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" 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" : > > [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" 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" : > >> > [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 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" 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 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 ******************************