Netizens-Digest Monday, March 24 2003 Volume 01 : Number 441 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] [IP] War News: Go Beyond the Usual Suspects (fwd) Re: [netz] A delicate line? Infrastructure (wads Re: [netz] A delicate line?) Re: [netz] A delicate line? Re: [netz] A delicate line? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:21:16 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] [IP] War News: Go Beyond the Usual Suspects (fwd) - --part1_49.2c829cc8.2baf7f4c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/22/03 9:48:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > Ronda, I'm a diabetic. If I wait to manage my disease until I'm in a > trying situation like diabetic coma or insulin shock, I've failed and > am at major risk. I don't want to deal with how to apply netizenship > in very challenging times -- I want to figure out how it can help > avoid the next time of unpleasant challenge. > This is where I have to agree with Howard. Let's talk about the exploitation of Netizenship for the purpose of proaction as opposed to reaction. This proactive emphasis would truly be salutary to everyone. Long term constructive proactivity, with Netizens in the political process, is truly where my interest begins on this thread. The Iraqi conflict does potentially provide a case to study for the purpose of proactive endeavor. And I do appreciate the references that Ronda is supplying. In order to try to get a grasp of the Netizen issues involved at this time, it might be necessary to obtain references to the gross relevant information. We can each individually process this information off-thread and look for interesting patterns that, if relevant, we can introduce and discuss here. I do hope that we are providing war information for the purpose of 'Netizens making change' as opposed to providing a news service. Let's find a way for Netizens to get involved in government when the times are good so that things are more manageable when the times go bad. I have been expressing this platitude for the past month in one form or another. I know; it's getting exhausting. Larry - --part1_49.2c829cc8.2baf7f4c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/22/03 9:48:08 AM Eastern Standard= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

Ronda, I'm a diabetic. If I wai= t to manage my disease until I'm in a
trying situation like diabetic coma or insulin shock, I've failed and
am at major risk. I don't want to deal with how to apply netizenship
in very challenging times -- I want to figure out how it can help
avoid the next time of unpleasant challenge.


This is where I have to agree with Howard.  Let's talk about the exploi= tation of Netizenship for the purpose of proaction as opposed to reaction.&n= bsp; This proactive emphasis would truly be salutary to everyone. 

Long term constructive proactivity, with Netizens in the political process,=20= is truly where my interest begins on this thread. 

The Iraqi conflict does potentially provide a case to study for the purpose=20= of proactive endeavor.  And I do appreciate the references that Ronda i= s supplying.  In order to try to get a grasp of the Netizen issues invo= lved at this time, it might be necessary to obtain references to the gross r= elevant information.  We can each individually process this information= off-thread and look for interesting patterns that, if relevant, we can intr= oduce and discuss here.

I do hope that we are providing war information for the purpose of 'Netizens= making change' as opposed to providing a news service. 

Let's find a way for Netizens to get involved in government when the times a= re good so that things are more manageable when the times go bad.  I ha= ve been expressing this platitude for the past month in one form or another.=  

I know; it's getting exhausting.

