From denni011@gold.tc.umn.edu Mon Nov 14 15:33:55 1994 Received: from gold.tc.umn.edu (root@gold.tc.umn.edu [128.101.115.11]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA05057 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:33:54 -0800 Received: from dialup-5-84.gw.umn.edu by gold.tc.umn.edu; Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:24:01 -0500 X-Sender: denni011@gold.tc.umn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:24:44 -0600 To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov From: denni011@gold.tc.umn.edu (Rollin Denniston) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:15] Pilot Projects X-Mailer: Message-Id: <2ec7c7624ba0010@gold.tc.umn.edu> > >Richard Kenshalo >Network Engineering >Matanuska Telephone Association >Palmer, Alaska > >907-745-9575 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------~ Rollin Denniston There's more to the mind---than meets the I Institute of Mind Sciences 1111 W. 22nd St., #200 Minneapolis MN 55405 ------------------------------------------~ From msyssft!msyssft!microsys!susang@uu6.psi.com Mon Nov 14 15:37:02 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com (uu6.psi.com [38.145.155.3]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA05105 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:37:01 -0800 Received: from msyssft.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA24830 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:43:49 -0500 From: msyssft!microsys!susang@uu6.psi.com Date: 14-Nov-94 14:39 Received: by msyssft (UUCP-MHS-XtcN) Mon Nov 14 14:38:43 1994 To: futon.sfsu.edu!jloh@uu6.psi.com ( Jonathan Loh ), redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov ( Multiple recipients of list ) Message-Id: 9C52C72E01B361E1 In-Reply-To: F36FC72E81B361E1 Importance: Normal Encoding: 67 TEXT Yes, the internet is kind of like TV. And much like television, it will slow to propagate until the price and the access are such that (almost) everyone can have one. If you are connected, you start to take IT all for granted. However, there is a large percentage of the population who only knows of the internet what it reads (if you are a doonesbury fan, Zonker Harris in the Sunday 13 nov strip has meaning here). To make the internet accessible is the goal. Even this virtual conference recognizes that there are a lot of opinions out there without direct access, so it has organized public access points. I agree, that it should be (and in the future will be), that everyone has their own computer, and we all can afford the level of access we want. However, in the interim, in order to get to that point, where the internet (and computing in the home in general) is universally accepted to the point where people buy the computer as they would a toaster (Steve Jobs, where are you), other ways of access have to be provided. People have to get used -- indeed begin to rely -- on the information and the communication resource that is the internet. Public access models are as good a place to start as any. For example, if you want to go back to the tv metaphor, in the early days of television, not everybody had a tv set. So people gathered in each other's homes to watch the few programs that were on. A form of public access. Eventually, both the price point for the set came down enough and the perceived value of the prgramming went up enough so that people did indeed, buy their own. IMO, the public library is a good place to start. ************************************************** Susan J. Getgood Manager, Marketing & Communications Microsystems Software Inc. 600 Worcester Rd., Framingham, MA 01701 tel: 508/ 879-9000 or 800/489-2001; fax: 508/ 626-8515 e-mail: susang@microsys.com ------------- Original Text >From jloh @ UUCP ( Jonathan Loh ) { uupsi6!futon.sfsu.edu!jloh }, on 11/14/94 1:01 PM: > > Right now, due to economics, access to the Internet is heavily biased for > those who can afford their own computer. I'm a volunteer for the Eugene Free > Net (the Eugene node of Oregon Public Networking). We have a few projects in > the works for getting terminals out into publicly accessible places. I'd > like to hear from other groups who have successfully accomplished this kind > of public outreach. In what kinds of areas have you found the best response? > Where is the biggest need? What are some of the problems in maintaining and > supporting this kind of public access? > > Thanks, > > Steve > > I think this is kind of like TV Steve. Each person needs to buy his or her own. -- Jonathan jloh@futon.sfsu.edu **** Please quote from this message when responding --- Thanks! From don@dcez.com Mon Nov 14 15:41:31 1994 Received: from relay2.UU.NET (relay2.UU.NET [192.48.96.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA05466 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:41:30 -0800 Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxqab27589; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:29:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:25:42 -500 (EST) From: Don Evans Subject: Universal Access... To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: don@dcez.com Any defination of Universal Access must address: 1. Access by all Americans disabled, rural, inner-city, ie. everyone. 2. A two way street for all Americans. not only should they be able to receive from the net, but they also must be able to provide their unique information. 3. A farm to market road so everyone can produce as well as consume information 4. Include non-profits be inclusive of cultural organizations, art organizations, and minority organizations 5. Provide a level playing field for everyone. don@dcez.com From don@dcez.com Mon Nov 14 15:56:15 1994 Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA05815 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:56:14 -0800 Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxqal11775; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:48:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:44:42 -500 (EST) From: Don Evans Subject: Universal Acces To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: don@dcez.com Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:25:42 -500 (EST) From: Don Evans To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Universal Access... Any defination of Universal Access must address: 1. Access by all Americans disabled, rural, inner-city, ie. everyone. 2. A two way street for all Americans. not only should they be able to receive from the net, but they also must be able to provide their unique information. 3. A farm to market road so everyone can produce as well as consume information 4. Include non-profits be inclusive of cultural organizations, art organizations, and minority organizations 5. Provide a level playing field for everyone. don@dcez.com From Steve.Granata@GSA.GOV Mon Nov 14 16:12:25 1994 Received: from sunshine.gsa.gov (sunshine.gsa.gov [159.142.1.100]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA06105 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 16:12:24 -0800 From: Steve.Granata@GSA.GOV Received: from ccgate1.gsa.gov ([159.142.140.22]) by sunshine.gsa.gov (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14161; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 16:01:03 +0500 Received: from ccMail by ccgate1.gsa.gov id AA784857775 Mon, 14 Nov 94 16:02:55 EST Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 16:02:55 EST Message-Id: <9410147848.AA784857775@ccgate1.gsa.gov> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:14] NTIA hearings staff reports, request content-length: 1134 Check the IITF Gopher server at gopher iitf.doc.gov. The server contains transcripts of several of the universal service hearings, as well as many other documents pertinent to re-defining universal service for the 21st century. Perhaps a more pertinent question for this subject, is whether the documents on the Gopher server are available to users without Gopher client access. Steve Granata Contract Specialist FTS2000 Service Enhancements Branch ----------------------------------- My opinions are my own. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: [REDEFUS:14] NTIA hearings staff reports, request Author: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov at Internet Date: 11/14/94 01:28 PM TO: NTIA staff VirtConf participants Secretary Barram's welcoming statement(s) advises that this conference "continues dialog started by NTIA's five field hearings". Can staff provide summaries of these hearings? Thank you NTIA and IITF for this conference. Joe Mortz (805-564 0824) From jloh@futon.sfsu.edu Mon Nov 14 16:17:07 1994 Received: from futon.sfsu.edu (futon.sfsu.edu [130.212.2.65]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA06209 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 16:17:06 -0800 Received: by futon.sfsu.edu (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA13044; Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:09:09 -0800 From: Jonathan Loh Message-Id: <9411142109.AA13044@futon.sfsu.edu> Subject: Re: Public Access To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:09:01 PST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL10] This is my second attempt to post this message. I forget who said they wanted free access. or even if someone did say that. My take on this is that you have to ask a very basic question: Who owns the Internet? Answer: nobody, and everybody. Let me clarify. No one single entity owns the internet, ie responsible for upkeep and r&d and etc... . Rather the internet is owned by everybody. Companies pay for access. Schools, and governments do also. Some pay in the form of cold hard cash. and some in the form of r&d. The responsibility of the upkeep of the net (physical net) depends on the network provider (Netcom, BarrNet, ...) who uses the cash to help maintain the net. So my view is everyone should pay for the InterNet $10-$20 sounds good. -- Jonathan jloh@futon.sfsu.edu **** Please quote from this message when responding --- Thanks! From ext23!RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu Mon Nov 14 16:28:41 1994 Received: from OES.ORST.EDU (OES.ORST.EDU [128.193.124.