Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 417
Netizens-Digest Thursday, February 20 2003 Volume 01 : Number 417
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re[2]: [netz] Back to internet
Re[2]: [netz] Back to internet
Re[3]: [netz] Back to internet
Re[3]: [netz] Back to internet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:33:58 +0100
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Back to internet
Yes,
we are living in globalized world and meaning of all terms is
beginning to dissolve as it seems. Once I read that back then in
1920's everyone understand what democracy meant and the meaning was
common. Not today though.
OK, to the point:
Democracy - liberal democracy of western type
HCB> One of the beginning points is how you define "internet".
"internet" - interconnected networks of networks, I am not really
interested in going to details on internet architecture. But of course
I mean how World Wide Web and Email influence democratization. I could
also talk explicitly about Instant Messengers as ICQ, AOL IM, but I
take them as part of the web. IRC, too.
HCB> [1] While people often refer to TCP/IP, IP or the "Internet Protocol
HCB> Stack" or "Internet Architecture" is more correct. TCP is not used
HCB> in all IP-based applications.
But in most of them and I am afraid political scientists here doesn't
understand either term, so I concluded that using "TCP/IP" is fine.
HCB> Now, where does something like a totalitarian country's network, that
HCB> controls at least connectivity outside the country, fit here? If
HCB> public Internet access is heavily controlled, is it closer to an
HCB> extranet?
Good question, but I think it could be still treated as being a part
of internet since almost every country with some computer network
existing is connected to the internet.
HCB> A couple of things might confound your model. In the electronic age,
HCB> Japan historically has been an early adopter of networking, in part
HCB> because computers and computer networks are much more friendly to
HCB> their system of writing (Kanji and Hiragana). This is also an
HCB> attraction for China, at least for internal use.
I don't think that early adaption of technology itself is going to
change something when analyzing political system. Why do you think
this can confound my model?
HCB> There may also be a variable for network entry* due to a lack of
HCB> older telephony infrastructure. Many Eastern European countries are
HCB> going directly to cellular phones rather than wiring houses (other
HCB> than with broadband), since it's cheaper and faster to implement. As
Hm, from what I know I can say that you are right - cellular phones
penetration is quite high since the technology is cheap and almost
everybody started to get their mobile phones when pre-paid cards came on
the market. But still mobiles are expensive in comparison with States
or even Germany and nobody I know is using their mobile phone to
connect to internet. Broadband is still future (although near), you
can find some people having cable internet access (mainly in Czech
Rep.), DSL lines are planned but future and Wireless LANs have been
active for past year. From what it seems I can tell you that most of
the people will probably go wireless (811.2b - 2,4 GHz), but not
through mobiles. So, mobile internet is really scarce here in Central
Europe. Estonia is the only country that heavily invested and
encouraged its citizens to use internet. Nowadays they are in process
of changing their ID cards for new IDs with chip in it.
HCB> Is there an example of a totalitarian government that allows
HCB> unrestricted Internet access? Would that not be a prerequisite to
HCB> saying that the (upper case) Internet can affect democratization?
Of course not, but e.g. Singapore has been encouraging citizens to use
internet although they filter and censor many things. And I don't
think you can say Singapore is democratic regime.
HCB> India has relatively widespread and open Internet access, but to
HCB> those who can afford it. They do face the problem of over 100
HCB> internal languages, although most educated Indians are fluent in
HCB> English. It might be close to the Japan end of the spectrum.
This is the problem of digital divide and could be prevented by
investing into public internet access as libraries or so.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- see ya somewhere in the time -*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:25:29 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Back to internet
>Yes,
>
>we are living in globalized world and meaning of all terms is
>beginning to dissolve as it seems. Once I read that back then in
>1920's everyone understand what democracy meant and the meaning was
>common. Not today though.
>
>OK, to the point:
>Democracy - liberal democracy of western type
:-) At least in the US, you'd have major confusion over "liberal".
Ironically, Bentham's classic liberalism would probably be
interpreted by many as a form of conservatism. In general, the social
democratic model common to Europe is often considered equivalent to
socialism -- yes, I know they are different, but it might be nice to
have a definition of democracy that is consistent with both North
American and European usage.
>
>HCB> One of the beginning points is how you define "internet".
>"internet" - interconnected networks of networks, I am not really
>interested in going to details on internet architecture. But of course
>I mean how World Wide Web and Email influence democratization. I could
>also talk explicitly about Instant Messengers as ICQ, AOL IM, but I
>take them as part of the web. IRC, too.
