necessary to overcome the 
limits on their access.  The less access you provide a person 
with, the more trouble that person has to go through JUST to get 
UP to a sufficiently useful level.(82)

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.(83)

J. Need for openness because of development via open and free standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

	The Internet has developed out of connecting networks together
based on open and available standards. These protocols were developed
by many people over the ARPANET and Internet. Commercial development is
usually proprietary and closed. The Internet will develop much slower
if the pressure towards commercialism is allowed to overwhelm the 
open and cooperative culture of the Net.

From: Henry Huang

The NII is NOT a harbringer of change ... the Internet WAS -- hence
this conference (run using list server software on a UNIX box, and
sent mostly over Internet links).(84)

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 E-mail is STILL text
In fact, E-mail and News are often cited as two of the most useful services
offered by the Net, despite their clunkiness.  As quirky and outdated as
they are, they still WORK -- more to the point, everyone HAS them.  If
everyone had a different format for E-mail messages, no one could
communicate with anyone else -- thus defeating the very purpose of E-mail!

Even more important, many of the standards adopted by the Internet are
OPEN standards, freely available to anyone who's interested in modifying
or improving them.  Compare this to companies which charge you an arm
and a leg for their proprietary code.  Now, which one do YOU think people
will be more willing to work with, and improve?

What no one seems to realize is that the Net is anything BUT a
commodity -- it's a means to an end.  And that end is not profit, but
*GLOBAL COMMUNITY*.

If we treat the Net as a commodity, then inevitably that's what it's
bound to become -- a balkanized, divided, proprietary collection of private
networks which neither know nor care about the existence of the others.
It would be like a giant version of Compu$erve, only many times worse.
And in the end, by putting walls and barriers between the very users
who need to communicate with each other, they will have eliminated the
sole reason for their own existence -- as a means to COMMUNICATE, quickly
and efficiently.  And when that happens, either they will die, or the
future which they (and all of US) sought to promote will be relegated
to obscurity.

And that would be an absolute shame.(85)

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 implementations and test software.

The Internet standards established by the IETF are a good example.
All the specifications are available electronically and free to the
public. In order to be adopted, there must be a working implementation,
and typically there was a public domain version available as a starting
point and as a comparison.

Part of the research money for the NII could go toward producing
some competing designs for these technologies, which could result
in a public version of the specifications, and a sample reference
design. Also, research money could go to produce testing software and
an interoperability laboratory. Vendors who produce chipsets and
boards can take the standards and reference implementation and use
that as a basis for a specific product, and could then make use of
the test suites and interoperability laboratory.

Public funding for the establishment of the standards, reference
implementation, and test suite would eliminate many interoperability
problems, and would yield low cost products very quickly, as each
vendor would not need to duplicate this basic research. The money
saved in lower cost product availability for the government's 
internal use would more than pay for the investment in a publicly 
available technology.(86)

=================================================================

			   III. Conclusion

     Because the NTIA conference was held online, meant that 
many more points of view were heard than is normal. Prominent 
debates included that of encouraging "economic development" 
versus mandating "universal service" 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 something 
completely new. As such, it is important to acknowledge the 
origin and significance of the Internet, and to properly study 
and understand the contribution the current global computer 
communications network represents for society. Many who 
participated in the online conference expressed 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 
commercial backbone. The switch signaled a change in priorities of what 
the Internet will be used for. May 1, 1995 was also the opening date of a
national electronic open meeting sponsored by the U.S. government on
"People and their Governments in the Information Age." Apparently the
U.S. government was sponsoring this online meeting from various public
access sites, and paying commercial providers in the process. Something
is deeply ironic in this government-mandated change to increase 
government expenses.

        But also, on May 1, 1995, there was a presentation at a branch of 
the New York Public Library which focused on the value of the Internet 
and Usenet as a cooperative network where people could air their 
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 First, 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.(87)

        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.(88) 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 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 towards 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 for CHAPTER 14

 (1) Essays on Government, Jurisprudence, Liberty of the
     Press and Law of Nations, reprint, Kelley Publishers,
     New York, 1986, p. 8.

 (2) Ibid., p. 6.

 (3) Ibid., p. 13.

 (4) "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument,"
     Media Studies Journal, Vol 9 no 1, Winter 1995, p. 81.

 (5) Ibid., p. 89.

 (6) Jeffrey B. Abramson's "Electronic Town Meetings: Proposals
     for Democracy's Future," prepared for the Aspen Institute
     Communications and Society Program.

