Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 471
Netizens-Digest Monday, April 7 2003 Volume 01 : Number 471
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship
Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship
Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Re: [netz] Question about the list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:29:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship
Quoting Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>:
> 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.
Of course, we don't have any consensus on what counts as "off topic" -- and
that is a big part of our problem. Or perhaps I should put it more positively:
we seem to disagree on what is the purpose of the list, what we are trying to
accomplish together. Not what we have a right to post, but what we are trying
to achieve through our postings.
However, I earnestly desire that Luis should understand the distinction you are
make, even if he doesn't agree with your or my own view of what should be "off
topic," or rather what is "on topic" (since neither of us proposes narrowly to
enforce topicality). As my strident messages must have made obvious, I am very
unhappy to have attributed to me (as I assume) the role of trying to "prevent
anyone from writing or posting his opinions, because they do not agree with the
opinions of someone else." As I have stated on many occasions, Luis's views of
the war basically agree with mine -- and I myself have, for better or worse,
stated those views here. I do of course recognize that Luis's views disagree
with Howard's, but it is far from the case that I wish to suppress them for
that reason -- or for any other reason.
Luis, if we've really both been influenced by Gandhi, surely we can do better.
We both know that Gandhi's conception of violence wasn't limited to the
physical realm. Could you please try to understand my motives in some terms
other than trying to censor, suppress, repress, or discourage-from-posting you,
Ronda, Jay, or anyone else on the list? And if you likewise think that I
misunderstand your motives, I'm happy to undertake a similar venture.
_If_ we can't reach any agreement whatsoever on the purpose of the list, I
might as well leave. But I would rather leave without rancor. This is not a
terrorist threat, this is not (in my mind) bullying, it is a simple
acknowledgement that I have stolen time from my children today to no good
purpose, and I don't want to do it again tomorrow and the day after that.
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:05:46 +0000 (GMT)
From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
> Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >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. [...]
> 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? [...]
I have seen several complaints raised against privatization on this
list (and others, such as com-priv), such as:
* Why can't the Internet be like freenets (e.g. the Cleveland
freenet)?
* Why can't the Internet be regulated like AT&T used to be, so it is
guaranteed that Internet access can be made available to everyone,
and not just those in financially lucrative locations?
* Why can't the Internet be operated as a public utility (such as a
municipal water or power company)?
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:16:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> Quoting Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>:
>
> > 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
If Lou says that there is a problem that he sees with what is happening,
why not ask him what the problem is so that it can be understood, rather
than denying there is a problem.
> >
> > 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.
>
It's not exactly that netizens concern themselves with the Internet,
only, as Michael learned from the responses to his posts that people
sent him.
A number of people who wrote Michael described how the Internet had
helped them to do something off line. For example one person wrote
about how he was able to go to hear a concert in Berlin to celebrate
an early anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. He wouldn't
have known about the concert if not for the Internet.
Another person explained how the Internet had helped him deal with
being unemployed, another spoke about getting a job with help from
someone online.
Others spoke of how they were able to write an article in collaboration
because of the Net, another person, about how they were able to write
a poem.
The whole point is that Michael was looking at and asking his questions
about the social character of the Internet, about how the Internet
helped people with social problems. For example, on person spoke
of how he was able to inform people about price gouging at gas stations
because of the Internet.
Another spoke of going to a demonstration with lots of other people,
because of the Internet.
So I don't understand why suddenly there are social topics off limits
and the netizens list is being called on to focus on technical issues.
That was not its focus and isn't its focus. It is a list about the
social impact of the Internet and about the need to spread the Internet
to anyone who wants access.
Perhaps it would help if people on the list read "The Net and the Netizen:
The Impact the Net Has on People's Lives."
This year is the 10th anniversary of Michael posting this article online
and the article and the concept of netizen spread as a result of this
article.
It would seem appropriate for the Netizen list to look at this anniversary
and try to understand the significance of the article and of the concept
of netizen on the world.
> Of course, we don't have any consensus on what counts as "off topic" -- and
> that is a big part of our problem. Or perhaps I should put it more
> positively:
> we seem to disagree on what is the purpose of the list, what we
> are trying to
> accomplish together. Not what we have a right to post, but what
> we are trying
> to achieve through our postings.
>
This is more useful than saying something is "off topic".
To achieve this, however, a broad focus is needed, not denying posts
are useful for this purpose immediately, because they may be like
the editorial in the Times of India "Netizens Unite". I still
propose that that is something useful to understand the nature
of "netizen".
