Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 470
Netizens-Digest Monday, April 7 2003 Volume 01 : Number 470
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Re: [netz] Question about the list
Re: [netz] censorship
[netz] netizens rights and responsibilities
Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
[netz] censhorship? moderation!
Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Re: [netz] netizens rights and responsibilities
Re: [netz] censhorship? moderation!
[netz] privatization
Re[2]: [netz] censorship
Re: [netz] netizens rights and responsibilities
Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:17:00 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Hello Alex: I interpret those rights to be freedom to postings and the
right to reply to any postings, to ask questions, etc. We fight to keep
the internet free from privatization and are against government
sponsoring that privatization.
I invite you to e-mail Ronda and Jay Hauben for a better educated
definition of netizens rights. You are free to communicate with them
through the list and through their own e-mail addresses which I'm sure
they will provide you with should the need arise for you to correspond
with them in private.
Take care and welcome aboard.
Luis de Quesada
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Luis De Quesada wrote:
> > netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list
> > by some.
>
> Hi Luis. Is there a current thinking on this list about what are the
> netizens rights (I mean other than the rights to post here). Can you
> summarize those rights in a short list for me to read?
>
> Alex
> GBU
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:56:57 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu<petrescu@nal.motlabs.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> Right now, there seem to be under 10 people involved in active
> discussion. Could someone tell me how many subscribers the list
> has?
Yes, there are about 73 subscribers.
The list of subscribers is available through standard mail list
management commands. It's supposedly a mailman.
Alex
GBU
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:38:33 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] censorship
Mark: I will be happy to "hash this out face to face" and I also do not mean
getting physical. God forbid, I am not a violent person and reading Gandhi has
made me reject and abhor all violence. That's why I preferred a diplomatic
solution to the present conflict rather than war, even though I realize my
expectations unfortunately were not realistic.
I am glad that you regard Ronda as a professional colleague. Jay and I worked
together for a number of years at the Health Sciences Library at Columbia
University, where we fought together to make our union free from corruption.
That's when our friendship started, through him I later met Ronda and their son
Michael. I have been their friend for a number of years and I hope they value my
friendship, as much as I value theirs and I think they do. I try to be as helpful
to them as possible during these times of suffering and tribulations for them and
they are also helpful and have found time to also cheer me up in my troubles. They
have restored my faith in humanity and thanks to them I've come to know and
participate in netizens.
Luis
lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> Luis,
>
> Conceivably sometime when I am in NYC we could hash this out face to face (and
> no, I don't mean "step outside").
>
> Ronda is a professional colleague, and I hope that she is blessed in your
> friendship.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:58:40 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] netizens rights and responsibilities
>Luis De Quesada wrote:
>>netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list by some.
>
>Hi Luis. Is there a current thinking on this list about what are the
>netizens rights (I mean other than the rights to post here). Can you
>summarize those rights in a short list for me to read?
>
>Alex
>GBU
I assume it's not controversial that rights don't exist in a vacuum;
with rights come responsibilies. I'd also like to see a list of
responsibilities for Netizens.
Assuming that a Netizen uses the Internet (if not, than what
differentiates Netizens from citizens), it would seem that one of the
most basic responsibilities is contributing to the reliability and
ability to grow of the Internet.
Since some of that is necessarily technical, it would seem useful for
someone _nontechnical_ to address those points. It _may_ be that some
of the technical realities are not being considered by all, and, if
so, education on those points may be useful.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:01:48 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
>Hello Alex: I interpret those rights to be freedom to postings and the
>right to reply to any postings, to ask questions, etc. We fight to keep
>the internet free from privatization and are against government
>sponsoring that privatization.
Luis,
For clarification, assume that the net is not privatized. In that
case, who funds and operates it?
How can any funding organization be kept from affecting content,
including content (i.e., hacking) that is physically destructive to
operations?
To put myself on record, I am not at all opposed to responsible
privatization of network infrastructure. I do believe that we need to
improve Internet governance and dispute resolution.
>I invite you to e-mail Ronda and Jay Hauben for a better educated
>definition of netizens rights. You are free to communicate with them
>through the list and through their own e-mail addresses which I'm sure
>they will provide you with should the need arise for you to correspond
>with them in private.