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

 (8) The NTIA virtual conference was co-sponsored 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.

 (9) The goals of the NTIA Conference were listed in chapter 15.

(10) From: Sean <sconnell@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
     Subject: Re: [AVAIL:41] my question
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 00:33:24 -0500 (EST)
     Message-Id: <199411160841.AAA27213@virtconf.digex.net>

(11) From: James McDonough <epin@access.digex.net>
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 09:49:40 -0500 (EST)
     Subject: Re: [AVAIL:42] Re: my question
     Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941116094225.11331A-100000@access2.digex.net>

(12) From: Randolph Langley <langley@dirac.scri.fsu.edu>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:27:51 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411171427.AA91585@dirac.scri.fsu.edu>
     Subject: [AVAIL:57] Re: my question

(13) From: Bob Summers <bsummers@vt.edu>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:27:09 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411180135.RAA07684@virtconf.digex.net>
     Subject: Re: [AVAIL:96] Re:  my question

(14) From: W. Curtiss Priest <BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
     Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 09:10:21 EST
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:189] REDEFUS digest 29
     Message-Id: <199411211811.KAA17129@virtconf.digex.net>

(15) From: wc_resa@server.greatlakes.k12.mi.us (Wayne County RESA)
     Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:17:11 -0500
     Message-Id: <9411141918.AA07357@server.greatlakes.k12.mi.us>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Access

(16) 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>

(17) From: Brent Wall <brentw@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>
     Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:22:46 -0500 (EST)
     Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411191130.C17368-0100000@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>

(18) From: Stephen Brenner <sbrenner@efn.org>
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:07:24 -0800
     Message-Id: <9411161210.AA17284@efn.efn.org>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:31] Re: Public Access

(19) 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>

(20) From: Dave W Mitchell <dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
     Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:12:54 -0800
     Message-Id: <199411142212.AA12401@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:22] Re: Pilot Projects

(21) From: Daniel Lieberman <danlie@ix.netcom.com>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:11:03 -0800
     Message-Id: <199411172211.OAA24888@ix.ix.netcom.com>
     Subject: Competency and access

(22) From: Sean <sconnell@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
     Subject: A Plea
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 23:00:28 -0500 (EST)
     Message-Id: <199411180708.XAA21950@virtconf.digex.net>

(23) From: Colette Brooks <crb@well.sf.ca.us>
     Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 09:30:16 -0800
     Message-Id: <199411191730.JAA19829@well.sf.ca.us>
     Subject: my 2$

(24) From: Bill Russell <RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu>
     Message-Id: <2ed3a9cf.ext23@ext23.OES.ORST.EDU>
     Date: 23 Nov 94 12:45:00
     Subject: Re[2]: [REDEFUS:68] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference universal      
     access.

(25) From: Brent Wall <brentw@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>
     Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 11:00:24 -0500 (EST)
     To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
     Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411191018.A17368-0100000@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>

(26) 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>

(27) From: Ellen Davis Burnham<edb1@Ra.MsState.Edu>
     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>

(28) From: LucyCo@aol.com
     Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 15:09:31 -0500
     Message-Id: <941120150557_3543309@aol.com>
     Subject: Re: [AVAIL:137] AVAIL digest 37

(29) From: Carl Hage <chage@rahul.net>
     Date: Sun, 20 Nov 94 18:52:16 PST
     Message-Id: <9411210252.AA20328@slick.chage.com>
     Subject: Glasnost for the Information Age

(30) From: Chloe Lewis <chloel@microsoft.com>
     Message-Id: <9411222159.AA07745@netmail2.microsoft.com>
     Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 14:00:29 TZ
     Subject: the Internet's other ancestor

(31) From: Carl Hage <chage@rahul.net>
     Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 05:21:42 PST
     Message-Id: <9411151321.AA18686@slick.chage.com>
     Subject: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access

(32) From: Susan Hadden <shadden@mail.utexas.edu>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:52:01 -0600
     Message-Id: <199411172052.OAA23573@mail.utexas.edu>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:128] REDEFUS digest 14

(33) From: Bob Jacobson <cyberoid@u.washington.edu>
     Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 22:04:12 -0800
     Message-Id: <9411150604.AA25921@stein1.u.washington.edu>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss

(34) 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>

(35) From: Robert J. Berrington III <berringr@river.it.gvsu.edu>
     Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 11:11:42 -0500 (EST)
     Subject: Public awareness
     Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.90.941118104318.23355A-100000@river.it.gvsu.edu>