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA06375 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 16:28:32 -0800 Received: from ext23.UUCP by OES.ORST.EDU with UUCP id AA24061 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3); Mon, 14 Nov 94 11:02:16 -0800 Received: by ext23.OES.ORST.EDU (UUPC/extended 1.11q); Mon, 14 Nov 1994 12:01:38 pst From: RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu Message-Id: <2ec7c223.ext23@ext23.OES.ORST.EDU> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: 14 Nov 94 12:01:37 Subject: Comments from a Country Road, not the Infobahn Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4). Thank you NTIA and IITF for bothering to host this Virtual Conference. The question of Universal Service really comes down to a question of equity and equal protection of the law. The goal of avoiding the division of our country into the information haves and have-nots is certainly appealing to me but I fear it is not persuasive to many, especially those whose profit margin is affected by its achievement. There is a significant economic advantage for many to be able to access the Internet. There is also a disadvantage to be required to pay a per minute charge to make that connection when competitors can access without a per minute charge. Many have stumbled over the problem of "who will pay the Piper" when addressing this inequity. They have erroneously proposed the solution of free access from rural areas. The proper solution in my view is not free access, but equal access. If I do not ask the telco to connect rural users like me free but for the same price as any other user, the question of subsidy does not come up. The answer is to charge all equally for equal service. No humungus beaurocracy need be formed to regulate the "subsidy." Simply spread the cost of providing connection to Internet providers evenly over all the users. It is just plain not fair for the 85% of the people who live on 5% of the land to have free access to what costs the rest of us ten or more cents per minute. Submitted by William P. (Bill) Russell =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Bandon Public Library -- Access to the Virtual Conference Via: Internet: russellb@ext23.oes.orst.edu Long Distance Tolls Paid by the City of Bandon Internet Access courtesy of Oregon State University and William P. (Bill) Russell vox: 503-347-3683 fax: 503-347-6303 snail mail: P.O.Box 2029 Bandon, OR 97411 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From blast@leland.Stanford.EDU Mon Nov 14 16:58:59 1994 Received: from elaine30.Stanford.EDU (blast@elaine30.Stanford.EDU [36.216.0.218]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA06860 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 16:58:58 -0800 Received: (from blast@localhost) by elaine30.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id NAA07522; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:51:04 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:51:04 -0800 (PST) From: Solomon Philip Hill Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Accesss To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov In-Reply-To: <9411141834.AA10892@futon.sfsu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Jonathan Loh wrote: > >> Right now, due to economics, access to the Internet is heavily biased for >> those who can afford their own computer. I'm a volunteer for the Eugene Free >> Net (the Eugene node of Oregon Public Networking). We have a few projects in >> the works for getting terminals out into publicly accessible places. I'd >> like to hear from other groups who have successfully accomplished this kind >> of public outreach.In what kinds of areas have you found the best response? >> Where is the biggest need? What are some of the problems in maintaining and >> supporting this kind of public access? > I certainly agree that Internet access is heavily biased right now. There are very few voices that I have seen representing the viewpoints of the disenfrachised. I am a volunteer at Computers and You which is a non-profit that provides computer training and access to impoverished and homeless people in San Francisco's Tenderloin district. We are a part of Glide Memorial Church, which provides other services for the poor (serves 3,000 free meals per day, crack recovery programs, etc.). We are just starting our first Internet class, but will soon provide access to our students. There are many sides to the American Experience, and ignoring the plight of the poor leaves a society in a very precarious position. Until the time comes when everyone can afford a personal terminal of some sort, I think that the community center or library model of access works pretty well. This leaves open the question of training which seems to be the least talked about, but possibly most important aspect here. > I'm not sure it should be free. But I'll grant you that there shouldn't > be an exhorbitant charge either. $10 to $20 a month should suffice. > > Why don't I think it should be free? > > Well the InterNet is not run by one single entity, rather it's run by > the companies who have accounts on the Inet, government and academia, > yes students also pay, it's included in your tuition. > > Like most networks the InterNet must be maintained. Are we as Netizens > going for a free ride? ... -- Jonathan Let's face it--one of the primary reasons that the Internet has seen such rapid growth is because it is "free". Most users are not paying directly for it. They get access through a university or job or other institution. What other community organizations are there out there using the Info Highway? --Solomon blast@leland.stanford.edu From dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov Mon Nov 14 17:20:43 1994 Received: from ednet1.osl.or.gov (ednet1.osl.or.gov [192.84.215.8]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA07182 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:20:42 -0800 Received: by ednet1.osl.or.gov id AA12401 (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:12:54 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:12:54 -0800 Message-Id: <199411142212.AA12401@ednet1.osl.or.gov> From: dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Dave W Mitchell) To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:22] Re: Pilot Projects Reply-To: dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov It would seem logical to recycle the technology of a few years back, no longer coveted at the commercial level, to the user community for public access. We at the Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative are using castoff 286's for BBS functions. While many corporations scrap such equipment, a few remarket it to the community at scrap prices rather than to reclaimers. We have the good fortune to have cooperative power and telephone utilities with large surplus bandwidth, some of which is being made available to local communities for a variety of civic uses. The Oregon legislature is presently wrestling with the legislation that will create special carrier categories for such use, and we urge other states and localities to follow suit. I agree that the knowledge base of a society and teh ability of its citizens to use it will determine the ultimate survival of free peoples. On the whole, we are rapidly approaching an economic point at which crime is the only freedom in which many can afford to indulge. Dave Mitchell -- Acting Executive -- OCRISC -- Dave W. Mitchell Waldport, Oregon Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative "A bit off the superhighway" From rehm@zso.dec.com Mon Nov 14 17:40:43 1994 Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com [16.1.0.23]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA07473 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:40:17 -0800 From: rehm@zso.dec.com Received: from slugbt.zso.dec.com by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA20405; Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:50:16 -0800 Received: from localhost by slugbt.zso.dec.com; (5.65/DECwest-OSF-Nov-11-93) Message-Id: <9411142150.AA09999@slugbt.zso.dec.com> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Cc: rehm@zso.dec.com Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:22] Re: Pilot Projects In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Nov 94 15:08:54 PST." <3A45E1049AE@wvuadmin3.csc.wvu.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 13:50:03 -0800 X-Mts: smtp Lew McDaniel says: > Richard Kenshalo ( Palmer, Alaska) says: > > I feel that a lot of people are going > > to be stuck in the breakdown lane of the information superhighway. > > And they will almost all be in rural America. > > > I have the same fear. Here in WV, Bell Atlantic tells us > they have installed the most modern fiber plant of any of > the Baby Bells. Yet their plans call for delivery of > advanced services (my term - actually movies on demand) ... > ... > In my opinion, information access is sufficiently important > to be a guaranteed right. By guaranteed information access, I mean > for K-12, adult education, health services, and government > access. Movies on demand, games, and electronic shopping > (ala the shopping channels) should be charged at an additional rate. > ... Lew implicitly makes an interesting point that belies the Baby Bell frenzy - their emphasis on access, which includes bandwidth and "access style" assumptions, is on "delivery" - the big pipe into the home. Very little bandwidth in required out of the home to order movies, play a game, or shop. Lew's conception of access, I would posit, demands a much more interactive use of the medium and perhaps the bandwidth needs are more balanced: imagine that your child's school might want to "video serve" school productions. This example can then be extended to any number of community organizations with members as avid information producers. In other words, basic service based on enabling "many producers" might actually prompt a larger share to be allocated to bandwidth OUT of the home than that invisaged by the Baby Bells and cable companies. It seems to me, in rural America, there woudl be even more fear of not having ample "basic" bandwidth to be a producer because the distance to such an "access point" might be enough to effectively deny community production. Eric Rehm Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility / Seattle Seattle, WA From sbrenner@efn.org Mon Nov 14 17:48:52 1994 Received: from skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (skinner.cs.uoregon.edu [128.223.4.13]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA07613 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:48:48 -0800 Received: from efn.org by skinner.cs.uoregon.edu with SMTP id AA22939 (5.65/IDA-1.4.2 for redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:40:49 -0800 Received: from net18.efn.org by efn.efn.org (4.1/smail2.5/05-07-92) id AA21937; Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:40:07 PST Message-Id: <9411142240.AA21937@efn.efn.org> X-Sender: sbrenner@efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:36:00 -0800 To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov, Multiple recipients of list From: sbrenner@efn.org (Stephen Brenner) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:16] Re: Public Accesss X-Mailer: At 02:01 PM 11/14/94 -0800, Jonathan Loh wrote: >I think this is kind of like TV Steve. Each person needs to buy his or >her own. > >-- >Jonathan >jloh@futon.sfsu.edu I might buy your argument if you made the analogy to telephones which one can purchase for $10 and which have become an essential part of surviving in our culture. Even there, activists had to lobby for life-line rates. Computers on the other hand take a much deeper bite from your average person's wallet. And then there is the cultural barrier where it takes a good deal of training to get up to speed with the technology. Two hundred years ago we could set up a democracy where only the male landowners could participate. Nowadays, the expectations for great inclusiveness are much higher. Steve From sbrenner@efn.org Mon Nov 14 17:54:57 1994 Received: from skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (skinner.cs.uoregon.edu [128.223.4.13]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA07749 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:54:54 -0800 Received: from efn.org by skinner.cs.uoregon.edu with SMTP id AA23060 (5.65/IDA-1.4.2 for redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:46:57 -0800 Received: from net18.efn.org by efn.efn.org (4.1/smail2.5/05-07-92) id AA22745; Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:46:14 PST Message-Id: <9411142246.AA22745@efn.efn.org> X-Sender: sbrenner@efn.