>Take care and welcome aboard.
>Luis de Quesada
>
>Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
>> Luis De Quesada wrote:
>> > netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list
>> > by some.
>>
>> Hi Luis. Is there a current thinking on this list about what are the
>> netizens rights (I mean other than the rights to post here). Can you
>> summarize those rights in a short list for me to read?
>>
>> Alex
>> GBU
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:40:42 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] censhorship? moderation!
In response to Luis's statement and also messages before it I
should strongly disagree that there is any effort to censor this list.
>From what I see here, this list became too active, what was the thing
I had wished it to become. However, as I read through daily load of
messages, I am somehow becoming lost.
When I had subscribed I thought this list was about internet and
internet-related affairs. However I am very sad it's becoming full of
flame-wars, although at much more intelligent level than in other
forums.
Actually, for past few days I learned nothing new and I am very sad to
repeat it, but I am thinking about unsubscribing from this list as it
becomes full of word ballast. These lines just add a part to it.
Everybody is trying to post their views, but they are soon lost in
general cacophony.
Nobody asks for censorship here, but what I ask for is moderation. Owner
of the list is responsible to keep the list around its topic rather than
absolutely OFF TOPIC and that's what was happening in past days. I
don't think that any war coincide in scope of Netizens list.
Personally, I am not against off topic turning up scarcely, but this
has become a very incomprehensible thread.
I guess that if this general cacophony continues to appear I'll leave.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- if you save the world too often, it begins to expect it -*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:07:30 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Howard: I am opposed to the privatization of the internet. Corporations have
a way to grabbing what does not belong to them and then once they grab it
charging for it of course. I don't trust them and they are not doing too well
lately, with all these layoffs, inflation, etc. Look at what happened to
television with the cable outfits. Sure cable improved reception but now in
areas like NYC if you don't have at least $60 per month to fork over to Time
Life and the likes of them, its rabbit ears and lousy reception or don't
watch TV at all. The internet is almost half way there anyway. As far as
funding is concerned, perhaps you can enlighten me about what's happening
right now and how did we get this far without the funding you suggest.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Alex: I interpret those rights to be freedom to postings and the
> >right to reply to any postings, to ask questions, etc. We fight to keep
> >the internet free from privatization and are against government
> >sponsoring that privatization.
>
> Luis,
>
> For clarification, assume that the net is not privatized. In that
> case, who funds and operates it?
>
> How can any funding organization be kept from affecting content,
> including content (i.e., hacking) that is physically destructive to
> operations?
>
> To put myself on record, I am not at all opposed to responsible
> privatization of network infrastructure. I do believe that we need to
> improve Internet governance and dispute resolution.
>
> >I invite you to e-mail Ronda and Jay Hauben for a better educated
> >definition of netizens rights. You are free to communicate with them
> >through the list and through their own e-mail addresses which I'm sure
> >they will provide you with should the need arise for you to correspond
> >with them in private.
> >Take care and welcome aboard.
> >Luis de Quesada
> >
> >Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> >
> >> Luis De Quesada wrote:
> >> > netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list
> >> > by some.
> >>
> >> Hi Luis. Is there a current thinking on this list about what are the
> >> netizens rights (I mean other than the rights to post here). Can you
> >> summarize those rights in a short list for me to read?
> >>
> >> Alex
> >> GBU
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:17:30 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] netizens rights and responsibilities
Hello: Rights carry responsibilities, yes they do. Although I hate the notion
that rights have to come with a price tag set by someone, I will give you rights
but then this is what you owe me, etc. That's what oligarchies do, both corporate
and governmental It seems patronizing to me. As far as a list of responsibilites
for netizens, I think the first responsibility of a netizen is to ensure that his
means of communication his list remains a vehicle for freedom of expression. As
far as other responsibilities, I think the owners of this list and Michael's book
can explain that better than I do.
Luis
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Luis De Quesada wrote:
> >>netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list by some.
> >
> >Hi Luis. Is there a current thinking on this list about what are the
> >netizens rights (I mean other than the rights to post here). Can you
> >summarize those rights in a short list for me to read?
