Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 240
Netizens-Digest Friday, January 8 1999 Volume 01 : Number 240
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Communications advocate
Re: [netz] Representation in Cyberspace
[netz] The Internet as the foundation for needed research
[netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
[netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 08:19:23 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Communications advocate
Dear Netizens,
If you are not familiar with one of the leading
communications advocates here is an introduction.
Benton and his foundation are strident advocates
of communication... digital in many forms.
Forwarded here to the Netizens list with
permission and full attribs. intact.
======================================================================================
Subject: The Debate On the Future of Television /Please read and review
for your sake
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:42:21 EST
From: BBracey@aol.com
I am forwarding this letter from Charles Benton. I served on the
National
Information Infrastructure Advisory Council. Most people have never
heard of
it. Many people complained that the information was not given to them to
react
to. A lot of people have no idea what the NIIAC was.(The Benton
Foundation has
held all of the telecommunications work in legacy at www.benton.org.
<A HREF="The">http://www.benton.org/">The Benton Foundation</A> )
I want to make sure that the same thing does not happen to this group.
Please
read and react to this letter. Share it with your friends. What can we
do
about television? What are your concerns? Speak to the government, and
the
people making recommendations. Involve your
local stakeholders, in this discussion. Have your groups think about and
react
to this. If you want to you can join the list serv. Please share your
ideas
and concerns, and distribute this to your community.Don't forget that
everyone
is not on line. Print out a copy if you must.
Bonnie Bracey
Send correspondence to charles@benton.org
<A HREF="The">http://www.benton.org/Policy/TV/">The Debate On the Future of
Television</A>
Digital TV: Unlocking the Power to Serve
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
An adage in the television industry goes: not everyone you met is a
doctor,
not everyone you meet is a lawyer, but everyone you meet is a television
programmer. Everyone has an opinion about what they see on TV.
Over the past 14 months, I have served on a Presidential Advisory
Committee on
Digital TV with 21 other representatives of the industry, labor unions,
minority organizations, independent producers, children's advocates, and
public advocates. The question before the Committee has been how to
redefine
the compact between local broadcasters and the communities they are
licensed
to serve for the digital age. For years, the agreement has meant that
broadcasters get free use of a valuable public resource - called
spectrum - in
exchange for the promise to serve as trustees acting in the "public
interest,
convenience, and necessity.
By 2006, broadcasters are to complete a transition from today's analog
TV
system to DTV. For broadcasters, the transition will give them the
ability to
offer a wide, new array of services: high-definition television (HDTV)
with
picture and sound quality that rivals a movie theater experience,
multiple,
simultaneous programming channels with a quality equal to or better than
today's service, the ability to provide subscription and pay-per-view
programming, as well as paging and wireless telephone service.
Broadcasters
could also use the technology to make television more interactive with a
service called datacasting. But what's in it for the public? What will
"in the
public interest" mean in the 21st Century when digital TV is apt to
become as
ubiquitous as today's analog TVs? Exit polls after November's election
identified education as the #1 issues for voters. Well, there's another
adage
about television: there's no disagreement that it educates, it's what it
teaches that causes all the controversy.
In a report the Committee is sending to Vice President Gore today,
December
18, we recommend that broadcasters do more to address the concerns of
the
public and unlock the educational potential of digital television. Our
recommendations call for broadcasters to provide and support a wide
range of
educational programming for children and adults alike on there own
channels
and a new, commercial-free service. We recommend that broadcasters
develop
means for determining their community's needs and interests and
providing
programming around those needs. We suggest improved reporting
requirements so
that the public has a better sense of how broadcasters are serving their
interests. We ask broadcasters to improve their coverage of campaigns
and
candidates and to challenge Congress to pass comprehensive campaign
finance
reform. We recommend that broadcasters use their datacasting capacity to
provide interactive services to schools, libraries and other community
organizations.
Do you think you'd make a good television programmer? Do you believe
television is on the right track now? Would you like to see a reduction
of the
violence and sex and sensationalism on TV as we embark into the digital
future? If you could control what's on TV, would you unlock the power of
this
educational tool on serving the needs of children, your community and
our
democracy?
