Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 495
Netizens-Digest Monday, April 14 2003 Volume 01 : Number 495
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
[netz] Responsibilities as well as rights.
Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 19:32:02 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Mark wrote,
>Howard,
>
>> To the extent that AOLYahooMSNBCNN provide unrestricted connectivity
>> to unrestricted content, if they provide a way around the financial
>> constraints of connectivity, don't dismiss them out of hand. I'm not
>> saying advertiser supported connectivity is good or bad, but it is
>> something to be considered in the overall cost equation.
>
>Fair enough. By "plugged into AOLYahooMSNBCNN" I was trying to
>evoke basically
>passive consumption. It's not my view that corporations can never be used to
>provide social goods -- although I admit that when they start crowing about
>their social contributions, I keep my hand on my wallet. But I really wasn't
>trying to comment on how the Internet should be supported; my
>intended emphasis
>was on how the Internet can be used.
>
>> >Yes, with the clarification that, again, this doesn't just mean the
>> ability to
>> >plug into "content providers."
>>
>> To me, content provider has a fairly narrow meaning, although that
>> meaning can be blurred. Commercial television stations and
>> pay-per-view are clearly content providers, where there is also a
>> concern about fairness in content. I also use some
>> advertiser-supported content providers such as netscape.com, where
>> indeed drug companies and the like support the web source, but the
>> content consists of peer-reviewed objective material.
>>
>> But from a technology standpoint, a totally uncensored mailing list
>> is a form of "content", if I distinguish, as I do, between content
>> and transport.
>>
>> What about telephony? Is that content? If MSNCBCNN offered
>> competitive telephone service rates as part of a service where I'd
>> both see their program content as the default, but also had full and
>> open Internet and phone connectivity at a reasonable price, is that
>> wrong? Should I be able to choose between Verizon and MSCNCBCNN as
>> my telephone provider for private phone calls, based on price and
>> services?
>
>I think you'd better assign "MSNBCNN" to a keyboard shortcut (yet another
>punchy grin).
It really is a lovely concept, however we spell it. Much as Justice
Stewart said of hard core pornography, "I can't define it but I know
it when I see it," there's an ill-defined but meaningful idea here of
a highly vertically integrated firm in the information business.,
>
>I lost the first draft of that message, so I'm lucky if it made any sense at
>all. I think I'm probably abusing the term "content provider," although after
>reading a definition at http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_content_provider.html , I'm
>not much more sure that I understand what it means. (Maybe I should
>have stuck
>to "regime"!)
Let's examine that definition, which distinguishes between "content"
and "information" provider:
>An organization that creates and maintains databases containing
>information from an information provider. Note: The content provider
>and the information provider may be the same organization.
If we generalize beyond "database" to any form of information
meaningful to humans, then I suggest that telephony and video
services are content, but with very different economic models.
In general telephony and hosting for individual websites/mailing
lists, the participants create the information but the "telephone
company" transfers the content and is paid for service. Content
transfer is specific to the type of content being moved (i.e., voice,
video, web pages) and thus is layered on top of what an ISP or
bandwidth provider offers.
In "vertically integrated" video, a Time-Warner both generates the
information (i.e., Jerry Springer, etc.) and is paid, either directly
or indirectly by advertisers, for content transfer.
In a more general model of video delivery, any information generator
can gain access to the content distribution system, either by payment
(pay-per-view) or because the content distributor believes the
availability of that information makes the content provider's service
more competitive.
Companies that run virtual private networks, not for the public,
generally go directly to the bandwidth/ISP and do not involve a
third-party information or content provider. They create information
of internal relevance, and operate the email, intranet, or other
content distribution mechanisms needed to have it move among end
users.
Business-to-business Extranets, such as credit card authorization and
reconciliation, also deal with bandwidth/ISP providers, but their
customers are multiple corporations/enterprises rather than consumers.
Business-to-consumer models (think Amazon) may also deal only with
bandwidth/packet transport providers, but the participants are both
enterprises and consumers.
>I can tell you what I meant: a content provider would be someone
>who creates and controls content, so while an uncensored mailing list would
>indeed be content, MSNBCNN wouldn't be the "content provider" in the
>sense that
>I intended.
Who is the content provider, then? Can it be the mailing list
participants, who still obtain service from a bandwidth/packet
transport provider?
What if the mailing list server operation is outsourced? Does that
make the hosting company a specialized content provider (I'd tend to
say so).
>
>To touch on your remaining questions: I don't think of telephony as "content,"
>but I'm open to instruction; I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong,"
>but I would
>certainly consider that deal; I'd be happy to have a choice between
>Verizon (my
>current phone company and ISP) and anyone else. My previous message wasn't
>intended to imply positions or predispositions on any of these questions.