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:42:07 -0800 To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov, Multiple recipients of list From: sbrenner@efn.org (Stephen Brenner) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:17] Re: Public Accesss X-Mailer: At 02:12 PM 11/14/94 -0800, Jonathan Loh wrote: >> >> Right now, due to economics, access to the Internet is heavily biased for >> those who can afford their own computer. I'm a volunteer for the Eugene Free >> Net (the Eugene node of Oregon Public Networking). We have a few projects in >> the works for getting terminals out into publicly accessible places. I'd >> like to hear from other groups who have successfully accomplished this kind >> of public outreach. In what kinds of areas have you found the best response? >> Where is the biggest need? What are some of the problems in maintaining and >> supporting this kind of public access? >> > >I'm not sure it should be free. But I'll grant you that there shouldn't >be an exhorbitant charge either. $10 to $20 a month should suffice. > >Why don't I think it should be free? > >Well the InterNet is not run by one single entity, rather it's run by >the companies who have accounts on the Inet, government and academia, >yes students also pay, it's included in your tuition. > >Like most networks the InterNet must be maintained. Are we as Netizens >going for a free ride? > >It would be one4 thing if the Inet was a commercialized institution like >Television. Where corporate sponsors pay for advertising. > >But on the net it's not like that. There is an increasing ammount of >commercial ads which I see yes. But aI think it's still not at the >level of even PBS. The one exception to this was that blatant piece of >commercialism by Canter & Siegle. I think these pieces of commercialism >are rare. > >On the net commercialism is rare usually limited to posts in specific >newsgroups, or signatures. > >I think it is the duty of every individual to contribute some kind of >money for the use of the net to support the upkeep of the net. >ok ok maybe 10 or 20 is too much, too little, or whatever. The point >I'm tring to make is that the responsibility of the upkeep of the net >rests in no ones hands but the user's. >-- >Jonathan >jloh@futon.sfsu.edu >**** Please quote from this message when responding --- Thanks! Jonathan, I can agree with the idea of somehow getting the costs covered, but my point about free public access is for those people who can not afford their own computer and would be excluded from access to information due to their economic status. I think we need to make the extra effort to outreach to these people. Steve From ext23!RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu Mon Nov 14 18:04:05 1994 Received: from OES.ORST.EDU (OES.ORST.EDU [128.193.124.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA07929 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 18:04:02 -0800 Received: from ext23.UUCP by OES.ORST.EDU with UUCP id AA01909 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3); Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:54:08 -0800 Received: by ext23.OES.ORST.EDU (UUPC/extended 1.11q); Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:54:49 pst From: RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu Message-Id: <2ec7f8c9.ext23@ext23.OES.ORST.EDU> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: 14 Nov 94 15:54:47 Subject: Equal Access for Rural America Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4). Being in a rural area can cause one to feel cut off from contacts that were available in "one's previous life" (as we like to describe our lives before we made the move here). I was an extensive network user before accepting early retirement and the move to the town of my dreams. I am NOT sorry I made the move. However, I do miss the contact with people and ideas that network access offered me. My ten year old grandson has just come to live with me. I cannot offer him the network access I could offer him when I lived in a city. I cannot afford the cost of a service such as Prodigy, America Online etc. plus per minute line charges to Eugene, Oregon. I will not allow myself to even try a service because I know how easily I could get hooked. We need equal access in rural areas. The potential for education and participation for all people is unlimited. Redefinition must include network access on a equal basis so that rural schools, children and other citizens do not get excluded from tomorrow. Spreading the cost of general access over the broad spectrum of users should make this reasonable for all. Kendall Ridgway Bandon, Oregon =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Bandon Public Library -- Access to the Virtual Conference Via: Internet: russellb@ext23.oes.orst.edu Long Distance Tolls Paid by the City of Bandon Internet Access courtesy of Oregon State University and William P. (Bill) Russell vox: 503-347-3683 fax: 503-347-6303 snail mail: P.O.Box 2029 Bandon, OR 97411 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From rehm@zso.dec.com Mon Nov 14 18:11:10 1994 Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com [16.1.0.23]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA08003 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 18:10:53 -0800 From: rehm@zso.dec.com Received: from slugbt.zso.dec.com by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA23496; Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:50:05 -0800 Received: from localhost by slugbt.zso.dec.com; (5.65/DECwest-OSF-Nov-11-93) Message-Id: <9411142250.AA12217@slugbt.zso.dec.com> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:27:28 PST." Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 14:49:59 -0800 X-Mts: smtp > - While 'public access' is sometimes considered either a necessity or > a public good, what effects will the above choices make on a market > that is still in the early stages of development? Specifically, will > public access stunt market and technological development in the long > term? What does "stunt" mean in this case? If it merely means "change", then yes, public access may "change" the market conditions. But I imagine similarly that the Communications Act of 1924 "changed" market conditions. (Perhaps someone can put comment on this?) However, ultimately, I would think that the long term view of cuch change would benefit the market, i.e., broad "user" coverage at an early stage in the "design process" is a tenant upon which successful products are built these days. There is no technological imperative here - we haven't "lost" something as a nation if we stunt/change the course of technology towards universal access. This, in itself, would be a wonderful technological achievement, even if the "sexier" services are stunted. /eric rehm Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility / Seattle Seattle, WA From evote@netcom.com Mon Nov 14 20:11:55 1994 Received: from netcom12.netcom.com (evote@netcom12.netcom.com [192.100.81.124]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09469 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:11:54 -0800 Received: by netcom12.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom) id RAA26470; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:04:24 -0800 From: evote@netcom.com (Marilyn Davis) Message-Id: <199411150104.RAA26470@netcom12.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:20] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:04:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "NARUC Conference" at Nov 14, 94 02:49:56 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1409 Me too! Particularly computer modem exchange. > > > Hi, I'm Esther Nelson here at the NARUC Conference and I'm with US West > and, speaking for myself, I agree with Michael. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > NARUC Conference Public Access Site > | Internet: conf@ba.com > > Site Connection Provided Compliments of Bell Atlantic > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Michael Strait wrote: > > > The opening question was, "what is the minimum 'basket' of basic > > services or capabilities that all Americans should be able to obtain > > today?" I think the simple answer to that is: single-line telephone > > service capable of supporting touch tone and computer modem exchange. > > Tomorrow is something else, but that should be the minimum today. > > > > > > Michael J. Strait strait@cpb.org > > Annenberg/CPB Projects 202-879-9649 > > Corporation for Public Broadcasting 202-783-1036 (fax) > > 901 E Street NW > > Washington, DC 20004 > > > > > > > > -- Frontier Systems ---------------------- eVote - online voting software 3790 El Camino Real, #147 Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. (415) 493-3631 eVote@netcom.com Principal Software Engineer From evote@netcom.com Mon Nov 14 20:18:36 1994 Received: from netcom12.netcom.com (evote@netcom12.netcom.com [192.100.81.124]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09528 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:18:35 -0800 Received: by netcom12.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom) id RAA27335; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:11:07 -0800 From: evote@netcom.com (Marilyn Davis) Message-Id: <199411150111.RAA27335@netcom12.netcom.com> Subject: Not Information ---> COMMUNICATION To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:11:07 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1525 NOT JUST INFORMATION ---> COMMUNICATION The NTIA is building a one-way highway to a dead end when they take the word "Telecommunications" out of their rhetoric. Six points: 1. Information is always old already. 2. Telecommunications, properly algorithmed, provides dynamic information about who we are as the human race. "What is the most favorite favorite color today?" or "How many people have colds today?" or "Can we afford space exploration now?" 3. Telecommunications is the road to direct democracy and a future for this planet. 4. Downstream bandwidth is just another broadcast medium. Upstream bandwidth is power for the people. 5. Instant information is another quick-gratification kind of revolution. 6. Telecommunication enables one-to-many communication for each of us, something brand new for the human race. This is more than revolution, it's evolution. If this administration is interested in this technology, please name our infrastructure "The Communications Superhighway" so people begin to understand. To demonstrate enthusiasm for democracy and the medium, this administration could set up a telnet site where we spend a few million democratically. And, next time, this conference could be democratically moderated. Marilyn Davis Frontier Systems --------------------- eVote - online voting software 3790 El Camino Real, #147 Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. (415) 493-3631 --- eVote@netcom.com --- Principal Software Engineer From rciville@civicnet.org Mon Nov 14 20:25:44 1994 Received: from clark.net (root@clark.net [168.143.0.