> >
> >Alex
> >GBU
>
> I assume it's not controversial that rights don't exist in a vacuum;
> with rights come responsibilies. I'd also like to see a list of
> responsibilities for Netizens.
>
> Assuming that a Netizen uses the Internet (if not, than what
> differentiates Netizens from citizens), it would seem that one of the
> most basic responsibilities is contributing to the reliability and
> ability to grow of the Internet.
>
> Since some of that is necessarily technical, it would seem useful for
> someone _nontechnical_ to address those points. It _may_ be that some
> of the technical realities are not being considered by all, and, if
> so, education on those points may be useful.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:27:00 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] censhorship? moderation!
Hello: You ask for moderation? What about your tirades against totalitarian
regimes?
Which by the way, I agree with. But are they on topic or aren't they a
little off topic?
Do we ask for moderation there too? And now the good old threat, "if this
cacophony continues I'll leave". What you do is your business, your
decision. I am fighting for my rights to post. I will not stop posting, just
because someone makes threats to leave, bottom line I don't bow to bullies
or terrorism or threats of any kind.
Luis de Quesada
Dan Duris wrote:
> In response to Luis's statement and also messages before it I
> should strongly disagree that there is any effort to censor this list.
>
> >From what I see here, this list became too active, what was the thing
> I had wished it to become. However, as I read through daily load of
> messages, I am somehow becoming lost.
>
> When I had subscribed I thought this list was about internet and
> internet-related affairs. However I am very sad it's becoming full of
> flame-wars, although at much more intelligent level than in other
> forums.
>
> Actually, for past few days I learned nothing new and I am very sad to
> repeat it, but I am thinking about unsubscribing from this list as it
> becomes full of word ballast. These lines just add a part to it.
>
> Everybody is trying to post their views, but they are soon lost in
> general cacophony.
>
> Nobody asks for censorship here, but what I ask for is moderation. Owner
> of the list is responsible to keep the list around its topic rather than
> absolutely OFF TOPIC and that's what was happening in past days. I
> don't think that any war coincide in scope of Netizens list.
> Personally, I am not against off topic turning up scarcely, but this
> has become a very incomprehensible thread.
>
> I guess that if this general cacophony continues to appear I'll leave.
>
> dan
> --------------------------
> email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
> ICQ: 17932727
>
> *- if you save the world too often, it begins to expect it -*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:10:37 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] privatization
LDQ> right to reply to any postings, to ask questions, etc. We fight to keep
LDQ> the internet free from privatization and are against government
LDQ> sponsoring that privatization.
Who is "we"? I am not part of your "we".
Internet has to be privatized in order to raise enough money to fund
infrastructure, research etc.
That's the basic law of economy. You can't change this by your
statements.
PS Nobody said you can't raise enough money to privatize some parts of
it. There are many publicly owned companies around. Actually,
almost all of big companies are owned by number of small stock
holders and then there are also two or three big ones...
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- information sharing, not barring -*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:53:24 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] censorship
LDQ> long time fighter for democracy I know censorship and attempts to censor when I see
LDQ> it. Its the attempt to prevent anyone from writing or posting his opinions, because
LDQ> they do not agree with the opinions of someone else. For example if I post asking
This is not about censorship, but about being OFF TOPIC! Netizens
should concern thing around Internet, that includes technical
structure, architecture etc., not war on Iraq. Is it so difficult to
understand that sending messages about war in Iraq to flowers growers
list is totally OFF TOPIC? Same thing happens here.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- "sometimes world is like an ink, bitter & black" petra n. -*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:55:57 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] netizens rights and responsibilities
>Hello: Rights carry responsibilities, yes they do. Although I hate the notion
>that rights have to come with a price tag set by someone,
Why? Seriously.
>I will give you rights
>but then this is what you owe me, etc. That's what oligarchies do,
>both corporate
>and governmental It seems patronizing to me.
But if there is an economic cost associated with providing the means
of exercising the righ, who pays for it?
>As far as a list of responsibilites
>for netizens, I think the first responsibility of a netizen is to
>ensure that his
>means of communication his list remains a vehicle for freedom of expression.
