Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 203
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, November 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 203
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
Re: [netz] Re: Spam here
[netz] Re: business 101 (was Re: Pay-As-We-Go Internet) (fwd)
[netz] Re: business 101 (was Re: Pay-As-We-Go Internet) (fwd)
[netz] Re: Spam here
Re: [netz] Re: Spam here
Re: [netz] Re: Spam here
[netz] Linux in Mexico
[netz] New Bylaws
[netz] (Fwd) The Malling of Cyberspace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:53:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Netizens are citizens of Net not customers
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>Ronda's point is the people, not the tools. If you look at objects,
>there is no way to separate them, but no tool has yet produced a new
>tool by itself. It's people who create new tools by using the old
>ones - and finding their limitations.
Microsoft employs people, who build tools, who are used by people, who
communicate ... you get the idea.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:51:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Spam here
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Do you remember learning to work square root problems by hand? Of
>course it's not the 'easy' way to get the solution - a calculator
>does it ever so much more conveniently - but it's a darn good way to
>learn what going on, mathematically.
By this analogy, we should all discontinue using the phone system, and
start stringing up wires, coating them with wax, and talking through
tin cans. That way, we will all "understand" communication from its
bare bones principles. Sorry, but I don't find any value of going
back to those days.
>Learning in general is the process by which one *succeeds oneself. It
>is not just 'being prepared' for a 'productive' job; nor is it just
>'accessing information.' It is the process of 'bootstrapping' -- one
>of the more valid metaphors to have been adopted in the computer
>world -- of reaching beyond the present, whether that is construed in
>terms of organismic maturation, or synaptic organization, or
>'operational' preparedness.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
>The specific axe I'm grinding these days is that the Internet is,
>first and foremost, a learning device. It makes available to
>*anyone*, regardless of their prior state of knowledge, 'access' to
>another state.
The people who are proposing to fragment roots would reduce the
availability of the Internet to those segments of it that are able to
communicate with each other.
>In effect, commercialism is divisive and disintegrative); while it
>admittedly conditions the 'players' to move ahead, it conditions
>everybody else to wait for instructions.'
The proposals to fragment roots are, by definition, divisive and
disintegrative.
>(Thus we now have 'plug and play' software installation -- some of
>which, btw, is no different than command-line procedures with a GUI
>-- where there could have been a short course in *learning what needs
>to happen within the system. Is it *better* software? No. Is it a
>better sytem? No. Does it sell? You bet.)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. There are lots of
courses available for teaching people how to install software.
Plug-n-play is a convenience, but one can still do things the old way,
if one wants to. I find it interesting that a lot of public domain
and freeware software packages have plug-n-play interfaces as well.
There must be some inherent value in being able to do a few
point-and-click commands to install a piece of software, even if there
is no financial benefit.
If you think that software is "bad" now, wait until lots of
alternative roots start popping up. Since you have defending learning
as a method of reaching beyond oneself, you will have the opportunity
to learn, first hand, how difficult it is to interoperate among
multiple addressing systems.
>If you get my drift, should we be any more sanguine about the
>prospects for 'free' speech than about 'free' agriculture?
The people who are interested in fragmenting roots will find out that
their audiences will be limited when the rest of the world finds it
too difficult to communicate with them.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:34:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: business 101 (was Re: Pay-As-We-Go Internet) (fwd)
Some more Internet history ...
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Path: news3.best.com!news1.best.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!netnews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news.magicnet.net!gateway
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: info.inet.access
Subject: Re: business 101 (was Re: Pay-As-We-Go Internet)
Message-ID: <199810271751.AA06369@world.std.com>
Date: 27 Oct 98 17:51:07 GMT
References: <199810261408.PAA18776@sean.ebone.net>
Sender: rd@comet.magicnet.net
Reply-To: list@inet-access.net
Distribution: info
Lines: 73
Xref: news3.best.com info.inet.access:28826
Since I was a usenix board of directors member around that time (so,
heavens, actually have some first-hand knowledge of what went on) let
me add a few comments...
> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> | Having lived (on the 'net) in a time before and after UUNET, I'd say
> | that the problems we encountered were completely solvable *without* UUNET --
> | in fact, alternative solutions were proposed at the time, but were not
> | adopted. What happened instead was the UUNET was given a rather large
> | chunk of change in order to provide certain services; they used it to
> | jumpstart their business. IMHO, they have never come even remotely
> | close to repaying the community for the tremendous advantage they were given.