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09631 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:25:35 -0800 Received: from [168.143.0.63] (rciville_ppp.clark.net [168.143.0.63]) by clark.net (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id UAA17782 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:17:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199411150117.UAA17782@clark.net> X-Sender: rciville@clark.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:21:10 -0500 To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov From: rciville@civicnet.org (Richard Civille) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:18] Re: NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address At 2:26 PM 11/14/94 -0800, Michael Strait wrote: >I think the simple answer to that is: single-line telephone >service capable of supporting touch tone and computer modem exchange. >Tomorrow is something else, but that should be the minimum today. What would a basic basket of services be in five years? In ten? And, by what process do we change our minds and expand our definition? In many states, touch tone capability is not part of the basic basket of service. In many other states, it is. What was the argument in the states that upgraded their policies to include touch tone service? Is there anything we can learn from their experience about how to develop federal universal service policies? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Center for Civic Networking Richard Civille P.O. Box 53152 Executive Director Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 362-3831 rciville@civicnet.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From ext23!RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu Mon Nov 14 21:05:33 1994 Received: from OES.ORST.EDU (OES.ORST.EDU [128.193.124.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA10037 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:05:05 -0800 Received: from ext23.UUCP by OES.ORST.EDU with UUCP id AA08151 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3); Mon, 14 Nov 94 17:28:49 -0800 Received: by ext23.OES.ORST.EDU (UUPC/extended 1.11q); Mon, 14 Nov 1994 18:30:22 pst From: RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu Message-Id: <2ec81d3e.ext23@ext23.OES.ORST.EDU> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: 14 Nov 94 18:30:20 Subject: How far is long distance? Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4). I would like to see Internet access in rural and urban areas. Computer literacy is going to be an essential part of everyone's "literacy" and people need to be able to communicate freely with others no matter where they are. In rural areas, we are extremely limited in the areas in which local phone service is provided. One can call toll free in the Portland metro area from Gresham/Troutdale to Hillsboro, a distance of over 40 miles. Yet for those of us who live in Bandon, we can not make a local phone call to Coos Bay or Coquille, both of which are less than 25 miles away. I am a research statistician who works with people in various parts of the state and country. It would be useful to be able to communicate with them via E-Mail without running up huge phone bills. Carol L. Link Bandon, OR 97411 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Bandon Public Library -- Access to the Virtual Conference Via: Internet: russellb@ext23.oes.orst.edu Long Distance Tolls Paid by the City of Bandon Internet Access courtesy of Oregon State University and William P. (Bill) Russell vox: 503-347-3683 fax: 503-347-6303 snail mail: P.O.Box 2029 Bandon, OR 97411 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From WHITTLE@SMTPGATE.sunydutchess.edu Mon Nov 14 22:10:03 1994 Received: from admaix.sunydutchess.edu (admaix.sunydutchess.edu [198.242.208.250]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA10573 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 22:09:58 -0800 Received: by admaix.sunydutchess.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA24769; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 22:01:31 -0500 Message-Id: <9411150301.AA24769@admaix.sunydutchess.edu> Received: from smtpgate id: 2EC8244D.E8E (WordPerfect SMTP Gateway V3.1a 04/27/92) Received: from admaix (WP Connection) Received: from TCPBRIDGE (WP Connection) Received: from CCBET_SERVER (WP Connection) Received: from CIS_SERVER (WP Connection) From: (Whittle, Frank ) To: Date: Mon Nov 14 22:00:29 1994 m0:MESSAGE I am currently conducting dissertation research on the relationship between promoting a telecommunication policy favoring economic development and one favoring universal service. Specifically, I am interested in providing a stakeholder analysis to determine the level of agreement and/or disagreement in perceptions on this relationship. The term "economic development" has become prominent in state telecommunication policy during the last ten years as the states battle to retain and attract industry. It appears from the preliminary research that the issue of providing universal access (services) has become less prominent in policy documents. Although my study will concentrate on policy in New York State, I would welcome any leads on previous research in this area. Also, I am interested in any comments you may have and/or suggestions in this area. Thanks. Frank Whittle Chairman, CIS Dutchess Community College Poughkeepsie, New York PhD Candidate SUNY @ Albany email: whittle@sunydutchess.edu From cyberoid@u.washington.edu Tue Nov 15 01:12:05 1994 Received: from stein1.u.washington.edu (cyberoid@stein1.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA11904 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:12:04 -0800 Received: by stein1.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW94.4/UW-NDC Revision: 2.30 ) id AA25921; Mon, 14 Nov 94 22:04:12 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 22:04:12 -0800 From: Robert Jacobson Message-Id: <9411150604.AA25921@stein1.u.washington.edu> X-Sender: cyberoid@stein1.u.washington.edu To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss An appropriate question is not how much a particular individual or organization should pay for access to the Internet or its successors, but why they should have access, individually and collectively? Once you figure this out, and define access to suit, you can figure on pricing. Everything else is premature, unless people get out their basic premises on which they are operating. Bob Jacobson From glevin@hookup.net Tue Nov 15 01:36:46 1994 Received: from noc.tor.hookup.net (noc.tor.hookup.net [165.154.1.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA12016 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:36:45 -0800 Received: from glevin.tor.hookup.net (glevin.tor.hookup.net [165.154.15.54]) by noc.tor.hookup.net (8.6.9/1.189) with SMTP id BAA05651; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:28:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199411150628.BAA05651@noc.tor.hookup.net> X-Sender: glevin@tor.hookup.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:26:47 -0500 To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov From: glevin@hookup.net (George Levin) X-Mailer: subscribe From vcred@latte.spl.lib.wa.us Tue Nov 15 05:07:18 1994 Received: from rs6a.wln.com (rs6a.wln.com [192.156.252.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA13266 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 05:07:16 -0800 Received: from latte.spl.lib.wa.us by rs6a.wln.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.06) id AA72952; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:58:00 -0800 Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM) id AA06645; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 02:01:44 -0800 Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM) id AA06637; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 02:01:44 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 02:01:42 -0800 (PST) From: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII AA Alright, just wanted to particapate in this discussion. Send email to; kurt at 72410.2332@compuserve.com and i will email ya back asap. Subscribe; Don Evans tnx. "The above message was sent from the Seattle Public Library public access point. Though the Library is pleased to make this service available, The views expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the position of the Seattle Public Library." On Mon, 14 Nov 1994 vcred@latte.spl.lib.wa.us wrote: > Subject: [REDEFUS:2] Subscribe > X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > X-Comment: Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.redefus > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Status: O > > X-From: Don Evans > > Subscribe Donald F. Evans > > From chage@rahul.net Tue Nov 15 10:11:23 1994 Received: from tango.rahul.net (root@tango.rahul.net [192.160.13.5]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA15517 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:11:17 -0800 Received: from bolero.rahul.net by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA03658 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:03:21 -0800 Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA18625 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:03:15 -0800 Received: by slick.chage.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18686; Tue, 15 Nov 94 05:21:42 PST Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 05:21:42 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411151321.AA18686@slick.chage.com> To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion, and provide my input into the shaping of the future information age in America. I believe that using the internet offers the potential to obtain high quality information needed for proper decision making, as well as improving the access of the government to the public. Universal service has been a very important topic for me as I believe that having univeral access to an information infrastructure can make a substantial difference in out overall global competitiveness. The policies decided here could substantially affect the timetable for obtaining universal access and could either reduce or exacerbate a gap between information "haves" and "have-nots". One problem we have had with defining universal service is that we have thought in terms of access to a "telecommunications infrastructure" rather than "information infrastructure". In other words, we have focused substantially on the communications aspect, and omitted the needs for an infrastructure to hold and organize information. To define universal service and access to an information infrastructure, we need to consider: - Universal Access to an interoperable, global packet digital communications network (a.k.a the Internet) - Close to 100% access for government, business, schools, and individuals - Universal Access to public information - Forums, Archives, Meeting places etc. for the exchange of information - Open Access to provide information 1. Universal Access to Public Information The key issue for all users is "will we have access to information?" In my opinion, we already have some basic access to a global telecommunications infrastructure, but we lack access to most of the information which could be available. If we want to send someone email, they must have access to the net. If we want to obtain some information across the NII, then it must be made available. There is a chicken-and-egg