IRC preceded the Web. Some of the messenger systems are front-ends
to IRC, while others are specifically written code.
Especially when you are talking about educating populations and
increasing communications generally, I think it's a dangerous policy
oversimplification to equate the Web or email (the two being quite
separate; email existing decades before the web) to the Internet. In
particular, this excludes the increasing "converged networks"
approach where a single network connection can provide telephony,
video, data connections, facsimile, etc.
>
>HCB> [1] While people often refer to TCP/IP, IP or the "Internet Protocol
>HCB> Stack" or "Internet Architecture" is more correct. TCP is not used
>HCB> in all IP-based applications.
>But in most of them and I am afraid political scientists here doesn't
>understand either term, so I concluded that using "TCP/IP" is fine.
But wouldn't they recognize IP as part of "TCP/IP", without knowing
what either one of them are?
>
>HCB> Now, where does something like a totalitarian country's network, that
>HCB> controls at least connectivity outside the country, fit here? If
>HCB> public Internet access is heavily controlled, is it closer to an
>HCB> extranet?
>Good question, but I think it could be still treated as being a part
>of internet since almost every country with some computer network
>existing is connected to the internet.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Yes, there will be some
networks connected to the public Internet. But there will also be
networks that are not and should not be connected to the public
Internet, such as critical infrastructure such as utility control,
financial transactions, etc.
There is a very significant point, often missed, that "internet"
technology has huge applicability to networking other than the public
Internet. In my writings, I tend to use the term "IP Service
Provider" rather than "Internet Service Provider," because many
intranets and extranets may share physical facilities with public
Internet communications, but are logically quite separate. These
separate networks have major economic impact.
>
>HCB> A couple of things might confound your model. In the electronic age,
>HCB> Japan historically has been an early adopter of networking, in part
>HCB> because computers and computer networks are much more friendly to
>HCB> their system of writing (Kanji and Hiragana). This is also an
>HCB> attraction for China, at least for internal use.
>I don't think that early adaption of technology itself is going to
>change something when analyzing political system. Why do you think
>this can confound my model?
In the US, the introduction of television, quite early, had major
effects on the political process. At first, the effect was
admirable, bringing the witch-hunts of Senator Joe McCarthy to an
end. It's now a mixed blessing, since many politicians define their
message in "sound bites."
The point is that the faster a technology is introduced, the faster
it can be used for political communications [1]. If, for example,
the PRC doesn't want political traffic flowing, but they do want
cheap telephony, there's a real challenge.
[1] I'm not being facetious when I say that a fair test to identify when
a communications or information technology has left the research phase
is when it is used to transmit pornography to people outside the
research community.
>
>HCB> There may also be a variable for network entry* due to a lack of
>HCB> older telephony infrastructure. Many Eastern European countries are
>HCB> going directly to cellular phones rather than wiring houses (other
>HCB> than with broadband), since it's cheaper and faster to implement. As
>Hm, from what I know I can say that you are right - cellular phones
>penetration is quite high since the technology is cheap and almost
>everybody started to get their mobile phones when pre-paid cards came on
>the market. But still mobiles are expensive in comparison with States
>or even Germany and nobody I know is using their mobile phone to
>connect to internet.
Some are, but it's certainly not attractive -- unless you have a
special requirement or there is no alternative. 3G wireless is much
more appropriate for data, and can approach the lower DSL rates.
>Broadband is still future (although near), you
>can find some people having cable internet access (mainly in Czech
>Rep.), DSL lines are planned
I'm a little surprised by this. One of the major economic drivers of
DSL is that it can reuse existing telephone lines for low-end
broadband. That's not as simple as it looks, because older telephone
lines either can't carry DSL or have to be modified to get any
practical range. If you need to do new underground digs, it's more
economical to install fiber.
>but future and Wireless LANs have been
>active for past year. From what it seems I can tell you that most of
>the people will probably go wireless (811.2b - 2,4 GHz), but not
>through mobiles. So, mobile internet is really scarce here in Central
>Europe.
You may want to distinguish between personal/individual use of IP
services and use by commercial, educational, and government
institution. I'm personally somewhat dubious about general Internet
services on small mobile devices, simply because the screen and
keyboard is too small for most applications. Now, a
transaction-based system such as requesting the closest Thai
restaurant to your position, or directions to your destination, make
sense when the mobile IP is being used to transfer files or
responses. Of course, many of these applications need to be GPS
enabled, but GPS is getting down to the commodity chip level.