The money was provided in a few steps by Usenix and Usenix
alone. Therefore it seems reasonable that whether or not they were
repaid for their charitable investment would be up to Usenix and its
dues-paying membership.
Why do you believe anyone outside of the group of people who actually
provided the money deserves to be repaid? And what exactly would that
repayment be, how would we know if it were repaid to your
satisfaction?
I don't believe there's a single person who was actually involved who
doesn't believe it was repaid.
When you consider the original goals, which were charitable and
intended to bootstrap networking for the community, then I'd have to
say it was many times repaid given the observable results. It may have
been one of the most successful charitable investments in history.
From: Sean Doran <smd@ebone.net>
> Remember that UUNET Communications came about because the likes
> of seismo and ihnp4 were being shut down -- several other large
> USENET sites were already stuck not being able to pay for the
> long-distance charges because they were growing *big*.
The underlying problem was more subtle.
There was no real precedent for getting a connection to the net for
mere money. You basically had to be a member of the club, and the club
was (intentionally or not) rather exclusive. This became more apparent
as sites were overwhelmed with connection requests. Since the
connections were all free (inasmuch as you weren't charged like a
customer) there was no scaling, no "rights", if you (a hub site) felt
overloaded you just informed some downstreams that they'd have to find
another feed which became more and more difficult as time went on.
The idea that you could get network services for the mere exchange of
money, rather than political or institutional pull, was quite novel at
the time (in this mileu, of course there were other unrelated networks
which sold services.)
I realize 20/20 hindsight makes some people believe this was all
obvious and inevitable, but it simply wasn't. For example, more than a
few thought the very idea of encouraging someone to charge for network
access was anathema to the entire idea of the net (some argued
vociferously that it was illegal!) and any charitable contribution
should just be an ongoing monthly expense sort of budget to let
someone run a free-to-the-public (where "public" meant "the club") hub
and some backbone lines.
- --
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.world.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
- -
Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request@inet-access.net' to leave.
Eat sushi frequently. inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address.
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:31:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: business 101 (was Re: Pay-As-We-Go Internet) (fwd)
Some Internet history ...
- ------- start of forwarded message -------
Path: news3.best.com!news1.best.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news.magicnet.net!gateway
From: smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)
Newsgroups: info.inet.access
Subject: Re: business 101 (was Re: Pay-As-We-Go Internet)
Message-ID: <199810261408.PAA18776@sean.ebone.net>
Date: 26 Oct 98 14:08:01 GMT
Sender: rd@comet.magicnet.net
Reply-To: list@inet-access.net
Distribution: info
Lines: 55
Xref: news3.best.com info.inet.access:28762
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
| Having lived (on the 'net) in a time before and after UUNET, I'd say
| that the problems we encountered were completely solvable *without* UUNET --
| in fact, alternative solutions were proposed at the time, but were not
| adopted. What happened instead was the UUNET was given a rather large
| chunk of change in order to provide certain services; they used it to
| jumpstart their business. IMHO, they have never come even remotely
| close to repaying the community for the tremendous advantage they were given.
Well, OK, first I should admit that I was also formerly smd@uunet.ca.
Secondly, I dispute the argument that UUNET did not repay
its debt. On the contrary, when the assets of UUNET Communications
was acquired by UUNET Technologies Inc., the requirements of the
501(c)(3) company were more than met. Moreover I think the record
of the former is pretty clear: funding for C News, funding for INN,
funding for BIND, funding for ISC.
That UUNET Technologies came about and whether the "huge chunk of change"
was a worthwhile investment is a matter you may wish to take up
with the USENIX Association, which seemed to think at the time that
it was a good idea, or with Rick, if you're so inclined.
However, my understanding is that the "huge chunk of change" was
dwarfed by the revenue stream fairly quickly; in other words, what
paid for UUNET was UUNET's customer base.
| So, no, I don't agree that the problem was that the model didn't scale,
| simply because we never really *tried* to scale the model. (In other words,
| I regard the question as open, pending experiment.)
Remember that UUNET Communications came about because the likes
of seismo and ihnp4 were being shut down -- several other large
USENET sites were already stuck not being able to pay for the
long-distance charges because they were growing *big*.
So, frankly, I also dispute that it wasn't tried. It was. It didn't work.
UUNET came about because there didn't seem to be any other way to
keep USENET traffic flowing.
Another interesting case-study is the nearly parallel development of EUNET,
which likewise evolved to share the huge costs of long-distance communications
among the people actually using it. EUNET, too, became fully commercial,
and is now controlled by a telecommunications company.