Larry - --part1_49.2c829cc8.2baf7f4c_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:12:47 -0500 (EST) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] A delicate line? Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > >[ML] I'm having trouble getting my head around the question. No, I don't > >think that > >TV and radio are "part of the net." > > And that, in and of itself, is an assumption that needs close > examination. First, do take into consideration my technical > perspective that the net, first and foremost, is a tangible system of > optics and electronics over which information flows. > > There are excellent technical and economic reasons to build > "converged" networks, which gain economies of scale by moving > telephony, video/television, etc., onto shared media. Those > economies of scale have a direct relevance to the penetration of what > I'll call the "social" (lousy term) net past the "digital divide." > It may be too expensive to run separate facilities for telephones, > cable TV, broadband access, etc. into a housing project, but it's > been demonstrated that a combined link can be affordable. > > So, given those physical and economic realities, I do consider TV > (perhaps radio less so) to be part of my definition of the net. > _Not_ considering it such may perpetuate the digital divide. Hmm. When you started this thread, I thought it had to do with the relationship between CNN media content and netizen roles. Or rather, more generally, you posed the question, "Are commercial television and radio part of the net? We can certainly communicate with them electronically as never in the past, with email feedback." That didn't get me to where you are now, so your followup is helpful. One reason I resist the generalization that "commercial television and radio [are] part of the net" is that it seems too big and vague -- and my academic training encourages me to distrust big, vague generalizations. I guess I'm still feeling that way about this one, but I don't want to waste our time in quibbling about it. I certainly accept that netizens should be concerned about emerging infrastructure issues. What other implications am I missing? > Again, this is fruit for discussion--I don't have the answer, but I > contend that content correctness is a generic demand for outside > parties to have control over what does not -- or does -- get into the > delivered content. OK. I don't object to that definition, as long as it is stated. (No snarkiness intended, I'm just trying to be concise.) > This becomes especially complex when it can be argued that a media > outlet is in some manner subsidized by use of the "commons" with > respect to radio frequency space and the like. One obvious area of > exploration here is the effect, at least in the US, of the effect of > cost of political television advertising on the integrity of the > political process. That integrity potentially is challenged both by > the need of the candidates to generate advertising dollars if they > are to be competitive, and the impact of often-unaccountable soft > money and issue campaigns. Yes, it seems that an (I won't say "the") original vision of the broadcasting spectrum as a public trust has gone by the boards; it will be interesting to see how things transpire with as/if traditional broadcast media continue to lose importance. [Too much for me to tackle intelligibly tonight.] > Let me make an emotional, unreasoned response here. I wouldn't trust > myself to be peaceful toward "bookburners", regardless of their > ideology. [...] Fine by me! > >Anyway, trying to think both as a netizen and as a political pragmatist, I > am > >more interested in efforts to build a credible independent media than in > >complaints about CNN. > > My model may be closer to building _analytical_ independence than > _source_ independence. I believe that the Netizen has to realize that > virtually any source is going to have biases, whether "independent" > or not. Oops, I agree: "build a credible independent media" was weak. But I don't want to put all the emphasis on what we might call the consumer (or demand) side. I like the fact that the Net provides a forum for countless sources that couldn't afford to get their message out otherwise -- and then, of course, the trick becomes to decide which sources to attend to. An interesting topic (especially in my biz), although perhaps not most helpful for this list right now. > As long as commercial media are getting slammed from both sides, they > are probably doing something right! Yes, I think that applies to CNN. (I'm not personally aware of Fox News getting slammed from the right, but I suppose it must have happened....) Mark Lindeman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:06:09 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Infrastructure (wads Re: [netz] A delicate line?) >Quoting "Howard C. Berkowitz" : > >> >[ML] I'm having trouble getting my head around the question. No, I don't >> >think that >> >TV and radio are "part of the net." >> >> And that, in and of itself, is an assumption that needs close >> examination. First, do take into consideration my technical >> perspective that the net, first and foremost, is a tangible system of >> optics and electronics over which information flows. >> >> There are excellent technical and economic reasons to build >> "converged" networks, which gain economies of scale by moving >> telephony, video/television, etc., onto shared media. Those >> economies of scale have a direct relevance to the penetration of what >> I'll call the "social" (lousy term) net past the "digital divide." >> It may be too expensive to run separate facilities for telephones, >> cable TV, broadband access, etc. into a housing project, but it's >> been demonstrated that a combined link can be affordable. >> >> So, given those physical and economic realities, I do consider TV >> (perhaps radio less so) to be part of my definition of the net. >> _Not_ considering it such may perpetuate the digital divide. > >Hmm. When you started this thread, I thought it had to do with the >relationship between CNN media content and netizen roles. Or rather, more >generally, you posed the question, "Are commercial television and >radio part of >the net? We can certainly communicate with them electronically as >never in the >past, with email feedback." That didn't get me to where you are now, so your >followup is helpful. > >One reason I resist the generalization that "commercial television and radio >[are] part of the net" is that it seems too big and vague -- and my academic >training encourages me to distrust big, vague generalizations. I guess I'm >still feeling that way about this one, but I don't want to waste our time in >quibbling about it. I certainly accept that netizens should be >concerned about >emerging infrastructure issues. What other implications am I missing? Let me throw out some infrastructure information, which I'll keep as nontechnical as possible. A generalization: the higher capacity a communications medium, the lower the cost per bit of information transferred. The biggest "pipes," of course, have high total cost, and are economic only inside the physical plants of network