Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 516
Netizens-Digest Sunday, April 27 2003 Volume 01 : Number 516
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
[netz] Email as a policy issue
[netz] Relationship of telephony and television to basic service
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] Email as a policy issue
Re: [netz] Relationship of telephony and television to basic service
Re: [netz] Basic Service: Email as a policy issue
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Re: [netz] Basic Service: Email as a policy issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:43:20 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
So, am I considered being a netizen, when I came to internet just
because I liked computers, comp games, comp programming and that was a
big curiosity to come along anything new as internet was.
Then I had started my first homepage (that means being active user) and
then started to learn HTML.... etc... and today I do webdesign,
PHP/MySQL programming and other things. I released Absolut Engine as
open source engine - that's a news publishing engine free for all.
But of course I don't live from air. So I gladly welcomed some people
who asked me to develop some kind of online system for them.
I am both active user and seeking the profit.
However I consider myself netizen regardless Michael's definition.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- world is like a banana, sweet & yellow -*
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:23:46 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
At 3:43 PM +0200 4/27/03, Dan Duris wrote:
>
>
>I am both active user and seeking the profit.
>
>However I consider myself netizen regardless Michael's definition.
I agree with Dan. I participate in many online communities,
standards and research, and tutorial programs for people learning
network technology. I make my living in a broad area of networking
that certainly includes public Internet infrastructure, but also
private networking.
Michael's criteria for cooperative and collaborative work apply. I
question, however, whether the definition of "no profit" is too
broad. Creating artificial access barriers on price is not good.
Predatory pricing is not good. But compensation for expertise is
fair. Risk-taking that introduces useful new technologies deserves a
fair reward.
If all netizens received no compensation, how would the Internet be
operated on a 24/7 basis? Are you making a distinction between
compensation and profit, or perhaps profit and "excessive profit"?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:29:35 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Email as a policy issue
Mark, until we have a cumulation mechanism, I recommend we be precise
about subject headers, so things can be found in archives.
At 9:29 AM -0400 4/27/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote, commenting on my post:
> > 1. Email
>>
>> Unquestionably a fundamental service. Non-spam email is not
>> particularly
>> bandwidth intensive, but the limiting factor tends to be disk storage
>> for the user mailboxes and intermediate "post office" storage.
>> Modern email models download the mail to a personal computer,
>> conserving ISP disk space.
>> The ISP, however, has to know how much mailbox space to allocate
>> to the average user, so they can buy the necessary amount of disk
>> storage.
>> I believe it is also reasonable for ISPs to impose anti-spamming
>> and anti-hacking features on user connections. Anti-spamming does
>> not mean that a user can't use large mailing lists (see below).
>
>Although this all seems reasonable, I'm a bit confused about the points being
>made. As to ISP mailbox space, it's of course true that Bard needs to decide
>how much storage to buy and how large to make my quota (ditto Verizon), but
>does this count as a network design issue? Or, to put it quite
>differently, is
>there a policy issue here that netizens would want to take a stand on?
The policy issue is the amount of resource that is reserved for each
user, in this case disk space. That resource has to be considered in
financing public/universal access.
We see something of this now with services like Hotmail, where users
can no longer receive new messages when their storage quota is
exceeded. Responsible use means they need to purge (or download when
that is supported) before the mailbox chokes.
Spam definitely enters into this, as it can clog mailboxes and deny
email service to end users.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:36:07 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Relationship of telephony and television to basic service
At 9:29 AM -0400 4/27/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote in response to my post:
> > 5. Telephony
>>
>> While this is usually seen as separate, voice over IP is vastly
>> [less] resource-intensive than traditional telephony. It does require
> > dedicated bandwidth, but this can be done within an overlay context.
Telephony is essential for technical support, especially when there
are problems with email or interactive chat, or the user can't get
their computer to come up. Obviously, if the problem is physical
connectivity to the service provider, IP telephony won't work -- but
if it's going over common wires, neither will traditional telephony.