I do not pose these as idle questions - the work of the President's
Advisory
are recommendations that will go to the new Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission. Policymakers will have to hear from you if
they are
to chart the right course for the digital future. A window of
opportunity
exists over the next few months for you to leave your mark on how
television
stations will be licensed to serve you and your community. Don't miss
the
opportunity to have your say.
Charles Benton
charles@benton.org
Chairman
Public Media Inc and the Benton Foundation
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:23:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] Representation in Cyberspace
Thanks for bringing this up again Kerry. I went to give a paper on the
relationship between the state and the Internet, to introduce my arguments
on this complex issue, and got back to see this from you. In the following
posting, I've tried to introduce a lot of points for discussion (not
necessarily my opinion) - perhaps to be continued on different threads?
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> Using a bit of CPR to breathe life into this corpse, I suggest a)
> providing 'equal influence' *is* simple, b) the Net is a great place to
> design, if we can just bring ourselves to get beyond listing criteria,
> and c) this two-step distinction is no more and no less than what is
> required.
Equal influence is simple, is it? But how do we sort out who is who? Can
we all trust each other in cyberspace? Okay this problem occurs in real
life as well, but it is much easier to deceive in cyberspace at the
present time. What does this lack of trust do to the concept of equal
influence? I think it affects the 'digital divide' (between
technologically aware, and plain and simple users) tremendously. This is
just one example which I guess you could design a solution to, but more
importantly is the fundamental concept behind it...
> More specifically, if there are too many input signals, then the antidote
> is to increase the channels: ...
In the end, it all goes back to what we want to conceive of as the
Internet; where does it fit in real life, and how should we use it?
Ronda's discussion of the development of the net is very useful here. Is
the Internet a lowest common denominator entity, or is there an
opportunity waiting to be taken to utilise the Internet in decision
making processes (as corporations are moving towards now), by utilising
the Internet and associated technologies to help improve efficiency etc.
(the foundation of many Information Society/Information Infrastructure
Policies that are cropping up around the world as well).
Splitting issues is fine, and I agree with you here, Kerry, that this
would be useful. But I am uneasy because part of me feels that this just
leads to lots of talking-shops, and subsequently to a dismissal of the
Internet as central to the driving force of globalisation (critics would
decide that the Internet has no political force), and thus leaving the
restructuring of political affairs at a fundamental level as an idea that
was half carried out.
Isn't this discussion list an example of channeling? And how many posts
are directed to more than one list; how many times do you receive postings
from more than one list? Isn't this some kind of anarchic chaos? If a
greater amount of my time were spent online in my virtual community(ies);
and if everyone else were to do the same, then the amount of data passing
to me would be *huge* - I don't know if the technicalities of this
channeling can even be approached, however,as we have to figure out the
rules for the framework. I'm not confident in the rationality of humanity
to be able to define and stick to a certain framework.
> Of equal course are details yet to be dealt with, mainly how to define
> 'too many inputs' and to use the overflow flag to trigger a routine to
> parse the issue into separate subissues -- but as I say, once we have a
> framework (that accepts, for instance, that "who will bear the cost of
> regulation, and who will carry out the task" are *separable* parts of the
> process of determining if the net is to be regulated) then I'm quite
> confident we have the expertise online that could rough out a listserver
> kind of demon to implement it in about a week.
Doesn't this framework require some kind of a hierarchical structure? And
in that case, wouldn't it need people who would be able to say "this is
good for you" at the top? And then, aren't we back into the old argument
of representation (ie. the "*problem of representation as an institution*")?
Representation as an institution may well be the problem now, but we must
remember that the Internet is far from global (in access terms) at the
minute. It will grow, and grow, and become more global in it's outlook as
time goes by, with luck. In terms of content, it is universally accessible
(how geographically disparate is this discussion list?). This presents a
problem to the approach which you advocate Kerry, as global communication
can affect all its participants, but leave them stuck in their channel,
powerless to do anything about it.