operators. By network operators, I am talking about the information highway, not the destinations or cars on it. In traditional telephony, the most expensive part to deliver was the "last mile" of wiring between the end telephone office and the user location. Of course, broadcast radio and television don't need this sort of resource, which is both capital and labor intensive to install and maintain. In this discussion, remember that optical fiber has fantastically more capacity than typical telephone wire. The copper coaxial cable traditionally used for cable TV is obsolete. Fiber to the Home (FTTH) brings the greatest bandwidth to the end user, but isn't always economic. Let me give a more recent model (don't worry about the distances; just think of them as names for functional bands). Different regulatory, competitive, and financial rules can apply to each band - -- and believe me, there are variants of all of them. Last meter: Household networks, whether telephone extensions or wireless networks anchored on a TV set-top box Last 100 meters (2 meanings): 1. The shared cabling and electronics in a multi-tenant building such as an apartment house or office building, including business models where the building operator distributes communication service like any other utility. This is where the Fiber to the Building (FTTB) model applies -- the building operator splits up the high capacity fiber just as he splits up a large water pipe. 2. Both for single- and multi-tenant installations, running existing or short-distance copper to a curbside pedestal where multiple signals go onto a longer-range fiber, the Fiber to the Curb (FTTC) model. Last mile (2 meanings): 1. Traditional -- telephone wire to the customer from the telephone office 2. New -- fiber, wire, or fixed wireless connectivity between the customer premises and a broadband aggregator such as a cable operator, who will remap user channels into big pipes to telephone networks, video content providers, internet service providers, and other data service providers Second mile: the "wholesale" links between aggregators and wide-area data providers. You'll notice I distinguish "Internet Service Provider" from "data provider". Personally, I like the term "Internet Protocol Service Provider," indicating that the organization may provide many services, all dependent on IP*, but not always connecting to the public Internet although they may share physical facilities. There are many services that for security, economic, technology or other good reasons do not belong on the public-access Internet, ranging from utility controls, to corporate telecommuting, to cheap telephony with good voice quality. *Allow me to be a pedant in my own field. It's correct to say all these services use IP. It is not correct to say they use TCP/IP. TCP is a "client" of IP for certain types of end-to-end communications and, for example, is quite technically inappropriate for telephony or for video broadcasts. Enter the economies. The greatest cost to get services to each end user is in the facilities closest to them, especially in the traditional telephony model. In traditional, non-digital telephony, a pair of wires can carry one voice channel. The first standard for digitizing a telephone call required 64 Kbps of bandwidth. Good-quality telephone pairs can carry 1.5-2 Mbps of bandwidth (usually arranged on a separate transmit and receive pair). With present technology, a high-quality telephone call can use as little as 2-8 Kbps of bandwidth. That bandwidth, however, has to be engineered in a very specific way -- it must have, for example, priority over all other user services because it is extremely tolerant of both absolute and variable delay. If you delay a telephone call because email got there first, telephony simply will not work. Web applications need much more bandwidth, but are still fairly tolerant of delay unless interactive (rather than streaming). Email and news are both low bandwidth and tolerant of delay, but not of errors. Voice and video are surprisingly tolerant to errors, because the human mind can interpolate around impairments to sound and visual quality. 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. It's not a simple problem. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:08:42 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] A delicate line? > > >> As long as commercial media are getting slammed from both sides, they >> are probably doing something right! > >Yes, I think that applies to CNN. (I'm not personally aware of Fox News >getting slammed from the right, but I suppose it must have happened....) You didn't know that the successor to Genghis Khan had a media critic? :-) Unfortunately, I don't remember the author of "When they are permitted to broadcast legal executions, the sensational news media will do so. Fox, however, will lobby for naked executions." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:34:01 +0100 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re: [netz] A delicate line? HCB> wants to can set up a press and print what they will. Freedom of the HCB> press does not mean that I can compel a publisher to present my HCB> views. These "demands" seem, to me, to fall into the second case. Sure, but to be objective means to give same priority for everyone (or in other words, to not use any priority at all)... To say truth, I don't believe big media corporations to be objective, there are always some other interests behind. Mostly money, that's profit. That means to publish only information bringing in more spectators (as for CNN) thus generating bigger profit. Of course, CNN could be trying to be objective, but it's sometime really tough in situations like war (any war). I don't support peace initiative in case of Iraq, but we have to consider there are also other governments that are hostile to their citizens. Just take China as example. People in Tibet are constantly tortured and killed since the beginning of occupation. Does that mean US should declare war on China? China does not behave hostile towards US, but towards their citizens. Continuous genocide of Tibet nation is absolutely cruel and US are doing nothing about it, because of money and big market out there. Same for Kurdish nation. They don't have their own state/country and are under constant attack from all states (Turkey, Iran, Iraq). Are US trying to do something about it? And now back to CNN and its objectivity. If CNN doesn't publish enough facts about peace movement, they could try to influence people and media through internet. They could publish their views on webpages and send it by email to their supporters. So, basically I don't see this as problem and since I haven't been watching CNN for some time, I can't tell if CNN doesn't provide objective information. As for me, I don't own TV at the moment and read only online news and magazines, so I can always find and compare news and information from different sources. That's what internet for, isn't it? dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- "the real revolution ain't about the lexus you drives" sarah jones -* ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #441 ******************************