>Estonia is the only country that heavily invested and
>encouraged its citizens to use internet. Nowadays they are in process
>of changing their ID cards for new IDs with chip in it.
>
>HCB> Is there an example of a totalitarian government that allows
>HCB> unrestricted Internet access? Would that not be a prerequisite to
>HCB> saying that the (upper case) Internet can affect democratization?
>Of course not, but e.g. Singapore has been encouraging citizens to use
>internet although they filter and censor many things. And I don't
>think you can say Singapore is democratic regime.
Is it democratic in the sense of the government, in terms of
individual liberties, or what? Certainly, there is a high standard
of living.
>
>HCB> India has relatively widespread and open Internet access, but to
>HCB> those who can afford it. They do face the problem of over 100
>HCB> internal languages, although most educated Indians are fluent in
>HCB> English. It might be close to the Japan end of the spectrum.
>This is the problem of digital divide and could be prevented by
>investing into public internet access as libraries or so.
In the more impoverished areas, there are no libraries, and there can
be low literacy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:32:18 +0100
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[3]: [netz] Back to internet
HCB> democratic model common to Europe is often considered equivalent to
HCB> socialism -- yes, I know they are different, but it might be nice to
HCB> have a definition of democracy that is consistent with both North
HCB> American and European usage.
I haven't meant "liberal democracy of western type" as economical
statement. It is totally economic clean statement. So it doesn't have
anything to do with leftist, centrist or rightist type of economy. It
has more to do with accepting civic rights and liberties. But anyway,
that was a good point, so I can improve my definition in economical
sense, too.
HCB> IRC preceded the Web. Some of the messenger systems are front-ends
HCB> to IRC, while others are specifically written code.
I know.
HCB> increasing communications generally, I think it's a dangerous policy
HCB> oversimplification to equate the Web or email (the two being quite
HCB> separate; email existing decades before the web) to the Internet. In
However, Web and email are two most used services on the internet
today. So, I don't take this as oversimplification, just narrowing
spectrum of research.
I don't agree with single network approach as you have described it. I
think that there are clear differences between "new" and old media.
Latter are not interactive, even if there were some experiments with
interactive television etc.
HCB> But wouldn't they recognize IP as part of "TCP/IP", without knowing
HCB> what either one of them are?
So do you think I should have rather used the term "internet
architecture"?
HCB> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Yes, there will be some
HCB> networks connected to the public Internet. But there will also be
HCB> networks that are not and should not be connected to the public
HCB> Internet, such as critical infrastructure such as utility control,
HCB> financial transactions, etc.
Of course, but again, this is too wide to take in question. So, I just
talk about public networks at least to some extent. Cuba is good
example of this - it has created health network for hospitals. This is
a kind of public network, even if used by doctors only. It's eve
connected to foreign sources...
HCB> The point is that the faster a technology is introduced, the faster
HCB> it can be used for political communications [1]. If, for example,
HCB> the PRC doesn't want political traffic flowing, but they do want
HCB> cheap telephony, there's a real challenge.
Yup, but still I don't understand how introduction of stand-alone
computers (not networked in any way) for improving typing difficulties
(special sings/character sets) could confound my model. This was just
a pragmatic thing to do, not neccessarily to influence
participation/democratization in any way.
HCB> Some are, but it's certainly not attractive -- unless you have a
HCB> special requirement or there is no alternative. 3G wireless is much
HCB> more appropriate for data, and can approach the lower DSL rates.
Yes, 3G are certainly "trendy", but still are somewhere in near future
(to say, 1 to 3 years)
HCB> I'm a little surprised by this. One of the major economic drivers of
HCB> DSL is that it can reuse existing telephone lines for low-end
HCB> broadband. That's not as simple as it looks, because older telephone
HCB> lines either can't carry DSL or have to be modified to get any
HCB> practical range. If you need to do new underground digs, it's more
HCB> economical to install fiber.
Actually, this is not problem. In 90's digitalization took place in
most countries of Central & Eastern Europe, countries in Visegrad's Four
(CZ,SK,HU,PL) are now fully digitalized, even small villages are going
to be put on optical cables/digital lines up to end of this year.
The main problem is formerly state-owned telecommunication monopoly in
all these countries. Even, it got privatized a few years ago, state
guarantees it monopoly and because we have that fucking former-communist
president here, they still doesn't have to guarantee same access to
last mile for everyone. So, it could take additional 2 or 3 years ot
have clearly demonopolized telecommunication sector in Slovakia (other
countries, too).