problem. Many people do not feel they need email, since may others they might interact with do not have it. Many people may feel internet access is not important for information access, since most information is not yet available. In much of the quest to address the issue of information providers, the discussion has focused on commercial information services, e.g. the existing publishing and entertainment industry, and we have overlooked some of the most significant sources of information. The largest single producer of information is the federal government, most of which is public. Although these days virtually all documents are produced in electronic form on a word processor, etc., very little of the information is available in electronic form. Nearly all information is distributed in paper form, typically obtained by calling over a telephone. A similar case can be made for state and local governments. Our current paper and telephone based "information infrastructure" has lead to some significant inequities in access to information: - Journalists and Lobbiests in Washington have access not available outside D.C. - Reporters are sometimes given special access not given to others - Documents might be available only at selected libraries - Significant fees might be charged - Paper documents are not accessable to the blind - Telephone access is not available to the deaf - Documents are not accessable to telecommuters If we as a society switched from a system for distributing public information primarily based on paper to a system based on electronic distribution via network as a primary source, with paper copies as a secondary source we could achieve many significant direct benefits: - Lower publishing costs - Lower storage costs - Very fast access to documents and referenced material - Ability to make citations and references to electronic documents - Accessable to the disabled - Accessable to telecommuters - Accessable nationwide - Rural areas as well as all cities and states - All schools, libraries, etc. - State and Local governments would have greater availability - Individuals and small businesses have access - Paper copies may be available from multiple sources - Government Printing Office - Commercial printers - Local copy centers with a network terminal - Libraries and schools with a printer - Home or business users with a printer The result of a switch to the production of documents in a network accessable electronic form as the primary source would be a huge savings in cost to the government, plus nationwide universal access to the information. The cost to store a document on a server with network access is potentially less than the cost to store a single printed copy. To provide access to documents with high distributions, a collection of server machines distributed across the country would cost a fraction of the money spent archiving paper copies in depository libraries, which are not readily accessable to many people. Besides these direct benefits, there are some important indirect benefits: - Reporters with limited time have faster access to high quality information. The public can be better informed and government agencies can communicate better with the public via reporters. - Members of the public can obtain followup and reference information from summary information produced by reporters or other members of the public. - Individuals can obtain important information useful for setting public policy, etc. Individuals become empowered with the same ability to communicate with others as reporters. - When writing congressmen, or commenting to a federal agency, specific references to useful information can be included. - Political Lobbiests lose an advantage in having access to information otherwise not available to the public. - Political Lobbiests may use important factual references to information in communicating with decision makers and the public. - Businesses can reduce "red-tape" in dealing with the government. - Procurement could be improved with wider access to the market. 2. Universal Access for Government Employees The most important issue which should be addressed by the federal government is to provide universal access to all government employees. It is tragic that the civil servants whose primary jobs deal with processing massive amounts of information are among the information poor without full internet access. I have seen a statement (from Sec. Brown?) with a goal to provide email throughout the government. However, email only limits access to information and doesn't permit use of the new information browsers such as gopher and WWW. If government employees do not have internet access, then it is problematic in two ways. One is that they will be spending a significant amount to unnecessary time and money to perform thier job. Another, is that they will lack the ability to make information accessable to the public, or to be able to accept information from the public in electronic form. ----------- here is what I think the government should do as part of the NII program relating to universal access, specifically for government information: Recommendations: 1. Adopt a program such as California Assembly Bill 2451, , which calls for the development of a detailed plan to make all public documents which exist in electronic form accessable to the public for free via internet (actually called "the largest nonproprietary, nonprofit cooperative public computer network"). (Providing free access will produce a huge cost savings.) President Clinton could declare a national goal for the information age (like Kennedy for the space age) so by the end of the decade all public information which exists in electronic form will be freely accessable to all Americans. 2. Convert all press/public relations offices to a network distribution of press releases, etc. as the primary form within 1 year. - All offices will have email and use it as a primary contact in preference over telephone, fax, and postal mail. - All PR offices will have network servers available either locally or shared with another agency. - Press releases will be distributed first in electronic form via email, usenet news, gopher/www server. - All press releases will have the electronic document ID included (e.g. URL, URI, GILS locator, etc.) - PR Offices will attempt to obtain electronic copies of material referenced in press releases, and include this material on servers. PRs should include URLs to references available electronically. The existing system has electronic copies of information added as an afterthought, with sporadic availability. Even where PRs are available electronically, e.g. EPA, referenced material, e.g. a proposed ruling, is only available by telephone contact sometimes only to members of the press. Electronic IDs (locators), URLs, etc. on documents or referenced material is nonexistant. The PR offices are a good place to start with the conversion to electronic publication. 3. Set a policy of implementing universal internet access to all government personal computers. Each agency will need to review thier own policies to find existing policies which are inconsistent with this goal. Each agency will need to determine the appropriate equipment and software needed to obtain access. I have seen policies (GOSIP) in some federal agencies which are inconsistent with access to the internet where protocols not compatible with the internet standards are required. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) have a very effective standards process established, and a comprehensive set of publically available standards, mostly with publically available reference software. With the policy to provide universal access within the government, there should be a program to provide a resource to agencies who are implementing access: - Repository of information relevant to govt access - Indexing, Summarizing, and Abstracting information elsewhere on the network related to government access. - Starter kits for users and system administrators - Standard server configurations with software - Interoperability laboratory 4. Identify research topics funded by NII for universities and government laboratories related to the requirements for goernment use of the NII. From PMRMK@tundra.alaska.edu Tue Nov 15 12:24:33 1994 Received: from orca.alaska.edu ([137.229.10.36]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA00418 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:24:30 -0800 Received: from UA.ORCA.ALASKA.EDU by VMS.ORCA.ALASKA.EDU (PMDF V4.3-13 #8271) id <01HJI2DAKNOWHSJAJE@VMS.ORCA.ALASKA.EDU>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:15:22 -0800 Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:16:08 -0800 MR-Received: by mta TUNDRA; Relayed; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:16:08 -0800 MR-Received: by mta ORCA; Relayed; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:15:16 -0800 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:16:08 -0800 From: RICHARD M KENSHALO Subject: Universal Service To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-id: <01HJI2DC28PIHSJAJE@UA.ORCA.ALASKA.EDU> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X400-MTS-identifier: [;80618051114991/391911@TUNDRA] Hop-count: 2 Lew McDaniel Rural West Virginia writes: >In my opinion, information access is sufficiently important >to be a guaranteed right. By guaranteed information access, I mean >for K-12, adult education, health services, and government >access. Movies on demand, games, and electronic shopping >(ala the shopping channels) should be charged at an additional rate. >I find it hard to believe a state can function in the 21st >century without a solid information infrastructure and >citizens with enough technological savvy to use it. This is exactly the case, in my opinion. The advent of competition, and reliance on market forces, will require companies to make their investments in areas which will bring the greatest prospect of return on their investments. Stockholders (rightfully so) demand this, and react with removal of their investments when their expectations are not realized. However, information access, as defined above by Lew, must become part of the Universal Service definition, and price support mechanisms must be in place to build the infrastructure. We can't be led to believe that market forces will eventually provide for the investments necessary for rural America, where loop costs remain extremely high. Without existing (and probably re-defined) price support structures, and an expanded definition of Universal Service to include guaranteed information access, we will truly develop a society of information "haves" and "have-nots". Richard Kenshalo Palmer Alaska pmrmk@tundra.alaska.edu From bloomber@eagle.sangamon.edu Tue Nov 15 14:06:17 1994 Received: from eagle.sangamon.edu (eagle.sangamon.edu [192.102.230.251]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA02079 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:06:16 -0800 Message-Id: <199411152206.OAA02079@virtconf.digex.net> Received: by eagle.sangamon.edu (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA051306202; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:03:22 -0600 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:03:22 -0600 To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Universal access & libraries From: bloomber@eagle.sangamon.edu (Kathleen L. Bloomberg) Libraries are universal access points to information for school students, faculty at higher education institutions, and the general public. Not everyone will have a microcomputer and modem at home in the future just like everyone doesn't have plain old telephone service now. Librarians are trained in facilitating access to information and are an integral part of the emerging information superhighway. According to a recent survey by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 21% of the public libraries in the United States are accessing the Internet now. That number is growing monthly. Most academic libraries and many school and special libraries also are using the Internet regularly to meet their patrons' needs. Kathleen Bloomberg Illinois State Library Springfield, Illinois From mtn@mtn.org Tue Nov 15 14:14:33 1994 Received: from freedom.mtn.org (root@freedom.mtn.org [198.174.235.