I would argue the first responsibility is to have a network on which
the list can operate. With no physical Internet, there cannot be
lists. The physical facilities involved in building and operating the
Internet are expensive.
Again, how is this funded?
>As
>far as other responsibilities, I think the owners of this list and
>Michael's book
>can explain that better than I do.
>Luis
>
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
>> >Luis De Quesada wrote:
>> >>netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the
>>list by some.
>> >
>> >Hi Luis. Is there a current thinking on this list about what are the
>> >netizens rights (I mean other than the rights to post here). Can you
>> >summarize those rights in a short list for me to read?
>> >
>> >Alex
>> >GBU
>>
>> I assume it's not controversial that rights don't exist in a vacuum;
>> with rights come responsibilies. I'd also like to see a list of
>> responsibilities for Netizens.
>>
>> Assuming that a Netizen uses the Internet (if not, than what
>> differentiates Netizens from citizens), it would seem that one of the
>> most basic responsibilities is contributing to the reliability and
>> ability to grow of the Internet.
>>
>> Since some of that is necessarily technical, it would seem useful for
>> someone _nontechnical_ to address those points. It _may_ be that some
>> of the technical realities are not being considered by all, and, if
>> so, education on those points may be useful.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:53:23 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
>Howard: I am opposed to the privatization of the internet. Corporations have
>a way to grabbing what does not belong to them and then once they grab it
>charging for it of course. I don't trust them and they are not doing too well
>lately, with all these layoffs, inflation, etc. Look at what happened to
>television with the cable outfits. Sure cable improved reception but now in
>areas like NYC if you don't have at least $60 per month to fork over to Time
>Life and the likes of them, its rabbit ears and lousy reception or don't
>watch TV at all. The internet is almost half way there anyway. As far as
>funding is concerned, perhaps you can enlighten me about what's happening
>right now and how did we get this far without the funding you suggest.
>Luis
Luis,
To be able to discuss this meaningfully, we will need to agree on
some definitions. I'm a little confused by what you mean by
privatization, as if that's an event in the future. Let me explain.
In the US, with the exception of some non-public research networks
(e.g., ABILENE), all Internet services, once you get outside a
government or academic campus, are operated by private companies. To
me, that says the physical Internet already is privatized. ISPs are
private.
So when you say you are against privatization, it's already happened.
Are you concerned about monopolistic practices rather than literal
privatization? Or are your concerns in some other area? Internet
governance, security, response to attacks, address and name
assigment, perhaps?
The most expensive part of the Internet (and, indeed, telephone and
video services) is the physical connection to the end user -- think
of the copper pairs that come into your home, and over which your
telephone calls run. Since these pairs have to be installed
individually, their installation is labor intensive.
Closely associated with this per-customer expense is the expense of
what loosely can be called the "last mile". There are actually
several useful subdivisions of this, but think of it as the physical
wires, cables, fibers, or wireless frequencies that run through the
streets between the customer premises and the entry point to the
telecommunications access provider (i.e., phone company, cable TV
operator, etc.).
In Manhattan, digging trenches for new cable or even running it
through existing underground ducts is incredibly expensive and
time-consuming. There are clear disadvantages to every competitive
company digging its own trenches, so we have a "technical" or
"natural" monopoly in the last mile. Since these wires get damaged
and need maintenance, it's not feasible simply to rent them to any
willing carrier -- there needs to be a single organization that fixes
them when they break.
Some newer cities -- San Jose is a good example -- put in municipally
owned "dark fiber" whenever they build a new street or do major
street repairs, and then lease the fibers. There still is a single
organization that maintains the cables, but there may be government
ownership.
When you start getting into long-haul facilities between cities,
however, these are owned by private companies in North America, and,
indeed, much of the world. Most European government
telecommunications monopolies have been privatized, and the consumer
typically has more choices and lower prices than when there was a
government monopoly.
In the US, we've never had a government telecommunications monopoly.
The closest approximation was the role of AT&T between the Kingsbury
Compromise in 1913 and the Modified Final Judgement in 1975, but even
that was never a total monopoly.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #470
******************************