Burying costs in someone else's budget is all fine and dandy,
but the expectation that some large company, government agency,
or university will fund the long-distance transport of your ftpmailed
jpegs or X distributions or whatever is simply unrealistic.
Sean.
- -
Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request@inet-access.net' to leave.
Eat sushi frequently. inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address.
- ------- end of forwarded message -------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 00:09:43 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Spam here
Greg wrote,
> I see us heading back in that direction, which might
> be a good thing in terms of letting people do whatever they feel is
> necessary, but it won't be a good thing in terms of making the net
> easier to use for everyone.
Benton Org reports 11/6:
AT&T'S CHIEF EXPECTS WIRELESS 'WORLD PHONE' WITHIN NEXT TWO
YEARS Issue: Technology AT&T intends to introduce a cellular phone which
will be able to operate regardless of the technology of the system to which it
is connecting. Michael Armstrong, AT&T CEO, says the phone should be
available within two years and should be able to communicate with about six
different digital and analog systems in North America, Asia and Europe.
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal (B9), AUTHOR: WSJ Staff Reporter]
<http://www.wsj.com/>
If ATT can do it, can the (rest of) the net(s) be far behind?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 10:24:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Spam here
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>Benton Org reports 11/6:
>AT&T'S CHIEF EXPECTS WIRELESS 'WORLD PHONE' WITHIN NEXT TWO
>YEARS Issue: Technology AT&T intends to introduce a cellular phone which
>will be able to operate regardless of the technology of the system to
>which it is connecting. Michael Armstrong, AT&T CEO, says the phone
>should be available within two years and should be able to
>communicate with about six different digital and analog systems in
>North America, Asia and Europe. [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal (B9),
>AUTHOR: WSJ Staff Reporter] <http://www.wsj.com/>
>If ATT can do it, can the (rest of) the net(s) be far behind?
This question ought to be asked of the people who, for whatever
reasons, do not recognize the alternative roots.
Besides, I never said they wouldn't be able to interoperate. I just
said how this will be done will be less convenient than what we have
now.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:36:52 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Spam here
Re the value of DNS, what's the status of X.500 these days?
Btw, doesn't the Wexis decision - that *organizing* data does not confer
copyright - suggest that we may see a day when *any hostname will have to
be accepted into a DNS-type registry?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:39:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Linux in Mexico
Forwarded:
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:25:55 -0500
From: "William G. Thompson, Jr." <bthompson@softcom.com>
To: ofinterest@isoc-ny.org
Subject: [Fwd: Linux in education]
"...the Mexican government said this week that it plans to install the
free Linux operating system in 140,000 elementary- and middle-school
computer labs around the country"
"...predicted Mexican schools will become hotbeds of Linux programmers"
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/16107.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:16:34 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] New Bylaws
from internetnews.com:
ICANN Passes New Bylaws to Answer Critics
By Michele M. Masterson
[November 9, 1998] The Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) late Friday revised its bylaws to answer critics who said
the board was not doing enough to keep the public informed and that its
leadership structure did not reflect the Internet's global reach.
The group also told the Department of Commerce it is ready to begin the
transfer process of the Domain Name System administration from U.S.
government control to the private sector.
The following is a list of new bylaws adopted:
ICANN is to be a membership organization, with board members elected
from four separate membership pools, including three specialized supporting
organizations and an "at large" membership.
ICANN will be financially and otherwise accountable to those it serves.
ICANN's decision-making will be open, with minutes of each ICANN Board,
supporting organization or committee meeting to be publicly posted within 21
days following every meeting.
The initial board will create a conflicts of interest policy covering all ICANN
institutions, including the supporting organizations.
ICANN's permanent governance structure will be globally representative.
ICANN will respect each nation's sovereign control over its individual top level
domain.
[...]
================
Magaziner to Step Down
By Michele M. Masterson
[November 9, 1998] Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's senior advisor on
Internet issues, has announced he will leave his post by the year's end.
Magaziner,who has been a senior Clinton administration official for more than
five years, announced his pending resignation late Friday. The news comes
as the government is preparing to hand over control of the Internet's domain
name system to a private consortium, The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN).
Magaziner has also wrestled with privacy issues, has advised the Clinton
administration to adapt a hands-off Internet policy and encouraged self-
regulation in the Internet industry. He first stressed those principles in 1997
when he formulated the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce.