> _If_ we can't reach any agreement whatsoever on the purpose of the list, I
> might as well leave. But I would rather leave without rancor. This is not a
> terrorist threat, this is not (in my mind) bullying, it is a simple
> acknowledgement that I have stolen time from my children today to no good
> purpose, and I don't want to do it again tomorrow and the day after that.
Mark, then what would you hope would be the purpose of the list?
And others perhaps should answer the same question.
When Michael first created the list he asked people who joined to
introduce themselves. I don't remember if he asked people to say
why they joined the list, but I would like to ask that.
And perhaps we can add, if we have an idea of what to add, what Alex
asked about whether there is something worth reading to help determine
how to focus the list in a constructive direction.
A
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:26:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Greg good to see you back posting too.
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Greg Skinner wrote:
> > Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > >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. [...]
> > 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.
The domain name system, the root server system, the IP numbers and the
protocols make up the infrastructure of the Internet. These are not
yet "privatized" though there is the effort of the US government to
put these into private hands.
ICANN has been that effort and it is a very big failure.
Also, Greg, Usenet was known as a public network. Yet the machines
and the telephones were paid for and in someone's property.
But it was public in that no one had control over it.
And AT&T was a private company, but it was regulated to make sure
that it served a public purpose.
I am using my computer to do something public now, not something private.
I can't send an announcement out on NBC or ABC. They are private.
Also the Internet has been built with much public effort and contributions
and money.
The public contributions of many people ocntinue.
So it is a useful question about what does "public" mean or
"private." I think though it is a broader question than discussing
whether a particular company owns some particular router.
Perhaps comparing the Internet to NBC would help, or something of the
sort.
> >
> > So when you say you are against privatization, it's already happened.
I diagree. It is still a contest.
Or are you saying that the Internet does not have contributions of
many people who are making those contributions for some public
purpose?
Can they do so with a private company like NBC?
> > 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? [...]
Some of these like the question of Internet governance, or the management
of the Internet's infrastructure, is a question because the Internet
is *not* private.
>
> I have seen several complaints raised against privatization on this
> list (and others, such as com-priv), such as:
>
> * Why can't the Internet be like freenets (e.g. the Cleveland
> freenet)?
>
> * Why can't the Internet be regulated like AT&T used to be, so it is
> guaranteed that Internet access can be made available to everyone,
> and not just those in financially lucrative locations?
>
> * Why can't the Internet be operated as a public utility (such as a
> municipal water or power company)?
>
> --gregbo
>
If we don't have a sense of how the Internet has been born and developed
as a public entity, we can't understand how it is still a public
network of networks.
So it isn't just a question of looking at who owns what piece of
hardware or software that is the issue when determining if something is
public or private. Do you disagree?
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:34:40 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
At 11:05 PM +0000 4/7/03, Greg Skinner wrote:
Greg, these are useful comments. Let me respond in part. I certainly
don't have definitive solutions, but I can bring up additional issues.
The discussion of these issues, to me, is a core topic of what I
regard as being a network-enabled citizen (not necessarily a
"Netizen").
Note that one of the problems is that the Internet covers
noncommercial and commercial use. Depending on the precise definition
used, especially where virtual private networks share the same
transmission facilities as public Internet services, there are
practical economies of having "premium" services on the same physical
plant.
It may be very useful to separate the commercial and noncommercial
requirements, but then to look at the most economic service delivery
model -- which tends to seek economies of scale.
There is also the issue of different grades of services in a shared
network. For example, IP-based telephony (IPT) can be MUCH cheaper
than conventional telephony -- but IPT simply will not work if it
can't depend on having a certain (small) amount of bandwidth
available when it needs it. If a first-come-first-served rule were
applied, and an email got to the line first, IPT would absolutely,
positively break.
One of the major engineering triumphs of the Internet is to allow the
apparently simultaneous use of a common set of facilities. Those
facilities need certain internal information to be passed at a higher
priority than any user application (including IPT), or the network
will collapse.
Let's ignore businesses. Let's think of a medical organization doing
telepresence surgery. That application MUST have premium service --
people will die if it doesn't. How do we ensure it gets that grade
of service? Who pays?
Now turn to business, and think of industries where near-real-time
communications are essential to operation: financial transactions,
airline reservations, etc. These businesses regard good network
service as a cost of doing business. Are they entitled to contract
for premium service at premium rates? If not, will the
non-privatized model still hold if those businesses build networks to
meet their own requirements, and deny their revenue to the public
service?