>(Again, I meant "plug into" to imply passive consumption, not open
>connectivity -- just careless writing on my part.)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 20:14:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Quoting in part "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
> > [ML]I think you'd better assign "MSNBCNN" to a keyboard shortcut (yet
> > another punchy grin).
>
> It really is a lovely concept, however we spell it. Much as Justice
> Stewart said of hard core pornography, "I can't define it but I know
> it when I see it," there's an ill-defined but meaningful idea here of
> a highly vertically integrated firm in the information business.,
Ill-defined, certainly, but thanks for enjoying it.
> > [ML] http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_content_provider.html
> Let's examine that definition, which distinguishes between "content"
> and "information" provider:
>
> >An organization that creates and maintains databases containing
> >information from an information provider. Note: The content provider
> >and the information provider may be the same organization.
>
> If we generalize beyond "database" to any form of information
> meaningful to humans, then I suggest that telephony and video
> services are content, but with very different economic models.
>
> In general telephony and hosting for individual websites/mailing
> lists, the participants create the information but the "telephone
> company" transfers the content and is paid for service. Content
> transfer is specific to the type of content being moved (i.e., voice,
> video, web pages) and thus is layered on top of what an ISP or
> bandwidth provider offers.
>
> In "vertically integrated" video, a Time-Warner both generates the
> information (i.e., Jerry Springer, etc.) and is paid, either directly
> or indirectly by advertisers, for content transfer.[...]
Yes, one crucial distinction that I missed was between _creating_ information
and providing it, whether as an information provider or a content provider.
> >I can tell you what I meant: a content provider would be someone
> >who creates and controls content, so while an uncensored mailing list
> would
> >indeed be content, MSNBCNN wouldn't be the "content provider" in the
> >sense that
> >I intended.
>
> Who is the content provider, then? Can it be the mailing list
> participants, who still obtain service from a bandwidth/packet
> transport provider?
>
> What if the mailing list server operation is outsourced? Does that
> make the hosting company a specialized content provider (I'd tend to
> say so).
Well, as I was thinking of it at the time, the mailing list participants would
have been the content providers -- but I'm content (no pun intended) to abandon
that view. Yes, I think it makes sense to say that the hosting company is the
content provider. Of course, what I want (except when I don't want it at all!)
is the experience of unmediated direct communication, without having to think
about how it works. I'm not sure where my food comes from, either. I have
some idea about my water, at least.
I'll try to catch up with you on the other thread/s....
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 20:32:45 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Mark wrote,
>Quoting in part "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>:
>
>> > [ML]I think you'd better assign "MSNBCNN" to a keyboard shortcut (yet
>> > another punchy grin).
>>
>> It really is a lovely concept, however we spell it. Much as Justice
>> Stewart said of hard core pornography, "I can't define it but I know
>> it when I see it," there's an ill-defined but meaningful idea here of
>> a highly vertically integrated firm in the information business.,
>
>Ill-defined, certainly, but thanks for enjoying it.
>
>> > [ML] http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_content_provider.html
>
>> Let's examine that definition, which distinguishes between "content"
>> and "information" provider:
>>
>> >An organization that creates and maintains databases containing
>> >information from an information provider. Note: The content provider
>> >and the information provider may be the same organization.
>>
>> If we generalize beyond "database" to any form of information
>> meaningful to humans, then I suggest that telephony and video
>> services are content, but with very different economic models.
>>
>> In general telephony and hosting for individual websites/mailing
>> lists, the participants create the information but the "telephone
>> company" transfers the content and is paid for service. Content
>> transfer is specific to the type of content being moved (i.e., voice,
>> video, web pages) and thus is layered on top of what an ISP or
>> bandwidth provider offers.
>>
>> In "vertically integrated" video, a Time-Warner both generates the
>> information (i.e., Jerry Springer, etc.) and is paid, either directly
>> or indirectly by advertisers, for content transfer.[...]
>
>Yes, one crucial distinction that I missed was between _creating_ information
>and providing it, whether as an information provider or a content provider.
To say nothing of the complexity that gets added when you have
information/content wholesalers like Akamai.
>
>> >I can tell you what I meant: a content provider would be someone
>> >who creates and controls content, so while an uncensored mailing list
>> would
>> >indeed be content, MSNBCNN wouldn't be the "content provider" in the
>> >sense that
>> >I intended.
>>
>> Who is the content provider, then? Can it be the mailing list
>> participants, who still obtain service from a bandwidth/packet
>> transport provider?
