Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 483
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 9 2003 Volume 01 : Number 483
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Question for Jay: Economic as well as political
Re: Infrastructure (wads Re: [netz] A delicate line?)
Re[2]: [netz] privatization
[netz] CCing
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Re: [netz] More or less democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:05:43 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Question for Jay: Economic as well as political
>On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> After thinking about your comments on participatory democracy, it
>> increasingly occurred to me that somewhere, there has to be revenue
>> to produce this process. Even ignoring the highly expensive network
>> infrastructure, what do you see as the source of funding for
>> participation?
>>
>
>Shorter hours of work are a pressure for
>new and advanced technology to be developed and
>used and that is the basis for more social wealth
>to be produced in the society.
Let me accept that that could be true in the long term. How would you
propose to fund things during transition?
>
>There is something called the Frankfurter Brief
>that was offered to the US Supreme Court under
>Frankfurter documenting the benefit of shorter
>hours on a society.
>
>Ronda
Shorter compulsory hours, perhaps. I still find that many creative
people spend 60 or more hours a week in doing what they believe to be
most socially productive and personally satisfying. That's a very
practical reason for my wanting a representative -- I don't want to
have half my time committed to detailed governmental supervision. I
want to be able to delegate detailed work to a representative, still
monitoring and affecting that position, just as I will delegate tasks
on any project I manage. I retain responsibility for the projects I
manage, just as I retain responsibility for my role (or apathy) in
government actions.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:13:58 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Infrastructure (wads Re: [netz] A delicate line?)
>In a message dated 3/23/03 11:06:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>>You can _just_ compress current broadcast quality television to 1
>>Mbps or so, but, to provide hundreds of channels, plain copper wire
>>will not do the job. You can use LAN cabling on copper, however, to
>>select the channels of interest and bring them from a enterprise or
>>home termination to the place they are used.
>>
>>So, if you think of some digital divide situations, the incremental
>>cost of bringing high bandwidth to an apartment house isn't that
>>great -- in fact, it may be lower than bringing hundreds or thousands
>>of separate pairs to it. You may get similar economies of scale with
>>neighborhood installations by using short-distance copper to a small
>>unmanned concentrating pedestal.
>>
>>What's my point? If advertisers, for example, want to bring
>>television to consumers and need to do so through other than wireless
>>broadcast, the physical facilities can deliver telephony and Internet
>>applications at a very small marginal difference.
>>
>>The media giants may have a pernicious effect on "major media"
>>content, but they also may subsidize access to other resources
>>previously not affordable.
>>
>
>
>I can already see the revenue potential here. By the way Howard,
>where do I find out what the particularly FTTB as well as 'broadband
>aggregator' market looks like on a region by region basis in the US?
>-- Websites, journals? I can see where high integration of services
>can mean 'win-win' for subscribers and advertisers in a 'digital
>divide' context.
>
>Larry
I was the technical reviewer of a book by David Goldberg, published
by Addison-Wesley, called _The Edge_ - although the final title
changed slightly. He summarizes a lot of this, and gives quite a
number of references. My own book, _Building Service Provider
Networks_ (Wiley) gets substantially into this, although it's more
technically than economically focused and deals with other aspects of
network regulation.
A good starting place is to go to the major technology vendor sites
(www.cisco.com, www.nortelnetworks.com, etc.) and hunt around for
white papers and case studies on implementations. There are quite a
few trade groups, but I don't know them offhand.
Of course, this entire area is a regulatory mess, since many of the
groups that install the broadband facilities want to be the exclusive
service provider over it. I see the capital and ROI issues, but I
also recognize that such organizations as cable TV providers usually
are given a local monopoly, simply so avoid community disruption with
multiple sets of cables on poles or digging up streets.
The model of aggregation for DSL has been very flawed operationally,
as having the multiple finger-pointing potential from ISP/end user
telco to aggregator to operator of the wires has led to long service
outages. I gave up on DSL for that reason, although I've been hearing
that the market is beginning to shake out. Three or more levels of
supplier doesn't seem to be practical, but if the aggregator offers
user services while someone else operates the physical plant, things
seem to work better. It's still early to tell.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:21:23 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] privatization
At 7:23 AM -0400 4/9/03, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
>
>The basis for a good phone system in the US is *not* the free market,
First, let me say that the breakup of AT&T was the most horrible
example possible of how NOT to do deregulation (well, there _is_ the
fiasco in the California electric power industry). But, like most
things in life, there were both good and bad aspects.
>but the fact that AT&T, was a regulated monopoly in the US, under
>government oversight, for many years, and was supported to do advanced
>technical and scientific research by the government. Bell Labs at
>AT&T made it possible to develop electronic switching and to solve
>the very difficult problems of developing the 5 ESS switch.