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA02274 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:14:32 -0800 Received: from [198.174.235.201] (dial-001.mtn.org [198.174.235.201]) by freedom.mtn.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA06020 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:39:33 -0600 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:39:33 -0600 X-Sender: mtn@mtn.org (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov From: mtn@mtn.org (MTN) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:19] Re: Public Accesss At 10:27 PM 11/14/94, jhav@cleo.bc.edu wrote: >>> Right now, due to economics, access to the Internet is heavily biased for >>> those who can afford their own computer ...[deleted]... What are some of >>> the problems in maintaining and supporting this kind of public access? I see an ever-widening gap between the info-haves and nots with regard to access to computers. An "information elite" is fast emerging. A few thoughts: Planned obsolescence A couple years ago, I scraped and scrounged to purchase a 386DX computer which is now unable to take full advantage of new digital technologies and increasingly memory-hungry applications. The dreaded question: "do I upgrade(i.e. spend gobs of money), or buy a new computer(spend even more gobs of money)?" It is not confidence-inspiring to buy the latest 'n' greatest, knowing that its successor is already on the way. It's my impression that many people may feel that "it's all a scam", and don't buy a computer. Or, people are holding back until "prices come down", and the whole cycly repeats itself. Somehow, these consumer impulses must be countered, as time is of the essence. Consumers must feel they are not being duped. Or perhaps the idea is that those who cannot afford computers might rely on the charity and hand-me-downs of those who can afford to "upgrade"/buy a new computer every year or so... Libraries Much as I'd like to believe it, I do not feel that libraries solve the access problem. First, access is already limited by the hours of the library. In a world where success and (em)power(ment) may hinge upon immediate access to information, it's tough to assume that people who must schlep over to the library and wait in line for a 1200 baud (when I last checked) modem and terminal are on an equal footing. Lee Jackson (ljackson@mtn.org) From weismant@esd.dl.nec.com Tue Nov 15 15:15:19 1994 Received: from telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com (telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com [143.101.112.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA03151 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:14:03 -0800 Received: by telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com (8.6.9/YDL1.9.1-940729.15) id OAA15613(telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:05:42 -0600 Received: by bsdsun.esd.dl.nec.com (4.1/YDL1.9-920708.13) id AA14409(bsdsun.esd.dl.nec.com); Tue, 15 Nov 94 14:04:46 CST Received: from NetWare MHS (SMF70) by smtp.esd.dl.nec.com via C2SMTP 3.01.b12 MHS to SMTP Gateway; Tue, 15 Nov 94 14:05:19 -0600 Message-Id: <15C0C82E011C0000@smtp.esd.dl.nec.com> In-Reply-To: <15C0C82E021C0000> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 14:04:18 -0600 From: "Weismantel, Paul" Sender: "Weismantel, Paul" Organization: NEC America Inc To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Universal Services & Access X-Mailer: Connect2-SMTP 3.01.b12 MHS to SMTP Gateway Most of the comments I saw go out yesterday seemed to center around today's image of what people use to access different types of services (e.g., concern over internet access due to most not having a PC). I would urge us to take a step to de-couple the method of access from the services needed on a universal basis. If it is deemed good public policy for the general public to have universal access to the congressional record, then access should be crafted in such a way as to deliver multiple popular interfaces through various infrastructure. 93 % of the households in America have at least one TV now. A simplified, TV based, menu driven access system would not be out of reach for nearly all of these households. I think for the task of defining which services are critical for basic universal service, the following should be considered: 1. A strong democracy is built on an informed public. The more raw information from our local, state, and federal governments that can be made available, the better. This data, available directly and through processing entities, could become a powerful tool in the search for common ground. 2. By the very nature of the expansion of service offerings, our society will tend to become even more fragmented than today. It is critical that the universal services basket include forums for communities to be able to be drawn together on common ground. 3. All elements included in the universal service basket must be able to be accessed and to interwork with ALL methods of access. It is of no real value to build a basic level of access / service that becomes an isolated island. Any comments? Paul Weismantel NEC tel: (214) 518-3834 fax: (214) 518-4689 email: weismant@esd.dl.nec.com From holder@idi.net Tue Nov 15 15:15:42 1994 Received: from relay1.UU.NET (relay1.UU.NET [192.48.96.5]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA03174 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:15:42 -0800 Received: from idi.net by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxqea21083; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:07:42 -0500 Received: by idi.net (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20366; Tue, 15 Nov 94 15:04:38 EST Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:04:37 -0500 (EST) From: Ruth Holder Subject: Redefining Universal Service To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:32:45 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Gardiner Jones To the Universal Service conference: I think we should agree on a definition of unviersal service for the 21st century and would propose the following language which was essentially adopted in HR 3636 and S 1822 as follows: Universal service for advanced telecommunications networks means that all the people of the United States regardless of race, color, national origin, income, residence in a rural or urban area or disability should have access to two way telecommunications networks capable of enabling users to originate and receive affordable and accessible voice, data, graphics and on line full motion video communications of their choice. The second element I think we should agree on involves the standards which should be applied to the deployment of advanced two way telecommunications networks. Deployment of these networks in economically disadvantaged and less densely populated communities must be reasonably related to the rate of deployment in affluent and populous areas and must bear a reasonable balance between rural, suburban and urban communities. Finally, I think we should agree that deployment within communities must not discriminate among households in these communities by reason of race, color, national origin, income or residence in a rural area. Mary Gardiner Jones Alliance for Public Technology (APT) | Internet: mgjones@apt.org 901 15th St. NW #230 | 202/408-1403 (voice/TTY) Washington, DC 20005 | 202/408-1134 (fax) For more online information about the Alliance for Public Technology: http://apt.org/apt.html gopher://apt.org:1600 ftp://apt.org/pub/Alliance_for_Public_Technology_APT From dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov Tue Nov 15 17:24:04 1994 Received: from ednet1.osl.or.gov (ednet1.osl.or.gov [192.84.215.8]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA05690 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:24:03 -0800 Received: by ednet1.osl.or.gov id AA00208 (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:16:15 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:16:15 -0800 Message-Id: <199411152216.AA00208@ednet1.osl.or.gov> From: dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Dave W Mitchell) To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Lacuna Reply-To: dmitchel@ednet1.osl.or.gov There has been no traffic on this topic since late Monday afternoon at this location. Have users been unsubscribed? Last message received was #22. Would appreciate update. Dave Mitchell - Acting Executive -- Oregon Coast Rural Info Service Coop Thanks for the time and attention..... -- Dave W. Mitchell Waldport, Oregon Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative "A bit off the superhighway" From vcred@latte.spl.lib.wa.us Tue Nov 15 17:31:36 1994 Received: from rs6a.wln.com (rs6a.wln.com [192.156.252.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA05834 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:31:35 -0800 Received: from latte.spl.lib.wa.us by rs6a.wln.