From ntiagate@virgin.uvi.edu Mon Nov 14 20:24:55 1994 Received: from virgin.uvi.edu (virgin.uvi.edu [146.226.200.110]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09606 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:24:50 -0800 Received: from localhost (ntiagate@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id VAA08514 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:02:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:27:42 GMT From: ab368@virgin.uvi.edu (Bruce Potter) Message-ID: <1994Nov15.002742.7646@virgin.uvi.edu> To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Need for Federal Oversight of Access and Availability Joe Miller made a good case for the supremacy of state authority and regulation of most aspects of access and availability to National Information Infrastructure telecommunications facilities. His analysis, however, overlooks the real problems faced by small, geographically isolated areas such as the US Virgin Islands, where this message originates. Until Chairman Charles Ferris held local hearings in the Virgin Islands in the late 1970's, the Federal government had exercised no control over the extortionate rates then being charged by the Territory's monopoly long distance carrier, which were four to five times greater per mile than long distance tariffs in the continental United States. When faced with the resources and persuasive power (legal and otherwise) of enormous multinational corporations with annual incomes that are orders of magnitude greater than some of the territories they serve, only a capable and committed national guarantee of access, and a national cost pool can provide access to these new technology resources. And THE INTERNET IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT to areas with limited access to technical and scientific rerources. As one of the leading non-profit eduational foundations devoted to the environmental problems of small tropical islands, we (Island Resources Foundation) are amazed at the richness of the Internet resource, and terribly concerned that our constituents throughout all of the world's oceans are going to closed out from access to this resource because of monopoly pricing policies. To the NTIA, we ask careful attention to the equity issues of access, and a federal guarantee of access and availability. Island Resources Foundation iresource@aol.com -- ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION {&} 1718 "P" Street NW, #t-4 6296 Estate Nazareth, #11, STT 00802{#} Washington, DC 20036 809/775-6225; fax 779-2022 {#} 202/265-9712; fax 232-0748 ab368@virgin.uvi.edu {#} iresources@aol.com From ntiagate@virgin.uvi.edu Mon Nov 14 20:25:01 1994 Received: from virgin.uvi.edu (virgin.uvi.edu [146.226.200.110]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09608 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:24:54 -0800 Received: from localhost (ntiagate@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id VAA08510 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:02:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:24:16 GMT From: ab368@virgin.uvi.edu (Bruce Potter) Message-ID: <1994Nov14.142416.16498@virgin.uvi.edu> To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Affordability and Availability for Offshore Territories Access to the services of the Internet is quickly becoming an essential element of many of the information intensive organizations in the United States. Our organization -- Island Resources Foundation -- is a non-profit educational organization which has been working with small developing island-states on the environmental problems of development for the past 23 years. We see the Internet as an indispensable tool for our own communication and research needs, as long as we are working out of our Washington DC branch office. Until the recent establishment of a Freenet in the US Virgin Islands, however, we had virtually no way to link our activities in Washington with any of our constituents. Now we can communicate better with clients in the Virgin Islands, but further links to other Caribbean states are almost impossible because of the extremely high communication charges levied by regional long distance carriers, outside of the US possessions. In previous years the Virgin Islands also suffered from extremely high telephone rates charged by ITT. In hearings conducted by Charles Ferris, former chairman of the FCC, these rates were shown to be purely the result of monopoly power by the long distance company, and the tarifs were ordered sharply reduced by the FCC. In the course of those hearings Chairman Ferris clearly made the case that access and availablility of telecommunications services at exorbitant rates was not acceptable in a democratic society. The territories are not naive in insisting that the information infrastructure must accomodate both access AND low rates. Without both, the territories will receive no benefit and will in fact find their needs increasingly marginalized. -- ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION {&} 1718 "P" Street NW, #t-4 6296 Estate Nazareth, #11, STT 00802{#} Washington, DC 20036 809/775-6225; fax 779-2022 {#} 202/265-9712; fax 232-0748 ab368@virgin.uvi.edu {#} iresources@aol.com >From news Mon Nov 14 20:27:47 1994 Received: from localhost (news@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id UAA07699 for alt-ntia-avail@virgin; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:27:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:27:46 -0400 From: News User Message-Id: <199411150027.UAA07699@virgin.uvi.edu> To: alt-ntia-avail@virgin.uvi.edu Status: RO X-Status: From twigs@sils.umich.edu Mon Nov 14 20:38:06 1994 Received: from sils.umich.edu (sils.umich.edu [141.211.203.30]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09731 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:38:05 -0800 Received: by sils.umich.edu (8.6.8/2.0) id UAA02379; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:32:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:32:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Cynthia S. Terwilliger" Subject: Re: [AVAIL:8] To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII please subscribe On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, WVIA Virtual Conference Account wrote: > subscribe wvia > From twigs@sils.umich.edu Mon Nov 14 20:42:26 1994 Received: from sils.umich.edu (sils.umich.edu [141.211.203.30]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09798 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:42:25 -0800 Received: by sils.umich.edu (8.6.8/2.0) id UAA02636; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:36:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:36:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Cynthia S. Terwilliger" Subject: Re: [AVAIL:8] To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, WVIA Virtual Conference Account wrote: > subscribe wvia > From WHITTLE@SMTPGATE.sunydutchess.edu Mon Nov 14 22:02:58 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 WAA10524 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 22:02:57 -0800 Received: by admaix.sunydutchess.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA51246; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:54:26 -0500 Message-Id: <9411150254.AA51246@admaix.sunydutchess.edu> Received: from smtpgate id: 2EC82295.9C9 (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 21:53:09 1994 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 vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us Mon Nov 14 23:35:50 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 XAA11207 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 23:35:47 -0800 Received: from latte.spl.lib.wa.us by rs6a.wln.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.06) id AA103194; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:26:30 -0800 Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM) id AA05880; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:30:15 -0800 Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM) id AA05872; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:30:14 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:30:14 -0800 (PST) From: Affordabilty and Availability To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <199411141707.JAA06933@virtconf.digex.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subscribe Ref Lindmark "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 vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us wrote: > Subject: [AVAIL:1] NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address > X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > X-Comment: Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.avail > Status: O > > X-From: NTIA Virtual Conference > > > WELCOMING STATEMENT FROM > DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE DAVID BARRAM > > Welcome to the Virtual Conference on Universal Service and Open > Access to the Telecommunications Network. In hosting this > conference we seek to broaden our reach beyond the physical > limits of any conference room or auditorium. The NII will tear > down the barriers of time and distance. This conference, like > the NII itself, is meant to be inclusive and your ideas are > welcome and encouraged. Your participation will help make it a > success. > > This effort is jointly sponsored by the National > Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the > Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), as part of the > Administration's National Information Infrastructure initiative. > Through the NII, the Administration is focusing on the ability of > computer mediated communications to enhance the life and work of > every American. The NII is a harbinger of change, both economic > and political, and holds great promise for the future of America. > Some benefits of the NII include telecommuting, distance learning > and active life-long education, remote consultations with expert > medical professionals, as well as new forms of art, entertainment > and culture. > > This conference continues the dialog started by NTIA's five field > hearings, held over the past nine months in cities throughout > America. Unlike the field hearings, this conference allows for a > much wider participation, and more in-depth discussion on the > issues. There are over 80 public access points in 25 states. > > With this conference we are hoping to: > >  Garner opinions and views on universal telecommunications > service that may shape the legislative and regulatory > debate. > >  Demonstrate how networking technology can broaden > participation in the development of government policies, > specifically, universal service telecommunications policy. > >  Illustrate the potential for using the NII to create an > electronic commons. > >  Create a network of individuals and institutions that will > continue the dialog started by the conference, once the > formal sponsorship is over. > > This conference is an experiment in a new form of dialog among > citizens and with their government. The conference is not a one- > way, top down approach, it is a conversation. It holds the > promise of reworking the compact between citizens and their > government. > > I thank you once again for your participation. > From cyberoid@u.washington.edu Tue Nov 15 00:27:48 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 AAA11571 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:27:46 -0800 Received: by stein1.