HCB> restaurant to your position, or directions to your destination, make
HCB> sense when the mobile IP is being used to transfer files or
HCB> responses. Of course, many of these applications need to be GPS
HCB> enabled, but GPS is getting down to the commodity chip level.
Mobile localization is being done here not via GPS but through GSM
stations/bases, in big towns mobile operators have enough bases to
localize you on a square grid with approximate position of about 150 -
500 metres.
HCB> Is it democratic in the sense of the government, in terms of
HCB> individual liberties, or what? Certainly, there is a high standard
HCB> of living.
High standard of living doesn't mean democracy, there is correlation
between GDP and standard of living and democracy, but Singapore has
crucial problems with civic liberties. Censorship of news is
widespread here.
>>This is the problem of digital divide and could be prevented by
>>investing into public internet access as libraries or so.
HCB> In the more impoverished areas, there are no libraries, and there can
HCB> be low literacy.
You are right, then all the country can do is to hire specialist to
provide on-site tutorials and help for visitors/clients. Literacy is
severe problem, but literacy scores are rather good in China and
Mexico and this is not problem of Europe or Japan.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:14:20 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re[3]: [netz] Back to internet
>HCB> democratic model common to Europe is often considered equivalent to
>HCB> socialism -- yes, I know they are different, but it might be nice to
>HCB> have a definition of democracy that is consistent with both North
>HCB> American and European usage.
>
>I haven't meant "liberal democracy of western type" as economical
>statement. It is totally economic clean statement. So it doesn't have
>anything to do with leftist, centrist or rightist type of economy. It
>has more to do with accepting civic rights and liberties. But anyway,
>that was a good point, so I can improve my definition in economical
>sense, too.
>
>HCB> IRC preceded the Web. Some of the messenger systems are front-ends
>HCB> to IRC, while others are specifically written code.
>I know.
>
>HCB> increasing communications generally, I think it's a dangerous policy
>HCB> oversimplification to equate the Web or email (the two being quite
>HCB> separate; email existing decades before the web) to the Internet. In
>However, Web and email are two most used services on the internet
>today. So, I don't take this as oversimplification, just narrowing
>spectrum of research.
Again, it depends on how you define "Internet", if these are
considered the top services. Also, it depends on how you define
"most used services" -- amount of bandwidth/resource use? Number of
end users?
>
>I don't agree with single network approach as you have described it. I
>think that there are clear differences between "new" and old media.
>Latter are not interactive, even if there were some experiments with
>interactive television etc.
Even the "old" media of FTP and other file transfer are extremely
important among academic and research users. That's significant in
developing countries, because such users' organizations are apt to be
the first that get Internet connectivity. Medical applications
increasingly use streaming video, and that, indeed, is a profitable
technique for pornography.
IP telephony is growing dramatically, especially in the corporate
market, and it's relatively easy to add video and fax services. The
relevance of this on a political basis is that IP telephony, in
general, significantly lowers both the capital and operational cost
of telephony. Incidentally, IP telephony still can use existing
analog telephones, but massively increase the capacity and
flexibility of the telephone networks.
Another major aspect of this is usually called computer-telephony
integration, where web and voice services are used together,
especially in large call centers. While you may not see it as a
customer, if you call a large credit card company or the like, the
telephone call is apt to come up on the same workstation as has an
internal web (or custom software) display of your account.
There are political/economic barriers. For example, there's no
technical reason why I couldn't call into my corporate telephony
system in the US, travel by IP telephony to a corporate office in
Mexico City, and either talk to someone in my local office there, or
use my facilities to make an outgoing local Mexico City call.
While both are technically very similar, the Mexican government (when
last I looked) would shut down your links for doing #2, because it
avoided their USD $0.35/minute surcharge on international telephone
calls.
>
>HCB> But wouldn't they recognize IP as part of "TCP/IP", without knowing
>HCB> what either one of them are?
>So do you think I should have rather used the term "internet
>architecture"?
Yes. It would be accurate. For your audience, you might say
"internet technical architecture."
>
>HCB> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Yes, there will be some
>HCB> networks connected to the public Internet. But there will also be
>HCB> networks that are not and should not be connected to the public
>HCB> Internet, such as critical infrastructure such as utility control,
>HCB> financial transactions, etc.