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.06) id AA99392; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:22:17 -0800 Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM) id AA00562; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:26:02 -0800 Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM) id AA00554; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:26:01 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:26:01 -0800 (PST) From: Redefining Universal Service and Open Access To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII FIRST TIME BUMBLER IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN "The above message was sent from the Seattle Public Library public access point. Though the Library is pleased to make this service available, The views expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the position of the Seattle Public Library." On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Redefining Universal Service and Open Access wrote: > > AA > Alright, just wanted to particapate in this discussion. Send email to; > kurt at 72410.2332@compuserve.com and i will email ya back asap. > > Subscribe; Don Evans > > tnx. > > > On Mon, 14 Nov 1994 vcred@latte.spl.lib.wa.us wrote: > > > Subject: [REDEFUS:2] Subscribe > > X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > > X-Comment: Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.redefus > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Status: O > > > > X-From: Don Evans > > > > Subscribe Donald F. Evans > > > > > From BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Tue Nov 15 19:36:52 1994 Received: from mitvma.mit.edu (MITVMA.MIT.EDU [18.92.0.3]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA00164; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:36:51 -0800 Message-Id: <199411160336.TAA00164@virtconf.digex.net> Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7450; Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:04:30 EST Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin BMSLIB@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6943; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:04:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:04:14 EST From: "W. Curtiss Priest" Subject: Introduction to LINCT for low cost availability To: NTIA Forum on Availability and Cost , NTIA discussion on Universal Service At the suggestion of my associate, Dr. Curtiss Priest, who has been forwarding to me many insightful messages from members of this list about the development of the NII and community networks, I'd like to share with you the following information about a recently formed coalition to help provide developing community networks with required assistance and software tools. I share this publication in the hope that some of you may give me some feedback and others interested in joining the coalition can get in touch with us. Thanks, Ken Komoski (email: komoski@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______________________________________________________________________________ LINCT (Learning and Information Network for Community Telecomputing) LINCT is a not-for-profit coalition of socially-concerned organizations -- working with affiliated businesses and local governments, libraries, schools, and social services-- to help communities achieve universal, equitable access to integrated, community -wide electronic information and learning services. LINCT does this by stimulating the growth of grassroots community telecomputing cooperatives, to which it provides strategic advice and technical assistance. In addition to helping communities integrate local services, LINCT helps communities to build low-cost, locally-managed "on-ramps" to the national information highway. Through the "BET Initiative" LINCT helps communities to recycle used business computers to poverty-level and low-income families and seniors who may earn them by learning how to use them through training provided by volunteer computer-literates at local community centers and/or libraries and schools. The first communities assisted by LINCT are five towns in Eastern Long Island, NY where LINCT is working closely with the library system, town governments, schools, and social services agencies within an integrated, systemic model. Other communities on Long Island, in New York City, and in upstate New York, and in seven other states are affiliated with LINCT in order to achieve the shared goal of low-cost, universal, equitable access to information and learning. LINCT's purposes: (1) help achieve low-cost, universal and equitable access to telecomputing for homes, schools, libraries, municipal and social service agencies, and community businesses; (2) promote lifelong learning and earning in all communities via cooperative telecomputing ; (3) keep the cost of telecomputing low through cooperative purchasing and licensing agreements with regional and national providers of network services, including the Internet; (4) create specific programs and databases that will help communities to achieve the above. An example of one such program is Businesses for Equity in Telecomputing (BET). BET helps communities to: (a) facilitate the recycling of used business computers to low-income families, by enabling them to earn them through their learning to use them to telecommunicate locally and nationwide; (b) develop cooperative training programs conducted by community volunteers, during which low-income families earn a home computer-and-modem by learning how to use a computer to become full participants in America's fast-changing information society. Other LINCT programs being developed include improving home-school-social agency communications, primary health and crime prevention, online homework mentoring, and the online operation of community-based "time-dollar" exchanges linked to at-home, work-related training. LINCT and its growing network of affiliated not-for-profit organizations are prepared to assist communities to develop local telecomputing cooperatives to bring the benefits of low-cost telecomputing to all community members. ________________________________________________________________________ LINCT % The Hamlet Green\ Hampton Bays, NY 11946 Tel: 516.728.9100 LINCT's Member Organizations The member organizations of the LINCT coalition are the Center for Information, Technology and Society (CITS), Melrose, Massachusetts; The Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE) Institute, Hampton Bays, New York, and the Time Dollars Network, Washington, D.C. Each organization is making a significant, in-kind contribution in staff time assigned to LINCT as its match of Federal grant dollars. LINCT's affiliates: Science Linkages in the Community (SLIC), a national community-outreach program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as the LINCT-affiliated, communities (eight, in six states as of (9/1/94), including community libraries, local governments, schools, community colleges, human services, and local and regional businesses cooperating in the BET Initiatives. LINCT's leadership: Each of LINCT's three, founding organizations brings both expert staffing and information resources to this planning and development project that will contribute to its success: % Curtiss Priest, Director of CITS, is a systems analyst, economist, software designer, who has conducted policy, evaluation, technology-transfer, and cost- effectiveness studies of information technology for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S.DoE, NASA, MIT, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), and EPIE Institute % Kenneth Komoski, LINCT's Administrative Director, has been consulting and writing on community telecomputing since 1986, and has directed the work of EPIE Institute for over two decades; under his leadership EPIE maintains the nation's only comprehensive, electronic databases of information on all types of electronic learning resources. % Edgar Cahn, founder of the Time Dollars Network, consults with community Time Dollar Exchanges operating in 30 U.S. states, Japan, and other countries. With LINCT, the Time Dollars Network will develop community-networkable software and training programs to facilitate the ability of members of low-income and minority communities to learn-and-earn the computers, modems and software needed to access the NII for job-training and work opportunities. LINCT's Program of Activities % TAP -- Technical Assistance and Planning support for local community telecomputing initiatives in need of help in designing, developing and delivering social and educational services with an emphasis on arriving at the most cost-effective system for a particular community. % BET -- Businesses for Equity in Telecomputing, enabling low-income families to earn a family computer -- plus computer training -- by earning "time dollars" for completing training at a community center in how to use telecomputing to improve family learning and earning power. Business-donated computers-plus- modems are currently being received from large and small businesses on Long Island, N.Y. where the BET Initiative is being piloted by LINCT (nationally, businesses currently own over 150 million computers, more than 15 million of which are replaced annually). LINCT envisions a nationwide, community-focused BET distribution system for donated computers to local community centers where low-income families will be trained in telecomputing, as a means of earning a home computer and modem. % LET -- Learning-for-Earning Training, providing any community member (but especially the unemployed) with the means to learn useful skills at home via telecomputing resources available via DIRECT (see below); % DIRECT -- Digital Information Resources for Education and Career Training, electronically accessible by learners (and/or parents and teachers) for the planning and the delivery of learning resources to homes and schools via community telecomputing cooperatives. % TACT -- Teachers Assisted by Community Telecomputing, assisting teachers to use community telecomputing to (a) communicate more efficiently and effectively with parents, (b) integrate student at-home computer learning with in-school learning, (c) access to information on teaching resources via DIRECT, (d) access to professional training via distance learning, (f) access to SELF (see below) to facilitate students' development as self-directed learners. % SELF -- Self-Exploration of Learning Frameworks, helping learners of all ages to use DIRECT to explore areas of learning in relation to school curricula or in response to personal interests and/or career development needs; % PPP -- Primary Prevention Programs, a means for assisting local health service agencies and local police to use telecomputing to maintain healthier and less violent communities; % CDA -- Community Development Activities,, such as online neighborhood organizations and projects, community planning forums, town meetings, school- business academies, library outreach, etc; % TDE -- Time Dollar Exchanges,; "dollars" that may be earned by any member of a community willing to help others by providing skilled or unskilled services ranging from babysitting to yardwork and from database development to computer trouble-shooting. Time-Dollar transactions will be arranged for, recorded, managed, and traded through a community managed Time-Dollar Exchange (reinforced by both LET and DIRECT, see above). For further information about LINCT contact: Kenneth Komoski Administrative Director LINCT % Suite 3 \The Hamlet Green\ Hampton Bays, NY 11946 Voice: (516) 728-9100 \ Fax (516) 728-9228\ email: KOMOSKI@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV ______________________________________________________________________________ From BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Tue Nov 15 19:36:52 1994 Received: from mitvma.mit.edu (MITVMA.MIT.EDU [18.92.0.3]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA00167; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:36:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199411160336.TAA00167@virtconf.digex.net> Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7465; Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:05:23 EST Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin BMSLIB@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6973; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:05:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:05:07 EST From: "W. Curtiss Priest" Subject: Information about LINCT's BET program to get business help for networks To: NTIA Forum on Availability and Cost , NTIA discussion on Universal Service At the suggestion of my associate, Dr. Curtiss Priest, who has been forwarding to me many insightful messages from members of this list about the development of the NII