>
>
>I have seen several complaints raised against privatization on this
>list (and others, such as com-priv), such as:
>
>* Why can't the Internet be operated as a public utility (such as a
municipal water or power company)?
Again, depends on the definition of the Internet. I happen to like
the approach of making the local loop/last mile a public utility, if
only for operational reasons of minimizing digging up the streets.
This is increasingly the practice in new construction.
Even with things like municipal water, there are assorted economic
and operational issues. I pay for water, sewage, and power. There
are subsidy programs for low-income people to get these services, but
we can't lose sight that these have a cost of installation and
operation that has to come from somewhere.
The example of water or power brings up good points, however.
Consider the real-world issue of delivering water or power to an
apartment or office building. Water is inexpensive enough that many
apartments and some office buildings only install a water meter for
the building, and charge back water costs as part of rent/utilities.
Electricity gets more complicated, especially in commercial
buildings. Different businesses have different levels of electrical
usage, so not metering them individually tends to be unfair. Yet the
building owner still bears costs for the power distribution in the
building and possibly for the main electrical connection.
As long as the operational issues are handled, the public utility
model is quite valid for the local loop, but becomes more problematic
as we get into wider area networking.
>
>* Why can't the Internet be like freenets (e.g. the Cleveland
> freenet)?
Ah -- but is the Internet purely noncommercial? I agree that it is
possible and often practical to have low-volume noncommercial
services. Freenets evolved when the local connectivity could be
handled adequately over dialup telephone lines. This isn't
necessarily still true when users want high-bandwidth applications.
The technology exists to put data, telephone, and video services on
the same medium. Even at the residential level, is there a concept
of "lifeline" service plus additional "premium" service, especially
if entertainment and the like is most economically delivered over the
same facilities?
Do freenets serve businesses, especially those with needs for
critical Internet or private data services? Who pays?
How would I, a home-based, information-intensive worker fit?
Commercial? Noncommercial? Both?
>
>* Why can't the Internet be regulated like AT&T used to be, so it is
> guaranteed that Internet access can be made available to everyone,
> and not just those in financially lucrative locations?
I personally feel the AT&T breakup went too far, even in the
telephone industry. While many of the cost savings went primarily to
business, I have to agree that I can get a wider range of services in
a competitive environment.
Under such a model, would large commercial users be entitled to build
their own transmission networks (e.g., satellite), so they can
exploit economies of scale? If so, what happens to the regulated
economic models if large organizations opt out and deny their revenue
to the regulated utility?
>
>
>
>--gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:41:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> 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?
Howard, why do you ask?
Netizenship has always meant the democratic form of citizenship on
a broader level or focus, one not narrowed by geography. It doesn't
seem that the discussion lately has been encouraging of people.
There is a strong sentiment around the world that what the U.S.
government does when it makes decisions about other countries
for them, is not in the interests of democracy.
And there is a sentiment in the US that says that people want
more democracy, and means of having a better life, rather than
having a government which has lots of money to do things in the
interests of big corporations and no money for health care for
its own citizens, or for the other social needs of society.
Is this appropriate to discuss on the netizens list?
I would say it is. But lately I haven't gotten that view.
The netizens concept to me is about having a broader means of
influencing government than what representation provides for.
There are chapters in "Netizens" about how this was beginning to
happen in the early 1990's.
"Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" is
by no means "required reading" for those on this list.
However, it would be good for people to take a look at it or to
refer to it if it is appropriate.
It was perhaps one of the earliest works looking at the social impact
of the Internet in a systemmatic way, and has had a great influence
on the online community over the 9 years since the book was first
put online in 1994.
The book was written as chapters that were circulated broadly and
made available.
Comments from people and from the pioneers, whenever possible, were
welcomed and parts rewritten to respond to the comments.
Michael put his "The Net and the Netizen" paper on line in spring/summer
of 1993 I think. The paper then became the basis for the book.
The paper has had a great impact.
It would be good to understand that impact.
>
> Yes, there are about 73 subscribers.
There are also people who get the digest.
Jay, who is the list's owner, says there are a little over a hundred
between those subscribed to the digest and the individual posts of
the list.
>
> The list of subscribers is available through standard mail list
> management commands. It's supposedly a mailman.
>
> Alex
> GBU
>
Ronda
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #471
******************************