>>
>> What if the mailing list server operation is outsourced? Does that
>> make the hosting company a specialized content provider (I'd tend to
>> say so).
>
>Well, as I was thinking of it at the time, the mailing list participants would
>have been the content providers -- but I'm content (no pun intended)
>to abandon
>that view. Yes, I think it makes sense to say that the hosting company is the
>content provider.
It sounds as if we have a hierarchy, of which some levels may be
null, and some functions may be the consumer:
Information provider (i.e., creates files to go on servers, or
the content of telephone calls [1], or business-to-consumer transactions)
Information/content wholesaler/aggregator
Content provider (i.e., runs servers -- functions at the end-to-end level
In telephony, very similar to the information provider [1])
Bandwidth/packet transport (i.e., provides a bit or packet stream between
endpoints, without necessarily guaranteeing reliability, but offering
distance-independent reachability)
Local transmission facility provider (i.e., physical connectivity
to the distance-independent transport provier). Most likely to be
regulated/have a technical monopoly on facilities.
[1] Which function(s) provides directory assistance, trusted
authentication, etc.?
>Of course, what I want (except when I don't want it at all!)
>is the experience of unmediated direct communication, without having to think
>about how it works.
Surely this isn't a covert request for S*p*a*m, is it? If so, just
stay calm while I summon help.
Seriously, that brings up an entire area of discussin. Is there a
Netizen right to s*p*a*m as freedom of expression?
>I'm not sure where my food comes from, either. I have
>some idea about my water, at least.
>
>I'll try to catch up with you on the other thread/s....
>
>Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:38:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> Mark wrote,
>
> Surely this isn't a covert request for S*p*a*m, is it? If so, just
> stay calm while I summon help.
>
> Seriously, that brings up an entire area of discussin. Is there a
> Netizen right to s*p*a*m as freedom of expression?
NO.
Will you will disagree?
Netizen is *not* about irresponsibility with regard to the Internet,
not the concept of Netizen that you seem to be trying to espouse
on the Netizen list.
There is even a Netizen bill against spam that was submitted
to congress.
And those trying to fight spam often considered themselves netizens.
That you ask the question is interesting.
It seems that there is a real question what netizen means in your
mind.
Is there any connection with responsible behavior and the net in
your conception of netizen?
If so I wonder why you would raise the question of whether there
was a right to spam for freedom of expression?
spam is *not* freedom of expression.
Fighting spam is a netizen activity.
Ronda
(Also Howard and Mark I wonder why you have such large quoted sections
in your emails to the list. Is there some reason you don't cut the
irrelevant content since people have already gotten that in early
emails on the list? )
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:51:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censorship)
Ronda asks,
> (Also Howard and Mark I wonder why you have such large quoted sections
> in your emails to the list. Is there some reason you don't cut the
> irrelevant content since people have already gotten that in early
> emails on the list? )
Well, I cut an awful lot from Howard's post in replying to it. But, for
instance, if we're trying to clarify definitions, it seems imprudent to cut the
definitions under discussion. When communications are going well, I tend to
cut a lot more.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:31:14 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Responsibilities as well as rights.
At 9:38 PM -0400 4/13/03, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> Mark wrote,
>>
>> Surely this isn't a covert request for S*p*a*m, is it? If so, just
>> stay calm while I summon help.
That, unfortunately, was humor. The next two sentences, however, are
deadly serious, because many spammers claim their activity is
protected Internet speech.
> >
>> Seriously, that brings up an entire area of discussin. Is there a
> > Netizen right to s*p*a*m as freedom of expression?
>
>Netizen is *not* about irresponsibility with regard to the Internet,
>not the concept of Netizen that you seem to be trying to espouse
>on the Netizen list.
Excuse me, Ronda. I will answer your second point first. My concept
of a netizen is one who encourages use of the Net for social
participation, with due regard both to rights and responsibilities. A
netizen recognizes that the resources required to operate the net
cost money, and proposals for netizen rights do need to consider how
those resources are funded.
Show me where I have introduced a concept of irresponsibility. The
closest I have come, perhaps, is when Jay posted a lists without
associated responsibilities. Among those rights were:
At 10:25 PM -0400 4/12/03, Jay Hauben wrote:
>o No limitation of access to read, to post and to otherwise
> contribute
>o Equal quality of connection
>o Equal time of connection
I do not support spam in any way. The three bullets above, however,
do not indicate there are limits on the amount of resources that
someone can take.
>
>
>And those trying to fight spam often considered themselves netizens.
I think you will find I have been an active fighter against spam.
>
>That you ask the question is interesting.