> >
>> 6. Television
>>
>> I'm _not_ going to comment much.
>
>I don't think that voice over IP or television are basic services for
>netizens. I'm not even sure that Howard thinks they are basic services for
>netizens. (Even if we stipulate that many netizens like to watch TV, that's a
>different issue.) Howard does believe, I think, that providing Net and
>television services over the same cables will be cost-effective in many
>circumstances. That's fine, but I want to make sure that we're not confusing
>our requirements with our implementation ideas. I imagine that a non-trivial
>number of people around the world are participating in the Internet (often on
>public terminals) who don't even own TVs or ordinarily watch television.
Television is much harder to justify in its present form. I was
thinking of it as a discussion point, and also for its potential for
cross-subsidization.
It is possible, however, that TV-like streaming video services could
serve valuable Netizen functions of distributing educational
material, news imagery, etc. Entertainment is a quite separate issue
and indeed is not a basic service.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Howard wrote in part,
> Michael's criteria for cooperative and collaborative work apply. I
> question, however, whether the definition of "no profit" is too
> broad.
I think that we need to read Michael's statement, "Netizens are not just anyone
who comes online, and they are especially not people who come online for
individual gain or profit," in light of his Web book discussion of how people
have used the Internet to find work and to help them in their work. I don't
think he could have meant, "If you ever derive material advantage from the Net,
then you are not a Netizen." He probably meant in part, "If you only use the
Net to derive material advantage or entertainment, and never contribute
anything to it, then you are not a Netizen."
(By the way, for this reason, I'm convinced that Michael surely thought
the "rights of Netizens" were intertwined with the responsibilities of
Netizens. Indeed, he seems to define Netizens by the responsibilities they
voluntarily shoulder, not by the rights they claim.)
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Email as a policy issue
Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
> Mark, until we have a cumulation mechanism, I recommend we be precise
> about subject headers, so things can be found in archives.
Very sensible. Only, if we conceive of these as subthreads referring to a
single document -- your outline of basic services for netizens -- then maybe we
want a convention of doing that succinctly in the subject header. Not to get
overly fussy. You get all the credit for this particular initiative, and I
just want to look for ways to help keep your work from being wasted.
> The policy issue is the amount of resource that is reserved for each
> user, in this case disk space. That resource has to be considered in
> financing public/universal access.
>
> We see something of this now with services like Hotmail, where users
> can no longer receive new messages when their storage quota is
> exceeded. Responsible use means they need to purge (or download when
> that is supported) before the mailbox chokes.
OK. So, 'effective' public access entails a substantial, but finite*, amount
of storage space, and we need to consider the costs of providing that.
Hard drive costs in big-box stores seem to be headed toward $1/GB, so I'm
guessing that the physical cost of providing, say, 20 MB mailboxes verges on
trivial. If the population of the U.S. is 250 million, then (at $1/GB) we
could give every man, woman, and child a 20 MB mailbox for $5 million. Of
course that's ignoring every other network expense.
* I mean finite as opposed to infinite (no one here has asserted that netizens
have a right to unlimited amounts of storage space), but I'm not claiming that
there is a fixed number and I know what it is.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 11:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Relationship of telephony and television to basic service
Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
> Telephony is essential for technical support,
Oh, I didn't think of that. (I guess that says something about my experiences
with tech support. ;) OK, point taken. Still, I'm inclined to categorize
voice over IP in a different tier than your first four services.
(Bear in mind that my sense of priorities doesn't necessarily have anything to
do with actual costs. It's like how end users generally have no clue about
software design issues. They'll agonize over asking for something that you can
do in five minutes, and blithely insist on something that would take months and
perhaps not even do them much good. So, if I say at some point something
like, "I think e-mail should take top priority," and you wonder, "Good God,
man, do you have any idea what you are actually saying?", rest assured that I
don't. That's part of the fun.)