(36) From: Martin Kessel <mkessel@world.std.com>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411232029.AA16911@world.std.com>
     Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access

(37) From: <MAADR007@SIVM.SI.EDU>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94  14:00:16 EST
     Subject: universal access but not ubiquitous use
     Message-Id: <199411172209.OAA20275@virtconf.digex.net>

(38) From: Dr. Robert LaRose <LAROSE@tc.msu.edu>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:03:37 EST
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:123] universal access but not ubiquitous use
     Message-ID: <224FE632CC5@tc.msu.edu>

(39) From: howland@nsipo.nasa.gov
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:19:23 -0800
     Message-Id: <199411170319.TAA11501@noc2.arc.nasa.gov>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:67] Re: Public Access

(40) From: Don Evans <don@dcez.com>
     Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:25:42 -500 (EST)
     Subject: Universal Access...
     Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411141352.G26106-0100000@dcez.dcez.com>

(41) From: Michael Hauben <hauben@columbia.edu>
     Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 01:54:36 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411220654.AA28036@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>
     Subject:Need to stress concept of active communication and interconnection

(42) From: BHARRIS@ntia.doc.gov
     Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 16:04:59 -0500
     Subject:  Interim Summary for Availability List

(43) From: rehm@zso.dec.com
     Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:50:03 -0800
     Message-Id: <9411142150.AA09999@slugbt.zso.dec.com>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:22] Re: Pilot Projects  

(44) 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>

(45) From: Robert J. Berrington III <berringr@river.it.gvsu.edu>
     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>

(46) From: Rey Barry <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>
     Message-Id: <199411172219.RAA15419@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:133] REDEFUS digest 15
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:19:34 -0500 (EST)

(47) From: Ron Choura 517-334-6240 <CHOURA%A1@COMMERCE.STATE.MI.US>
     Subject: NARUC Comments D.J Miller
     Posting-date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT)

(48) From: 
     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>

(49) From: Carl Hage <hage@netcom.com>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 16:33:17 -0800
     Message-Id: <199411240033.QAA24975@netcom13.netcom.com>
     Subject: Re: Comments to C. Hage concerns

(50) From: Carl Hage <chage@rahul.net>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 19:31:52 PST
     Message-Id: <9411180331.AA19584@slick.chage.com>
     Subject: Net Economics 101

(51) From: Kathleen L. Bloomberg <bloomber@eagle.sangamon.edu>
     Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:03:22 -0600
     Subject: Universal access & libraries

(52) From: Solomon Philip Hill <blast@leland.Stanford.EDU>
     Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:51:04 -0800 (PST)
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Accesss
     Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411141310.A6158-0100000@elaine30.Stanford.EDU>

(53) From: Dave W Mitchell <dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
     Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 08:17:20 -0800
     Message-Id: <199411141617.AA25971@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
     Subject: Statement

(54) From: msyssft!microsys!susang@uu6.psi.com
     Date: 16-Nov-94 11:35
     Message-Id: E0E6C92E01B361E1

(55) From: Carl Hage <chage@rahul.net>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 14:14:54 PST
     Message-Id: <9411172214.AA19457@slick.chage.com>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss

(56) 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>

(57) From: mtn@mtn.org (MTN)
     Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:39:33 -0600
     Message-Id: <aaee6246010210049a8a@[198.174.235.202]>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss

(58) From: Stephen Brenner <sbrenner@efn.org>
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:07:24 -0800
     Message-Id: <9411161210.AA17284@efn.efn.org>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:31] Re: Public Accesss

(59) From: Carol Deering <deering@odi.cwc.whecn.edu>
     Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 09:33:14 -700 (MST)
     Subject: rural areas
     Message-ID: <Pine.SCO.3.90.941118085624.725A-100000@odi.cwc.whecn.edu>

(60) 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>

(61) From: Ron Choura 517-334-6240 <CHOURA%A1@COMMERCE.STATE.MI.US>
     Subject: NARUC Comments D.J Miller
     Posting-date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:37:00 -0400 (EDT)

(62) From: Frank Whittle <WHITTLE@SMTPGATE.sunydutchess.edu>
     Message-Id: <9411150254.AA51246@admaix.sunydutchess.edu>
     Date: Mon Nov 14 21:53:09 1994

(63) From: Brent Wall <brentw@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:39:09 -0500 (EST)
     Subject: Universal Access--an Equivocation
     Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411161905.A19851-0100000@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>