>It seems that there is a real question what netizen means in your
>mind.
Very definitely, when it's described primarily in terms of
entitlements. I agree you specifically say above it's not about
irresponsibility, but I would like to see your idea of restrictions
that are necessary for responsible use.
>
>Is there any connection with responsible behavior and the net in
>your conception of netizen?
There is a tremendous connection. I haven't seen that connection in
your posting or in Jay's,but rather an insistence on rights without
any indication on how the infrastructure to support those
entitlements gets implemented and funded. I have also perceived, I
hope incorrectly, that you distrust any commercial entity as being a
useful part of the problem. Some of the discussion on the list is
exploring financial models to make widespread access possible,
including cross-subsidization and economies of scale involving
commercial entities.
>
>If so I wonder why you would raise the question of whether there
>was a right to spam for freedom of expression?
Because that is the _exact_ language being used by many spammers --
that restrictions on their use of the network is a restriction on
their freedom of speech, not a statement of responsibility.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:58:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jrh@umcc.ais.org>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] More or less democracy
Hi,
Michael and others on the net had a vision that the net could be the a
prototype of the future society where people contributed to and gained
from the vast new electronic commons. The motive of personal profit would
be replaced by the goal of mutual gain. For me this list is for the goal
of connecting holders of that vision in various countries with each other.
This list helps strengthen them for the difficult fight to move toward
that goal despite the overwhelming strength of the forces who would seek
profit from the net.
In the seven years of its existence there have been almost 500 digests or
more than 10,000,000 bytes of postings most pursuing that goal. Among the
posts have been comments, pointers, articles and occasionally discussions
and debates. A public Internet for scientific, educational and personal,
non-commercial purposes was always championed. The occasional voices
favoring commercialization over public purposes have had their say. But
never until now sought to change the netizens list. There are virtually
infinite venues where the virtues of commercialization and privatization
are explained, defended and advocated. What has been unique is that the
netizens list has been able to address questions based on a vision that
does not get stuck within the definitions of the defenders of
commercialization.
But recently, in the name of greater focus or the attraction of unknown
new subscribers, for the first time that I am aware some posts and some
possible threads have been criticized for their public or social
intentions. Also for the first time there have been threats of leaving the
list. In the past those satisfied with the public purpose advocacy have
stayed on the list. Those who were dissatisfied or opposed have left.
People have come and gone at will. Also, the right to ignore a post is
inalienable. Now something has changed. The essence of many of the posts has
lost connection with the vision of a public commons, protected by
governments and perhaps international treaties. And when the vision is
raised, it is answered with the questions that would throw us back to only
considering commercialization and privatization.
For example, I wrote,
>>When I said I wanted to contribute to the goal of free or low cost
>>universal access, I included "free or low cost" because if you consider
>>the state of poverty that is prevalent in the world it is easy to see
>>that any cost will be a barrier to many people everywhere. Poor people
>>on every continent will only have access when access is a right
>>guaranteed by their governments perhaps joining in a world treaty.
Howard replied:
>Again and again, I ask the question, where does the money come from
>to pay for the physical infrastructure and skilled people to allow
>these rights to be exercised?
That question has been answered over and over again by pointing out that
the net creates and enhances social wealth. It pays for itself many times
over by facilitating cooperation and collaboration, by increasing the
information available to citizens and workers and by increasing
communication which is the lubrication of society. Any society that
enables full access to the net and facilitates the use of it by its
citizens will be the richer for it. Like basic scientific research, full
free public access would pay for itself many times over.
The question who pays for it is really the question who will make money
profit from it.
And Howard has an answer before I repeat mine.
>Are you proposing Marxist economics to pay for the net? If not, what
>model are you using?
We should avoid "red baiting". I am arguing that the question implies that
future advantage can not be the basis for current social support for
something so important as the local and international communication that
universal access would facilitate.
The model I have is the model of the advantage to a society from its
support of basic scientific research. (Which has also been under attack
for at least the last 15 years.)
And if I have an answer to the first question there is a second.
Howard asks:
>How do you avoid the tragedy of the commons?
But isn't that questioning the whole vision of the net as a vast public
electronic commons.
The answer is social responsibility for the commons, which happens with
all actually functioning commons. Common irrigation ditches are
defended by their users from those who might try to divert water for
their own greater advantage. Let governments provide full
and equal access to the net and the netizens will protect the commons.
For whatever reasons, this list seems to be experiencing an overwhelming
traffic that has lost sight of its original and worthy purpose. In any
case the goal of a public non-commercial net will continue to be
championed by many people around the world and on the netizens list as
well.
Take care.
Jay
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #495
******************************