Compared to the history of political organisation, this can be seen as one
of the reasons for the creation of the state -- to ensure that political
activity (which stopped at the level of the state, and went no higher)
could take place. International Politics operated in a moral vacuum. This
is also why the state is being questioned now (global environmental /
economic / communication flows). Could intercommunity politics operate in
a moral vacuum? I don't think so, therefore it is difficult to compare
the state and the community. It is therefore difficult to describe virtual
communities as political entities. But that doesn't mean that politics
doesn't take place around and in them!
> In short, 'representation' was a solution to a problem -- the problem of
> keeping too many variables in mind at one time. Now that the *problem of
> representation as an institution* (credibility, verification,
> divisiveness, etc etc) has been recognized, isnt it time to 'delegate'
> the process to nice net-friendly hardware?
Designed by whom? Check out the centre for computing and social
responsibility (CCSR at De Montfort University, UK) -
http://www.ccsr.cms.dmu.ac.uk/, where the impact of computing upon ethics
has been given special attention. All sorts of questions arise when we
consider the impact of the Internet on governance issues, particularly
democratic institutions, and the notion of the individual in the
information age.
> Consensus wasnt built in a day.
And "In Cyberspace, everyone can hear you scream"
> kerry
- --Jamal
[Plug: The development of the net and changing patterns of governance: a
study of the relationship between the state and the Internet (RGS-IBG,
Leicester, UK: January 1999). - If anyone would like to make comments on a
draft of the paper, please do let me know, and I can email a copy to you
(I hope to put it up on a website soon).]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:25:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] The Internet as the foundation for needed research
Jamal
Let me know when your paper is at a web site as my mailbox is swamped
but I would be interested in seeing your paper. (Or let me know how
big it is and maybe I can let you know where to send it to me.)
I have a different avenue of concern.
What I am realizing is that with all the talk about the Internet
as on the IFWP list, there is actually very little understanding
or concern for the Internet.
The only way that it was possible to build the Internet, was that
there were computer pioneers who were both supported to do
basic research (though DARPA mainly, but also Bell Labs had a role).
And that these computer pioneers respected the technology of the
computer and of packet switching networking and were able to
therefore figure out how to make it all work.
At the base of their philosophy were notions of open interfaces,
i.e. of the fact that the user had to be able to design his or
her side of the interface with the computer and thus make it
something that would be of use.
Also as my most recent paper demonstrates, at the base of the
Internet work was a recognition that the networks that would be
connected via internetworking were autonomous and that autonomy
had to be respected and supported.
That is, as far as I understand thus far, some of the need for
cooperative processes that have been needed to build and nourish.
Those seeking to make money off of the Internet and to commercialize
it, are in general concerned about making their money, *not* about
the Internet or its users. Thus they can't do anything worthwhile
with respect to the Internet. They can only make trouble.
Despite this, it is important that there be those who care
about the Internet who find a way to study and support the
development and scaling of the Internet.
There really needs to be a research institute devoted to this,
but I have found that the attack by commercial forces is so
great it is even hard to get papers accepted at conferences
(like for example the Internet Society conferences) nevermind
get any support for the kind of research that recognizes the
importance of the Internet and the need to study and research
what its needs are and what it makes possible.
Thus the Internet is treated very different from the computer
it seems, especially now. It is used and abused, but not
cared for or recognized by the powers that be.
However, hopefully this will all change once folks realize that
the Internet is an important human-computer-computer_communication
symbiosis and as such it needs care and support and understanding,
rather than power plays and strip mining.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:09:59 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Ronda,
{ There are various models one can use to figure out how to make
{ decisions. However, as the Internet is a unique new medium of
{ worldwide communication, it is important to consider what means
{ have grown up with or as part of the Internet that can be helpful
{ in solving this problem.
The net is uinique only in that it is a communication medium which came
out of technical left field, with minimal social context. Commerce of
course has been quicker to see the potential in its own field, but
neither engineers nor businesspeople are thus automatically qualified to
develop a socially functional model. In your role as a (net-)historian,
you are well able to grasp this; but where are the psychologists, the
sociologists, the anthropologists, the humanists generally?