(64) From: Henry Huang <hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference)

(65) From: Rey Barry <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>
     Message-Id: <199411172219.RAA15419@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:133] REDEFUS digest 15
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:19:34 -0500 (EST)

(66) From: Paul Weismantel <weismant@esd.dl.nec.com>
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 13:31:46 -0600
     Message-Id: <E15CCA2E011C0000@smtp.esd.dl.nec.com>
     Organization: NEC America Inc
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:80] Re:  NTIA Virt

(67) From: Martin Kessel <mkessel@world.std.com>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411232029.AA16911@world.std.com>
     Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access

(68) From: RICHARD M KENSHALO <PMRMK@tundra.alaska.edu>
     Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:16:08 -0800
     Subject: Universal Service
     Message-id: <01HJI2DC28PIHSJAJE@UA.ORCA.ALASKA.EDU>

(69) From: Jeanne Gallo (using BNN Television) <bnn@world.std.com>
     Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 12:22:53 +0001 (EST)
     Subject: Community Centers
     Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411181228.A2135-0100000@world.std.com>

(70) From: BHARRIS@ntia.doc.gov
     Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 16:04:59 -0500
     Subject: Interim Summary for Availability List

(71) From: Carl Hage <hage@netcom.com>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 18:27:53 -0800
     Message-Id: <199411240227.SAA08168@netcom13.netcom.com>
     Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference)

(72) 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.>

(73) 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>

(74) From: Carl Hage <chage@rahul.net>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 12:23:44 PST
     Message-Id: <9411172023.AA19431@slick.chage.com>
     Subject: Re: Cheap Public Access

(75) From: Stan Witnov <74543.720@compuserve.com>
     Date: 18 Nov 94 02:33:42 EST
     Subject: FOUR DAY CONFERENCE THOTS
     Message-ID: <941118073341_74543.720_EHH62-2@CompuServe.COM>

(76) From: Jawaid Bazyar <bazyar@netcom.com>
     Subject: Re: Need for Federal Oversight of Access and Availability
     Message-ID: <bazyarCzH7Lu.HoE@netcom.com>
     Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:34:41 GMT

(77) From: howland@nsipo.nasa.gov
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 19:35:33 -0800
     Message-Id: <199411240335.TAA13844@noc.arc.nasa.gov>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:253] REDEFUS digest 56

(78) From: Martin Kessel <mkessel@world.std.com>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 15:29:57 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411232029.AA16911@world.std.com>
     Subject: BNN Cablecast on Universal Access

(79) From: Carl Hage <chage@rahul.net>
     Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 05:21:42 PST
     Message-Id: <9411151321.AA18686@slick.chage.com>
     Subject: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access

(80) From: Hubert Jessup, General Manager at BNN Television <bnn@world.std.com>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:20:11 +0001 (EST)
     Subject: Need for on-going public access sites
     Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411171052.A20944-0100000@world.std.com>

(81) From: Public Access Site <vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:46:30 -0800 (PST)
     Subject: Affordability
     Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.91.941121204346.1399A-100000@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>

(82) From: Henry Huang <hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference)

(83) From: Sean <sconnell@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
     Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:155] REDEFUS digest 20
     Message-Id: <199411182309.PAA21212@virtconf.digex.net>
     Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 15:01:16 -0500 (EST)

(84) From: Henry Huang <hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu>
     Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:04:37 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411160304.WAA57037@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Re: [AVAIL:1] NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address

(85) From: Henry Huang <hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu>
     Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 12:52:37 -0500
     Message-Id: <199411231752.MAA45745@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Some Thoughts on Public Access (and this Conference)

(86) From: Carl Hage <chage@rahul.net>
     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 23:00:22 PST
     Message-Id: <9411180700.AA19595@slick.chage.com>
     Subject: Comments on Susan G. Hadden Essay

(87) The NTIA Virtual Archives are available via the World Wide Web at
     http://ntiaunix2.ntia.doc.gov:70/11s/virtual

(88) See the opening speech by C.P. Snow in Management and the Computer
     of the Future, Martin Greenberger, MIT Press, 1962.
--------------------------------

Last Updated: October 15, 1995
   ===============================================================

This article is a draft chapter from Michael Hauben's 
<hauben@columbia.edu> and Ronda Hauben's <rh120@columbia.edu> netbook
titled "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet." 
*Commercial use is prohibited*

Please send us any comments about this draft. Send comments to
both hauben@columbia.edu and rh120@columbia.edu.