> Television is much harder to justify in its present form. I was
> thinking of it as a discussion point, and also for its potential for
> cross-subsidization.
>
> It is possible, however, that TV-like streaming video services could
> serve valuable Netizen functions of distributing educational
> material, news imagery, etc. Entertainment is a quite separate issue
> and indeed is not a basic service.
Bard has teleconference classes with its sister program in Smolny. So the idea
that streaming video _can_ support Netizenship does make sense to me.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 11:20:17 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Basic Service: Email as a policy issue
At 10:56 AM -0400 4/27/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
>
>> Mark, until we have a cumulation mechanism, I recommend we be precise
> about subject headers, so things can be found in archives.
>
>Very sensible. Only, if we conceive of these as subthreads referring to a
>single document -- your outline of basic services for netizens --
>then maybe we
>want a convention of doing that succinctly in the subject header. Not to get
>overly fussy. You get all the credit for this particular initiative, and I
>just want to look for ways to help keep your work from being wasted.
See above. I was going to abbreviate the main thread until I
considered the possible implications of a BS thread.
>
>> The policy issue is the amount of resource that is reserved for each
>> user, in this case disk space. That resource has to be considered in
>> financing public/universal access.
>>
>> We see something of this now with services like Hotmail, where users
>> can no longer receive new messages when their storage quota is
>> exceeded. Responsible use means they need to purge (or download when
>> that is supported) before the mailbox chokes.
>
>OK. So, 'effective' public access entails a substantial, but finite*, amount
>of storage space, and we need to consider the costs of providing that.
>
>Hard drive costs in big-box stores seem to be headed toward $1/GB,
And it's actually cheaper per gigabyte as the disks become higher-capacity.
> so I'm
>guessing that the physical cost of providing, say, 20 MB mailboxes verges on
>trivial. If the population of the U.S. is 250 million, then (at $1/GB) we
>could give every man, woman, and child a 20 MB mailbox for $5 million. Of
>course that's ignoring every other network expense.
Without getting too technical, it's more than just the storage for
the individual user. ISPs have to store incoming and outgoing mail
(for the mixture of all users, and, when they perform a mail relay
function, for the messages for other than their customers). So the
same message may occupy space in more than one place.
>
>* I mean finite as opposed to infinite (no one here has asserted that netizens
>have a right to unlimited amounts of storage space), but I'm not claiming that
>there is a fixed number and I know what it is.
I do agree that email is not a terribly expensive service to support.
20 MB, however, can get fairly small when people are sending graphics
and other attachments. Just yesterday, I had to sent several
PowerPoint presentations that ran 4 MB each.
Still, I do see it as a basic service, but with finite resources.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 11:51:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Dan Duris wrote:
> So, am I considered being a netizen, when I came to internet just
> because I liked computers, comp games, comp programming and that was a
> big curiosity to come along anything new as internet was.
That is a net user as Michael explained when he made his distinction.
That is not yet a netizen.
>
> Then I had started my first homepage (that means being active user) and
> then started to learn HTML.... etc... and today I do webdesign,
> PHP/MySQL programming and other things. I released Absolut Engine as
> open source engine - that's a news publishing engine free for all.
> But of course I don't live from air. So I gladly welcomed some people
> who asked me to develop some kind of online system for them.
One acts as a citizen and also one earns a living.
Those are two separate areas of one's life.
Are you trying to say they are one area.
Are you trying to say that your seeking profit is a netizen activity?
Or are you trying to say that you are a netizen and you also
do what you need to to earn money to live?
>
> I am both active user and seeking the profit.
Are you saying that these are the same and they are part of
being a netizen?
>
> However I consider myself netizen regardless Michael's definition.
There are many active users and people seeking profit off of the
Internet.
Michael would *not* have said these are netizens. He would have
said these are net users.
He reserved the concept of netizen for the activities one undertakes
to participate and contribute to the Internet as a citizen.
In the US there is the confusion in the court system that companies
are citizens just as people are citizens.