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW94.4/UW-NDC Revision: 2.30 ) id AA23585; Mon, 14 Nov 94 21:19:55 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 21:19:55 -0800 From: Robert Jacobson Message-Id: <9411150519.AA23585@stein1.u.washington.edu> X-Sender: cyberoid@stein1.u.washington.edu To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Brief History: CA's Universal Telephone Service Act CALIFORNIA'S UNIVERSAL TELEPHONE SERVICE ACT ITS ORIGIN IN 1983: A CHANGING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SCENE California's Universal Telephone Service Act, the "Moore Act" of 1983 (Asm. Gwen Moore, D-L.A.), has set one successful example for how to manage universal telephone/telecommunications service. The Moore Act, which I helped to draft, enunciated certain principles of civic rights and necessities requiring citizen access to the means of communication; set forth the necessary rules to govern the way in which rates for local service and long-distance, including more advanced digital services, would be balanced; and delegated to CA's Public Utilities Commission responsibility for overseeing the Moore Act's mechanisms, providing outreach to target communities, and preventing fraud on the part of service recipients. The necessity of the Moore Act became clear in 1982, when a Consent Decree was signed breaking up the former AT&T Bell System. As part of the Decree, competitive long-distance services would be permitted to set their own rates (within certain antitrust guidelines); usually, this meant they went down. Local rates, on the other hand, were not permitted to vary since local telephone companies in 1982 and thereafter held effective monopolies in their service areas. Nevertheless, they were responsible for expansion and maintenance of the local telephone network which remained a vital "feeder system" for the long-distance companies. Even with the imposition of a so-called "access charge" paid by the long-distance companies to the local companies, prices for long-distance service still fell precipitously. Long-distance customers, who were overwhelming large corporations and government agencies (fewer than 35 percent of all telephone customers made the vast majority of long- distance phone calls), were receiving the vast benefits of reduced rates. This situation was exacerbated by the FCC's imposition of another type of "access charge," this one on local telephone customers, supposedly to offset losses to the local telephone companies of support formerly built into the unified national telephone system. It was estimated, by 1986 -- even though competition was just getting started in a big way -- that the subsidy flowing from local telephone customers (individuals and small businesses) to large customers was as much as $4 billion annually. (Today it may be more.) Those who paid the worst price were less able to benefit by reduced long-distance rates: the poor. Faced with customer access charges and climbing local rates, the poor were on the verge of losing all telephone service. This would create potential voids in the social fabric and non inconsequential fiscal effects. Not only would it be more difficult to reach certain people via any form of telephone service, but the social costs of emergencies untended (which could very well affect insurance premiums and public outlays) might be considerable. A SOLUTION IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE: THE MOORE ACT In 1983, an unusual coalition of local and long-distance telephone companies, cable television companies, the PUC, and public interest groups combined to pass the Moore Act. A fairly complete account of the up's and down's of this legislation, and its eventual passage by a Democratic legislature and signing into law by a Republican governor, can be read in AN "OPEN" APPROACH TO INFORMATION POLICYMAKING, R. Jacobson, Ablex, 1989. The resulting law set forth a minimal local service to which one could subscribe -- a limited number of calls each month -- at a low price. There was no means test associated with the legislation: the quality of the reduced Lifeline Service was intended to be an inherent deterrent to abuse. It was an absolute minimum. Subsequent surveys and random spot checks by the PUC produced evidence that the law was in fact serving its intended population: fewer than five percent of all subscribers were earning above the poverty line, a rate of "abuse" much lower than almost any other entitlement program. Support for the program was obtained by a small proportional charge on long-distance service (which nevertheless hardly reduced cost savings to long-distance customers). Very few complaints were heard from participants on either side of the line. No one wanted holes to form in California's telephone service. Moreover, no phone company in CA, local or long-distance, suffered appreciably from this legislation. The most