and community networks, I'd like to share with you the following information about an iniative I have been discussing with the Whitehouse about a way to provide low cost networking for this country I share this publication in the hope that some of you may give me some feedback and others interested in encouraging others to support this initiative. Thanks, Ken Komoski (email: komoski@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______________________________________________________________________________ See the companion paper describing LINCT (Learning and Information Network for Community Telecomputing) LINCT's Associated Business Communities LINCT has initiated an outreach program to Long Island businesses in order to develop "LINCT's Associated Business Communities (ABCs)." Some business communities (e.g., telephone, cable, computer software) have obvious relevance to LINCT's activities, but LINCT's position is that all businesses can relate productively to community telecomputing -- if only through the benefits of low-cost E-mail service. But many, such as the banking and newspaper communities, see the benefits of having a community of telecomputing-using customers, who are more likely to use online banking and online news services. While ABCs are likely to become an ongoing source of fund- raising support for special needs and projects, LINCT's outreach to ABCs at present is primarily focused on a project designed to encourage businesses to donate used computers to low-income families in LINCT communities. This effort is called BET (Businesses for Equity in Telecomputing ). Its rationale: "It's a low stakes gamble for businesses to bet on the power of community telecomputing to stimulate and to develop the learning and earning power of low-income families in LINCT communities." This part of LINCT's program simply is encouraging businesses to place a no cost bet on in the form of used equipment for which they can get a modest tax credit (plus good public relations) via a tax-deductible contribution. (note: LINCT has proposed in discussion with members of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that it arrange for a Presidential Commendation Certificate to be presented to every business on Long Island -- and in other regions where community telecomputing is developing -- whenever a business donates used computers for low-income family use. The hope is that LINCT can convince the White House to stimulate BET-like programs in other CPB- funded CWEIS projects.) Given the fact that there are an estimated 150 million microcomputers currently in use in America's businesses, and that, conservatively, about 10 percent of these are being displaced each year by more powerful machines, LINCT expects BET to pay off well for low-income families on Long Island, where there are many high-tech businesses. Initial discussions with a number of such businesses about BET are quite encouraging (see appendix for letters). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT BET CONTACT: Kenneth Komoski Administrative Director LINCT % Suite 3 \The Hamlet Green\ Hampton Bays, NY 11946 Voice: (516) 728-9100 \ Fax (516) 728-9228\ email: KOMOSKI@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV ______________________________________________________________________________ From jhav@cleo.bc.edu Tue Nov 15 21:55:05 1994 Received: from cleo.bc.edu (cleo.bc.edu [136.167.2.122]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA15769 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:55:03 -0800 From: jhav@cleo.bc.edu Received: from onra01p6.bc.edu by cleo.bc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA22445; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:37:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 09:48:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:37] Re: Public Accesss To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov In-Reply-To: <9411142250.AA12217@slugbt.zso.dec.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > >> - While 'public access' is sometimes considered either a necessity or >> a public good, what effects will the above choices make on a market >> that is still in the early stages of development? Specifically, will >> public access stunt market and technological development in the long >> term? > >What does "stunt" mean in this case? If it merely means "change", then >yes, public access may "change" the market conditions. But I imagine >similarly that the Communications Act of 1924 "changed" market conditions. >(Perhaps someone can put comment on this?) By 'stunt' I probably more accurately meant 'distort' -- in other words, would the rate of technological development be slowed by such a policy? Certainly industry leaders fear that strict regulation would hinder their profit- maximizing activities; in high competition technology markets these profits are often linked to innovation. Congressman Boucher in '92 agreed with Bell Atlantic that its deployment time for fiber optic lines could be halved absent stringent line of business regulation. Might similar regulations/subsidies for universal access not cause technological stagnation? >However, ultimately, I would think that the long term view of >such [sic.] change would benefit the market, i.e., broad "user" coverage >at an early stage in the "design process" is a tenant upon which >successful products are built these days. > >There is no technological imperative here - we haven't "lost" something >as a nation if we stunt/change the course of technology towards >universal access. This, in itself, would be a wonderful technological >achievement, even if the "sexier" services are stunted. Arguably both outcomes have their appeal. Universal access might provides the percieved benefits of activities such as more participatory democracy (of course with attendant problems of ill-informed/easily media-influenced citizenry; representative goverment as it exists can serve as at least one buffer from the electorate's whims and the tyranny of the majority). Innovation provides us with more immediate global competativeness that might not be as easily realized if such development is hindered. R. Jha Boston College Law School From jhav@cleo.bc.edu Tue Nov 15 22:05:17 1994 Received: from cleo.bc.edu (cleo.bc.edu [136.167.2.122]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA16705 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:05:17 -0800 From: jhav@cleo.bc.edu Received: from onra01p6.bc.edu by cleo.bc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA24520; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:47:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 09:58:47 +0000 Subject: Re: Public Accesss To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov In-Reply-To: <9411142250.AA12217@slugbt.zso.dec.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > >> - While 'public access' is sometimes considered either a necessity or >> a public good, what effects will the above choices make on a market >> that is still in the early stages of development? Specifically, will >> public access stunt market and technological development in the long >> term? > >What does "stunt" mean in this case? If it merely means "change", then >yes, public access may "change" the market conditions. But I imagine >similarly that the Communications Act of 1924 "changed" market conditions. >(Perhaps someone can put comment on this?) By 'stunt' I probably more accurately meant 'distort' -- in other words, would the rate of technological development be slowed by such a policy? Certainly industry leaders fear that strict regulation would hinder their profit- maximizing activities; in high competition technology markets these profits are often linked to innovation. Congressman Boucher in '92 agreed with Bell Atlantic that its deployment time for fiber optic lines could be halved absent stringent line of business regulation. Might similar regulations/subsidies for universal access not cause technological stagnation? >However, ultimately, I would think that the long term view of >such [sic.] change would benefit the market, i.e., broad "user" coverage >at an early stage in the "design process" is a tenant upon which >successful products are built these days. > >There is no technological imperative here - we haven't "lost" something >as a nation if we stunt/change the course of technology towards >universal access. This, in itself, would be a wonderful technological >achievement, even if the "sexier" services are stunted. Arguably both outcomes have their appeal. Universal access might provides the percieved benefits of activities such as more participatory democracy (of course with attendant problems of ill-informed/easily media-influenced citizenry; representative goverment as it exists can serve as at least one buffer from the electorate's whims and the tyranny of the majority). Innovation provides us with more immediate global competativeness that might not be as easily realized if such development is hindered. Raj Jha Boston College Law School Newton Centre, MA jhav@cleo.bc.edu From E316_84@cwu.edu Tue Nov 15 23:55:36 1994 Received: from aurora.cwu.edu (aurora.cwu.edu [198.104.65.9]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA21454 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:55:35 -0800 Received: from hydra.cwu.edu by AURORA.CWU.EDU (PMDF V4.3-13 #8803) id <01HJISN0SVIO0007BG@AURORA.CWU.EDU>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:47:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.104.69.173] (blacklab_3.gb.cwu.edu) by cluster.cwu.edu (PMDF V4.3-11 #5569) id <01HJISMFIQM88ZFWVX@cluster.cwu.edu>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by cluster.cwu.edu From: E316_84@cwu.edu (Tony Engebretson) Subject: Re: [REDEFUS:39] Not Information ---> COMMUNICATION X-Sender: E316_84@cluster.cwu.edu To: redefus@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-id: <01HJISMG3WKY8ZFWVX@cluster.cwu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Marilyn Davis writes: >NOT JUST INFORMATION ---> COMMUNICATION ... >The NTIA is building a one-way highway to a dead end when they take >the word "Telecommunications" out of their rhetoric. ... >3. Telecommunications is the road to direct democracy and a future for >this planet. > >4. Downstream bandwidth is just another broadcast medium. Upstream >bandwidth is power for the people. ... >6. Telecommunication enables one-to-many communication for each of >us, something brand new for the human race. This is more than >revolution, it's evolution. > >If this administration is interested in this technology, please name >our infrastructure "The Communications Superhighway" so people begin >to understand. > >To demonstrate enthusiasm for democracy and the medium, this >administration could set up a telnet site where we spend a few >million democratically. > >And, next time, this conference could be democratically moderated. I agree wholeheartedly! When people begin to understand and use the capabilities and the possibilities of The Communications Superhighway, then a new era of freedom will have begun. Tony Engebretson * Albert Anton "Tony" Engebretson * * * 404 S. Sprague * * * Ellensburg, WA 98926 C={:-{) * It is easier to ask permission than * * 509-962-2534 * it is to ask forgiveness. * * no FAX, no BBS, no Cable TV, * * * no Cat. Just a Dog and some Fleas * *