The white paper outlined goals for governments throughout the world in
approaching the Internet as a venue for commerce. The paper included
policies set forth by the United States and the European Union in dealing
with issues such as encryption, regulation and electronic payments.
Magaziner did not specifically say when he would leave, although he has
reportedly said he hopes to finish up within the next month. Magaziner has
not commented on future plans, but is expected to move to Rhode Island,
where his family relocated earlier this year.
Last modified: Monday, 09-Nov-1998 11:16:46 EST
=============
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:09:43 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] (Fwd) The Malling of Cyberspace
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:19:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Norman Solomon <mediabeat@igc.apc.org>
Subject: The Malling of Cyberspace
INTERNET SHOPPING NETWORK: THE MALLING OF CYBERSPACE
By Norman Solomon
Are you ready for the Internet Shopping Network?
Ready or not, here it comes. The guy who pioneered home
shopping channels on television, Barry Diller, is now blazing
trails into cyberspace.
Despite the stock market's current jitters about such
ventures, Diller plans to go forward next year with an initial
public offering for the Internet Shopping Network. It's part of
his effort to become "electronic-commerce czar," according to The
Wall Street Journal -- which reports that Diller "is once again
demonstrating his ability to position himself at the cusp of the
business world's next big thing."
Strip-malling the Internet is quite a concept.
Not long ago, we kept hearing about "the information
superhighway." But these days, that sounds almost quaint. Images
linking the vast Internet to exploration and discovery now take a
back seat to media preoccupations with the wonders of marketing
and buying, cyber-style.
The emergence of the Internet Shopping Network is a symbol
of how coolly calculating heads are prevailing over gushy
platitudes about democratic discourse in cyberspace.
More than ever, a visit to the opening screens of America
Online or CompuServe indicates just how tightly the biggest on-
line services are interwoven with the nation's largest TV
networks, weekly magazines, daily papers, wire services and the
like. The medium of the Internet is new, but its main "content
providers" are mostly providing the same old content.
Meanwhile, as traditional media outlets supply endless hype
for some aspects of the World Wide Web, the touted heroes are
often entrepreneurs who combine high-tech computer advances with
shrewd marketing strategies. Implicit in such coverage is the
assumption that colonizing the New World of cyberspace -- with
corporate enthusiasm that echoes notions of Manifest Destiny --
is logical, creative and laudable.
There is a case to be made for allowing commercial interests
to dominate the Internet. It's similar to cases that were made
for commercializing other technologies at pivotal stages of media
development -- radio in the early 1930s, broadcast television at
mid-century and cable TV in the 1970s.
At all those historic junctures, lofty rhetoric has been
expended to justify the prerogatives of capital. But in each
instance, the underlying quest can be summed up in two words:
maximize profits.
Spin the radio dial, or click through the channels of a TV
set, and you may -- or may not -- appreciate what reliance on the
"free market" has produced. Overall, the airwaves and cable
byways have been ravaged by unflagging zeal to shoot the bottom
line through the roof.
The Internet is apt to seem very different. Unlimited and
decentralized, it's far more participatory than radio and
television. Cyberspace has much lower barriers for people with
something to say.
Freedom of speech is one thing, however, and freedom to be
widely heard is another. You can put up a Web site. But if you
want to reach a mass audience, you'll need either a lot of money
or promotional backing from some entity with a lot of money. The
exceptions are rare counterpoints to the dominant rule.
As an emerging lord of cyberspace, Barry Diller is a perfect
example of grim synergy. He now runs USA Networks Inc., which
produces "The Jerry Springer Show" as part of its array of TV
output. Diller has the resources to launch his Internet Shopping
Network into the media heavens.
"Television programming and direct selling are related,"
Diller explains, "and our bet is that they will become more
related."
Conveniently, media magnates tend to have plenty of
influential pals and business partners. For instance, Diller
doesn't worry about any tough-minded scrutiny of the Internet
Shopping Network by the country's largest-circulation magazine of
media criticism -- Brill's Content, the ballyhooed monthly that
began publication last summer. Diller is one of the magazine's
four owners.
None of this means that we should be discouraged from doing
all we can to use the Internet for independent purposes. Many
individuals and groups around the world are doing just that. But
let's get the cyber-stars out of our eyes.
Technologies don't create vibrant public debate or
democratize societies. People do -- or at least they can try.
_____________________________________________
Norman Solomon is co-author of "Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the
Curtain of Mainstream News" and author of "The Trouble With
Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh."
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #203
******************************