Bell Labs was a national and world resource.
>
>The principle was that advanced technology was needed to keep costs down.
Not so much advanced technology, but there was a practical need for
coordination of interconnection, telephone number assignment, etc.
Very similar problems, indeed, to problems of Internet governance.
AT&T served several roles. One was a technical governance body, along
the lines of a combination of ICANN and the IETF. Another was
economies of scale in operating long-distance communications.
AT&T never had a complete telephone monopoly, especially at the local
level. Significant but smaller players included General Telephone
(which became GTE and merged into Verizon) and United Telephone
(which is among the several parents of Sprint). The 1913 Kingsbury
Compromise set most of the regulatory conditions, including AT&T
agreeing to give up all telegraph business.
:-) I've always wondered why, after 1913, they didn't change their
name from American Telephone & Telegraph to American Telephone.
There's a substantial amount of credit owed to an early CEO of AT&T,
Theodore Vail. Some of his statements, however, have to be
interpreted in the language of the time. He was indeed an early and
sincere proponent of what he called universal telephone service, but
he did not, by this, mean that every individual should have telephone
access. He meant that every public telephone should technically be
able to connect to every other public telephone, which had definitely
not been the case in the early twentieth century. Especially given
the time of his work, I think we often forget Vail was a very real
corporate executive who also understood the concept of service to the
public and being the steward of a regulated service.
The Carterphone decision, slightly before the AT&T breakup (1972 or
1973, as opposed to the AT&T Modified Final Judgement in 1975) was a
good and balanced step. It permitted the connection of non-AT&T end
user equipment to AT&T lines, either through AT&T protective
electronics or after certification that it met technical standards.
>
>Large corporations on their own often squelch advanced technology
>as they need to protect their present infrastructure.
Under AT&T regulation, they had to go to the government FCC to have
any new offering approved. That took time. There was also a
procedure for requesting a quote on what was called a "special
assembly," but the Bell System could simply refuse. Even if they
agreed, it often could take a year or more to get the service.
I tried, from 1974 to 1977, to get a T1 line in the Washington DC
area. This was a routine part of telephone infrastructure. Even with
the 1975 breakup, it was very difficult.
>
>There was a regulatory obligation on AT&T to develop advanced
>technology.
>
>That is responsible for a number of the current advances we have
>today not only in phone service in the US but also in developments
>that have made possible the Internet.
AT&T and Bell Labs were not major players in the early Internet. If
one were to select one prime corporation, it would be BBN, which was
subsequently acquired by GTE, then spun off into several units --
Genuity as an ISP and assorted BBN labs as consultancies.
>
>You can look at the current moment and draw conclusions that are
>inaccurate if you don't know the background and where the developments
>are coming from.
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 22:25:43 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] CCing
Hi Ronda,
you don't have to CC replies to me since I'll get it twice then. And
actually my email client filters them to one directory, so it's not
needed anyway.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- put knot yore trust inn spel chequers -*
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:56:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >I wrote:
> >For me netizenship is a taking of responsibility for contributing to the
> >future of the net.
>
> >The net
> >makes self-representation possible and therefore makes possible the
> >replacement of the current systems of political representation.
>
Howard responded:
>
> If replacing republican system with self representation is the
> essence of netizenship, then I am clearly not a netizen, and indeed
> opposed to netizenship. I would rather that the goal of netizenship
> be less all-encompassing, so we can cooperate on things such as
> network access and information freedom, rather than having to accept
> an alternate political system.
>
Do we agree that the net makes self representation possible?
That I feel is the great promise of the net. I hope the cat is out of the
bag. I feel, given the chance and the encouragement, people will choose
self representation and that will prove a greatly improved system from the
representative republicanism that perhaps was historiaclly necessary. The
net makes possible the availability of all opinions and sources of
information, with time to absorb them, most people will be quite capable
of contributing meaningfully in the decision processes and the decisions.
Then those decisions will much more thoroughly benefit the mass of people
who participate in making them.
> >
> >Howard continues:
> >
> >> I am a little hesitant to comment further without a very clear
> >> definition of "participatory democracy." It is very unclear to me
> >> this would work at national levels. I am opposed, however, to
> >> replacing a republican system with a pure democratic system not based
> >> on voting. One of the benefits of a republican system is that it
> >> does allow formal deliberation, and the introduction of expert
> >> opinion that might not be otherwise available.
> >
> >The advantage of the net is that it allows amateur as well as expert
> >opinion so that the range of opinion to learn from is expanded.