And companies are in the Supreme Court arguing that they can
lie to the public under protection of the first amendment of the US
Constitution.
This is a fraudulent use of the first amendment of the US Constitution
and whether the Courts go along with companies or not, doesn't
change the constitution.
Companies are *not* citizens. Companies have a profit motive and
a fiduciary obligation to serve their stockholders with a profit.
Citizens are the sovereigns under the US constitution and the
government is supposed to be restricted in what it does.
Granting companies rights under the citizen clauses of the US
constitution is *not* a government right.
I am a netizen.
I also work to be able to live.
I don't insist that my activity at work is part of my being a
netizen. In fact it is separate from my being a netizen.
Is it that you do insist that what you do for profit is part of
your being a netizen?
Or do you agree that it is one thing to do work for a living.
It is another thing to be a citizen and participate in the
affairs regarding the decisions that affect one's life?
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 17:31:08 +0000 (GMT)
From: gds@best.com (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: [netz] What is a netizen? versus basic services for net users
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> Companies are *not* citizens. Companies have a profit motive and
> a fiduciary obligation to serve their stockholders with a profit.
Not all companies are for-profit or publicly held (by stockholders).
Granted, that does not necessarily make them citizens (per se), but
their employees could conceivably be called citizens.
> I am a netizen.
> I also work to be able to live.
> I don't insist that my activity at work is part of my being a
> netizen. In fact it is separate from my being a netizen.
But would you feel the same way if you had a career that involved
bringing Internet access to the underprivileged? Even if you would
feel the same way, would you expect that they would agree with you?
It strikes me that many would feel offended that their contribution to
the net would be considered distinct from netizenship just because
they received a salary for their efforts.
I see this as part of the problem on the list. Someone can post
suggestions that are criticized if they do not fit your notion of
netizenship. Thus instead of making progress finding practical ways
to implement these suggestions, there are arguments that polarize
people and impede progress.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Basic Service: Email as a policy issue
Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
> See above. I was going to abbreviate the main thread until I
> considered the possible implications of a BS thread.
Logical. Eminently logical. (grin)
> Without getting too technical, it's more than just the storage for
> the individual user. ISPs have to store incoming and outgoing mail
> (for the mixture of all users, and, when they perform a mail relay
> function, for the messages for other than their customers). So the
> same message may occupy space in more than one place.
Sure, makes sense. OK, we're not trying to "cost out" everything needed to
make the Net work, but one piece is this storage capacity. That isn't just a
function of the number of users* and the allocation per user; it also depends
on network complexity and, umm, I'm not sure what the right technical term
would be. It has to do with the amount of data passing through the entire
system at any given time (and therefore subject to duplication), and how many
duplicates are likely to exist. --If you see a cheap opportunity to enlighten
me, go for it, but otherwise I'm content with my lay understanding for now.
The distinction between 'throughput' and mailbox storage is (potentially) worth
making because lots of people like to accumulate mail in their ISP mailboxes
but don't actually send or receive much mail (bytewise), while others empty out
their ISP mailboxes every few minutes but send and receive virtual reams of
mail.
*As a matter of policy, we presumably have no inerrant way of distinguishing
netizens from 'mere' users. So while our discussion of network needs is driven
by netizen needs, we acknowledge that the network supports users, not just
netizens.
> I do agree that email is not a terribly expensive service to support.
> 20 MB, however, can get fairly small when people are sending graphics
> and other attachments. Just yesterday, I had to sent several
> PowerPoint presentations that ran 4 MB each.
>
> Still, I do see it as a basic service, but with finite resources.
Not arguing for 20 MB, I don't think we can necessarily reason from your needs
to netizen basic services. Just a caveat. Hypothetically, some of us may
conclude that basic services should be provided at public expense, while people
like you and me should have to pay more for some of what we want. (That move
could look progressive or regressive, depending on whether the "basic services"
are generous and robust in support of netizen purposes, or thin as gruel.)
Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #516
******************************