{ CP Snow and other computer pioneers in 1961
{ talked about the need to spread far and wide discussion on important
{ policy matters
After 30+ years in the doldrums, is it time to 'reinvent' netizens as a
forum to bring these 'arty' perspectives together on an activist agenda?
kerry
P.S. Joe Lambert's "Memory & Machines" at
http://www.storycenter.org/memory1.html
is not altogether irrelevant.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:09:57 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Representation in Cyberspace
Jamal,
{
{ In the end, it all goes back to what we want to conceive of as the
{ Internet; where does it fit in real life, and how should we use it?
...
{ Splitting issues is fine, and I agree with you here, Kerry, that this
{ would be useful. But I am uneasy because part of me feels that this
just
{ leads to lots of talking-shops, and subsequently to a dismissal of the
{ Internet as central to the driving force of globalisation (critics
would
{ decide that the Internet has no political force), and thus leaving the
{ restructuring of political affairs at a fundamental level as an idea
that
{ was half carried out.
Any time you fail to account for the fundamentals of a problem, you're
going to have a half-baked solution which creates new problems which are
even more complicated to deal with.
I really like my coffee with cream - but I rarely drink it, so the half-
pint of cream in the fridge usually sours before its finished. Rejecting
the 'easy' answer (drink more coffee!), I've been conducting an
experiment: the data so far show the present container is still unsoured
after six weeks -- because Ive spooned the cream out rather than using
the built-in pour spout.
If I insist that I have a right to use the spout *and* have unclotted
cream, I can solve this problem by buying cream more often and throwing
away half of it. Or I can 'split the issues' and weigh the value
(convenience) of spout-usage against the value of keeping cream
indefinitely (that is, of changing a late-acquired extravagant habit or a
deep-seated conservative one) and *test*, over time, which works best for
me.
I get the impression ICANN prefers the pour-spout: the Net is so
*convenient* for business, its worth wasting a potful of free speech and
dialog and self-governance and social whatnot. In my impecunious fashion,
I incline to keep the cream (and put up with the overhead of another
spoon to be washed) but the issue is, *which way preserves the options*?
The ICANN process apparently assumes that the communicational contents of
society are in infinite supply, and need not be preserved, but from an
*experimental point of view this is utterly rash. I think civilization
is a hard-won concept (I almost said commodity ;-)), and value its
preservation more highly than any one *product of it -- or the sort of
container it may come in.
==========
{ Isn't this discussion list an example of channeling?
Sure, but let's go furhter: this one post of yours has some 128 lines
reflecting serious thought, with 14 questions that could well become
separate channels of their own.
{ I don't know if the technicalities of this
{ channeling can even be approached, however,as we have to figure out the
{ rules for the framework. I'm not confident in the rationality of
{ humanity to be able to define and stick to a certain framework.
Technicalities? Homo sap processes this much data all the time, albeit
clumsily, but some rules have been 'figured out' - wouldnt they be a
pretty good guide?
{ Doesn't this framework require some kind of a hierarchical structure?
And
{ in that case, wouldn't it need people who would be able to say "this is
{ good for you" at the top?
That's putting the pourspout ahead of the cream, imo.
{ In terms of content, it is universally accessible
{ (how geographically disparate is this discussion list?). This presents
a
{ problem to the approach which you advocate Kerry, as global
communication
{ can affect all its participants, but leave them stuck in their channel,
{ powerless to do anything about it.
The engineers among us call this 'scalability' but as an experimentalist,
I 'breadboard' at a small scale first, and build up. As for being stuck,
isnt that an artifact of our software? As you say, crossposting is one
way out; taking time to answer questions *knowing that each reply will
take more time again* is another.
{ This
{ is also why the state is being questioned now (global environmental /
{ economic / communication flows). Could intercommunity politics operate
{ in a moral vacuum? I don't think so, therefore it is difficult to
{ compare the
{ state and the community. It is therefore difficult to describe virtual
{ communities as political entities. But that doesn't mean that politics
{ doesn't take place around and in them!
{
Have you seen
http://www.plattsburgh.edu/robbinrh/legacy ?
The question is a good one: global comm is a real threat to the concept
of 'state', and that in and of itself is a compelling reason for self-
governance.
{ > isnt it time to 'delegate'
{ > the process to nice net-friendly hardware?