>
> There is a strong difference between amateurs learning basics, and
> the level at which legitimate experts operate. Forget about war
> issues, forget about network access. Tell me, for example, how a
> consensus model works in medicine.
>
When patients and their families have a chance to pool their experiences
which the net provides they can interact with the professional doctors
on a basis of mutual respect. The outcome is much better treatment and
progress in the understanding of the the deseases and ills that afflict
us.
Already, sick people often join support groups on the net and go to their
doctors with a much higher level of knowledge and expectation than before.
> How could surgery be done by consensus? There isn't physical room in
> the patient for multiple surgeons.
>
Both the surgeon and the patient and the support community they are part
of can improve the process and the outcome of surgery.
I see unfolding a netizenship that aims for participatory democracy and
self representation because it promises a better life for the great
majority of people.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
Quoting Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > >I wrote:
> > >For me netizenship is a taking of responsibility for contributing to the
> > >future of the net.
> >
> > >The net
> > >makes self-representation possible and therefore makes possible the
> > >replacement of the current systems of political representation.
> >
> Howard responded:
> >
> > If replacing republican system with self representation is the
> > essence of netizenship, then I am clearly not a netizen, and indeed
> > opposed to netizenship. I would rather that the goal of netizenship
> > be less all-encompassing, so we can cooperate on things such as
> > network access and information freedom, rather than having to accept
> > an alternate political system.
> >
>
> Do we agree that the net makes self representation possible?
>
> That I feel is the great promise of the net. I hope the cat is out of the
> bag. I feel, given the chance and the encouragement, people will choose
> self representation and that will prove a greatly improved system from the
> representative republicanism that perhaps was historiaclly necessary. The
> net makes possible the availability of all opinions and sources of
> information, with time to absorb them, most people will be quite capable
> of contributing meaningfully in the decision processes and the decisions.
> Then those decisions will much more thoroughly benefit the mass of people
> who participate in making them.
I'm wondering whether we can separate these issues. Jay, you first wrote
that "netizenship is a taking of responsibility for contributing to the future
of the net." Howard wants a definition of netizenship that doesn't entail
doing away with representative government, but allows us to "cooperate on
things such as network access and information freedom." My question is: is
Jay's definition here such a definition? On its face it appears to be. Folks
with all sorts of political and social beliefs have been contributing to the
future of the net all along. That was rather the idea of "netizen," as I
understand it.
The second issue has to do with whether the net "makes self representation
possible" and, if so, whether we can anticipate doing away with representative
government. I've stated some views on that, and I could again, but I would
rather see if we agree that we _don't_ have to agree on the second issue in
order to be part of the netizen project. (Need I repeat, I don't mean that we
shouldn't _talk_ about the second issue.)
One way of putting the question is: does Jay agree that Howard is a netizen
regardless of his beliefs about the net, self representation, and government?
Or does Jay instead believe, to paraphrase Howard, that "replacing [the?]
republican system with self representation is the essence of netizenship," so
Howard really isn't a netizen? (Jay may believe that this replacement is the
ultimate ideal of netizenship, and still believe that Howard is a netizen.)
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:30:28 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy
>On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> >I wrote:
>> >For me netizenship is a taking of responsibility for contributing to the
>> >future of the net.
>>
>> >The net
>> >makes self-representation possible and therefore makes possible the
>> >replacement of the current systems of political representation.
>>
>Howard responded:
>>
>> If replacing republican system with self representation is the
>> essence of netizenship, then I am clearly not a netizen, and indeed
>> opposed to netizenship. I would rather that the goal of netizenship
>> be less all-encompassing, so we can cooperate on things such as
>> network access and information freedom, rather than having to accept
>> an alternate political system.
>>
>
>Do we agree that the net makes self representation possible?
Well, we again get into definition of terms. Certainly not self
government. If you mean representing one's own views to
decisionmakers, I did that before the net.
If by self representation in lieu of representative democracy, I'd
say no -- because mass democracy simply does not scale to running a
complex society. Increased input into the process, yes.
>
>That I feel is the great promise of the net. I hope the cat is out of the
>bag. I feel, given the chance and the encouragement, people will choose
>self representation and that will prove a greatly improved system from the
>representative republicanism that perhaps was historiaclly necessary.
And a valuable negative feedback mechanism about making decisions in
the heat of the moment.
>The
>net makes possible the availability of all opinions and sources of
>information, with time to absorb them, most people will be quite capable
>of contributing meaningfully in the decision processes and the decisions.
The reality in information-intense American culture is that a large
part of political and popular attention comes from sound bites, from
advertising (including political advertising), etc. Purely from a
social behavior standpoint, I don't see the fundamental population
motivation to be reflective about absorbing and evaluating
information.