>Of course, but again, this is too wide to take in question. So, I just
>talk about public networks at least to some extent. Cuba is good
>example of this - it has created health network for hospitals. This is
>a kind of public network, even if used by doctors only. It's eve
>connected to foreign sources...
I strongly disagree. Health networks can and should have stringent
security requirements. The traffic may go over the public Internet,
but it should be and usually is encrypted. There is security
verification of people that want to log in to the medical servers,
even if the connectivity is over the public Internet. This is
technically an extranet mapped onto the Internet, and it's an
important difference from a public policy standpoint. Consider,
variously, the US HIPAA health information legislation, as well as
the EC transborder data flow restrictions on personal data.
>
>HCB> The point is that the faster a technology is introduced, the faster
>HCB> it can be used for political communications [1]. If, for example,
>HCB> the PRC doesn't want political traffic flowing, but they do want
>HCB> cheap telephony, there's a real challenge.
>Yup, but still I don't understand how introduction of stand-alone
>computers (not networked in any way) for improving typing difficulties
>(special sings/character sets) could confound my model. This was just
>a pragmatic thing to do, not neccessarily to influence
>participation/democratization in any way.
I'm confused. I am talking about networked computers, but perhaps
using ideographic character sets rather than ASCII/ISO text. In
other words, someone in Shanghai can send a potentially political (or
economical) email to someone in Hong Kong, without needing to go
outside their native language.
>
>HCB> Some are, but it's certainly not attractive -- unless you have a
>HCB> special requirement or there is no alternative. 3G wireless is much
>HCB> more appropriate for data, and can approach the lower DSL rates.
>Yes, 3G are certainly "trendy", but still are somewhere in near future
>(to say, 1 to 3 years)
It would help if you define the time frame you have in mind for the
study. I can't see political change, on a significant basis, taking
place in less than several yearss.
>
>HCB> I'm a little surprised by this. One of the major economic drivers of
>HCB> DSL is that it can reuse existing telephone lines for low-end
>HCB> broadband. That's not as simple as it looks, because older telephone
>HCB> lines either can't carry DSL or have to be modified to get any
>HCB> practical range. If you need to do new underground digs, it's more
>HCB> economical to install fiber.
>Actually, this is not problem. In 90's digitalization took place in
>most countries of Central & Eastern Europe, countries in Visegrad's Four
>(CZ,SK,HU,PL) are now fully digitalized, even small villages are going
>to be put on optical cables/digital lines up to end of this year.
>
>The main problem is formerly state-owned telecommunication monopoly in
>all these countries. Even, it got privatized a few years ago, state
>guarantees it monopoly and because we have that fucking former-communist
>president here, they still doesn't have to guarantee same access to
>last mile for everyone. So, it could take additional 2 or 3 years ot
>have clearly demonopolized telecommunication sector in Slovakia (other
>countries, too).
>
>HCB> restaurant to your position, or directions to your destination, make
>HCB> sense when the mobile IP is being used to transfer files or
>HCB> responses. Of course, many of these applications need to be GPS
>HCB> enabled, but GPS is getting down to the commodity chip level.
>Mobile localization is being done here not via GPS but through GSM
>stations/bases, in big towns mobile operators have enough bases to
>localize you on a square grid with approximate position of about 150 -
>500 metres.
Where in almost any area, GPS can localize you to 10-30 meters, and
works worldwide. From everything I see in product development, GPS
is considered a cheaper and more universal method.
>
>HCB> Is it democratic in the sense of the government, in terms of
>HCB> individual liberties, or what? Certainly, there is a high standard
>HCB> of living.
>High standard of living doesn't mean democracy, there is correlation
>between GDP and standard of living and democracy, but Singapore has
>crucial problems with civic liberties. Censorship of news is
>widespread here.
>
>>>This is the problem of digital divide and could be prevented by
>>>investing into public internet access as libraries or so.
>HCB> In the more impoverished areas, there are no libraries, and there can
>HCB> be low literacy.
>You are right, then all the country can do is to hire specialist to
>provide on-site tutorials and help for visitors/clients. Literacy is
>severe problem, but literacy scores are rather good in China and
>Mexico and this is not problem of Europe or Japan.
You might, then, want to normalize your study countries to roughly
similar economics and literacy. By literacy, the reality is that
English literacy is needed for worldwide political access, although I
agree the vernacular is adequate within specific countries. Even
there, a country (e.g., India) may have hundreds of vernaculars.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #417
******************************