{
{ Designed by whom?
Another q to put on the list ;-)
Check out the centre for computing and social
{ responsibility (CCSR at De Montfort University, UK) -
{ http://www.ccsr.cms.dmu.ac.uk
Thanks!
==========
Returning to the fundamentals:
{ Equal influence is simple, is it? But how do we sort out who is who?
Can
{ we all trust each other in cyberspace? Okay this problem occurs in real
{ life as well, but it is much easier to deceive in cyberspace at the
{ present time. What does this lack of trust do to the concept of equal
{ influence?
Don't we *learn to trust each other, regardless of the medium, by
working together? As long as we insist that the inconsequentiality of
our cyberspatial 'free' speech is more important than its content, can we
expect anything but deception and foolery? We like to speak of
'responding' here, but not of responsibility - but is that in itself a
reason not to build a mechanism in which ones participation *can* have
consequences?
Now (noting that my point (c),
{ that this two-step distinction is no more and no less than what is {
required.
was not taken up), such a mechanism will have to do what we do for
ourselves routinely: *suspend (not terminate) the opportunity for new
inputs (criteria) while proceeding to draw interim conclusions (ICs) on
the basis of the data we do have. On the basis of IC #1, we then
reexamine the field for new inputs, and draw IC #2, and so on, until
either there is no new input -- which implies no report of inconsistency
in the extant data. At that point, we declare a 'decision.'
'Of course', you say, 'some external factor ( such as another problem,
changed ranking of extant problems, or a deadline) may interfere with
this process' -- but is that interference or just a different *scale* of
application of the same routine? (None of our decisions are made in
vacuo; external factors are our meat and drink or there'd be no need for
decisions at all!) That is to say, 'input data' is largely *previous
decisions* (and the inconsistencies between them), just as our
'decisions' are largely revisions of prior data. In short, the process
is a highly reflexive (cybernetic') one.
IPL, one tries to keep ones life 'organized' (= compartmentalized) so
that we dont have to keep juggling all this continuously (I suggest this
is the reason for the creation of the state, just as its a reason for
creation of the family or community), and 'how we think we think' is
highly conditioned by the *institutionalized* structures which separate
data/ inputs from decision/ outputs.
In information-space, such structures are absent. But we not only *can
learn to think without a 'given' framework; we do it all the time -- in
communication. Do you and I 'sort out who is who' before we speak? Do we
demand some symbol of trust before we reply? No, these are simply aspects
of 'getting along' which emerge from the creative process of mutual
understanding.
Certainly some have concluded that we must impose an 'administrative'
structure from 'outside,' (censorship or hierarchy or authority) but I'm
convinced this is a short-sighted and wasteful approach that derives
entirely from a faith that all 'real' problems have been solved, all
thoughts have been thunk. What passes for civilization then does not
address any *human reality, but is only a collection of salted-down,
'ordered' issues -- dont ask if the cream is sour, but check the 'expiry'
date. Don't even pour it out, but dump the carton in the trash. Dont
think about it; use soy substitutes that last forever!
I'm going on too long, but to see this happening to communication itself,
as if it has been determined that people have nothing to learn from one
another around the world is frightening -- not because some Octopus or
Illuminati is setting it up that way, but because we who could be
learning appear to prefer their already having done so!
(Jon Katz wrote a nice piece the other day ('Luring the Lurkers') but
failed to see that the vocal minority who fill this space are as
*responsible for large numbers of folks never saying anything as the
lurkers who might wish for a more open and congenial atmosphere are for
surrendering it to the ranters. That is, *both* groups are stuck in the
authoritarian mindset. Interesting too is that many listservers no longer
report how many subscribers are on a list, so even the 'friendly
hardware' is rigged to support a top-down diktat of 'what users really
want.')
============
{ [Plug: The development of the net and changing patterns of governance:
a
{ study of the relationship between the state and the Internet (RGS-IBG,
{ Leicester, UK: January 1999).... (I hope to put it up on a website
soon).]
I'd like to see it - and I have webspace at
www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/intro.htm
if you wish .
kerry
P.S. Are you familiar with Paolo Freire's writing?
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #240
******************************