Don't get me wrong. It would be a good thing if people did that. But
I simply don't see that as a behavioral trend -- the trend is much
more to instant gratification and short-term solutions.
>Then those decisions will much more thoroughly benefit the mass of people
>who participate in making them.
>
>> >
>> >Howard continues:
>> >
>> >> I am a little hesitant to comment further without a very clear
>> >> definition of "participatory democracy." It is very unclear to me
>> >> this would work at national levels. I am opposed, however, to
>> >> replacing a republican system with a pure democratic system not based
>> >> on voting. One of the benefits of a republican system is that it
>> >> does allow formal deliberation, and the introduction of expert
>> >> opinion that might not be otherwise available.
>> >
>> >The advantage of the net is that it allows amateur as well as expert
>> >opinion so that the range of opinion to learn from is expanded.
>>
>> There is a strong difference between amateurs learning basics, and
>> the level at which legitimate experts operate. Forget about war
>> issues, forget about network access. Tell me, for example, how a
>> consensus model works in medicine.
>>
>When patients and their families have a chance to pool their experiences
>which the net provides they can interact with the professional doctors
>on a basis of mutual respect. The outcome is much better treatment and
>progress in the understanding of the the deseases and ills that afflict
>us.
>
>Already, sick people often join support groups on the net and go to their
>doctors with a much higher level of knowledge and expectation than before.
There is definite improvement in the process. But one has to draw the
line between what is reasonable general knowledge and what truly
needs specialized knowledge. For friends and family, I've often
acted as patient advocate. But part of my effectiveness is having a
deep knowledge of the subject, in ways that can take years to
internalize.
On many occasions, I've gone into situations where there were very
bad relationships between patients/family and doctors, and made a
major improvement. The reason I was able to do so is that I can talk
to a physician in a manner that makes the physician think of me as a
peer. That isn't an accident -- in my early work in expert systems
for medicine, we researched extensively the speech patterns, the
knowledge paradigms, and presentation techniques physicians use with
one another. By very consciously using those -- and they can be quite
nuanced -- I establish a very different form of communications with
physicians.
For example, my mother had breast cancer surgery. She called me in
hysterics that she had been lied to on her prognosis, based on the
pathology report she had opened and read while transferring
hospitals. This being 1973, she had to mail me a copy.
I read it, and it was entirely consistent with what her surgeon had
said. It turned out that she assumed "lymphatic" and "lymph node" are
the same thing, which they are not. There were cancer cells in the
lymphatics, but not in the nodes. That is a very, very significant
difference.
But at a different phase of her therapy, I tore into the treating
staff for mismanagement. By tore, I mean that I assumed the affect of
a senior medical school professor, and took them point by point
through lab results and asking leading questions. To a physician, it
was very obvious that the way I was asking those questions was a
polite way of saying "doctor, were you born an idiot or did you have
to study? Have you bothered to consider these fairly elementary
factors, or are you just trying to kill your patient?"
This isn't a consensus model. This is a studied authority model. I'm
unconvinced that consensus models will, in fact, work in a large
majority of interpersonal situations. The net has little to do with
that.
The sad part -- where perhaps the net might have helped, not on a
generic popular model but where improved professional communications
might have been lifesaving -- is this took place a few months before
the major Italian study that showed dramatic improvement using
postoperative, low dose chemotherapy. Her doctors used postoperative
radiation, which was the standard of care at the time. It wasn't
successful.
>
>> How could surgery be done by consensus? There isn't physical room in
>> the patient for multiple surgeons.
>>
>Both the surgeon and the patient and the support community they are part
>of can improve the process and the outcome of surgery.
Improve the process? I'd like to see some real examples of this. I'm
not the average layman. When I was having a compressed nerve in my
arm (due to computer overuse) decompressed, I knew the surgeon well,
had a local anesthetic, and watched the surgery. I knew what I was
looking at.
So yes, I was self represented. But would I have said "hey, Bruce!
Watch out with the tension on the suture on the aponeurosis?" If
nothing else, even though I see the process, I don't have his literal
touch on the tension on the suture -- nor thirty years of experience
feeling how taut is taut enough.
>
>I see unfolding a netizenship that aims for participatory democracy and
>self representation because it promises a better life for the great
>majority of people.
I'm still unconvinced self representation, as opposed to self
determination, is a good thing. I'd rather be able to delegate or
consult with experts. Self representation, to me, implies being the
final authority on everything. Even with the net, that hasn't been
possible for over a century, and the exponential rate of knowledge
growth isn't going to make it possible again.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #483
******************************