ardent opponent, AT&T, consistently tried to reduce the level of support for the Moore Act; but not with great heat. Its customers' savings were still large and the company did not lose its position as the dominant long-distance telephone company as a result of the Moore Act, either. The one exception to paying into the Universal Telephone Service Fund, as the pool of monies for offering Lifeline Service was called, was the cable television companies -- so long as they did not offer two-way telephone service. The PUC must revisit the issue if the cable television companies in fact become telephone service providers. A measure of comity among the various parties to the Moore Act has made it a success, both as a statement of social policy -- everyone in a free society must have access to the means of effective communication -- and as a mechanism for keeping intact an imperiled public telecommunications network. Although several attempts to pass legislation based on the Moore Act were attempted by both other states and the Congress, the breakdown of this comity led to rivalry and self-interest. As a result, some of these new laws incorporated elements antithetical to the Moore Act (for example, at the urging of long-distance carriers, many state enacted a lifeline-service means test, which converted telecommunications policy into social-welfare policy). Others simply missed the boat and did not effect the balance of interests maintained by the Moore Act to this day. CONCLUSIONS The PUC is empowered by the legislation to revisit the Moore Act on a regular basis and adjust both the definition of Lifeline Service and various rate flows, as it sees fit. At last count, something like 15 percent of the CA telephone subscribing population -- almost all resident in households earning at or below the poverty level -- received Lifeline Service. Obviously, this does not include all families currently receiving local telephone service of other types whose use patterns and income makes them likely recipients of Lifeline Service: as many as another 10 percent of local telephone customers should be availing themselves of Lifeline Service. The PUC has had to compel telephone companies in CA to inaugurate outreach efforts to these citizens. (At one point, a local telephone company had to be fined for not properly informing new subscribers about Lifeline Service, and the amount has been used, in part, for these outreach efforts.) Generally, however, Lifeline Service has worked well. While the Moore Act was passed and first implemented in simpler times, when telephone service was still largely POTS mixed with patches of cellular telephone service and smatterings of digital services, it retains its relevance and applicability today. The PUC is authorized to report to the legislature its conclusions regarding the quality of Lifeline Service, which it may implement with legislative approval. It is quite that plans to fully digitize CA's telephone network, promoted most avidly by CA's largest local telephone service companies, Pacific Bell and GTE California, will best be realized if Lifeline Service, for those most in need, is redefined to include basic digital services as well as conventional analog service. After all, from the standpoint of the customer, delivery of service is technologically invisible except for new services that could not exist without a digital network. The same principles of funding expansion of the local network, as a digital rather than analog system, can be logically applied in 1994 as they were in 1984, the first year that the Moore Act took effect. The PUC can determine, after public hearings with input from various parties, just how broad Lifeline Service needs to be to prevent tears in the social fabric of communications. Much is said these days about the need for "redefinition" and "availability" of universal telephone service. In fact, this very discussion was preceded by these unfortunate terms. First, these terms presume that universal service exists already, which it by no means does: many Americans are still involuntarily without telephone service because they are poor or transients. Some living in rual areas find the cost of telephone service disproportionately expensive. (In CA, a Rural Telephone Fund was established, on a company-company basis, to keep rural people comfortably on the net and thus not encourage them to abandon farms and businesses in rural areas that might otherwise become uneconomic because of rapidly rising prices of service.) While opinions and surveys differ, this unserved proportion of the population is at least five and may be as large as 15 percent of all Americans -- a lot of people. Second, reduced-cost services like CA's Lifeline Service are the exception, not the rule. They are completely unavailable to most Americans. The nation might have as its most immediate goal remedying these situations before beginning to overhaul the few programs that do exist to provide equitable access to communications, in an "information age" the essence of American's First Amendment rights. The NTIA and FCC can further the cause of communications equity by examining existing programs designed to provide universal access to the means of communication, not only for their economic viability but also for their deep principles. These principles, and not trendy neo- economic rationales, should be applied to answering the problem of attaining universal access on a national basis, for all Americans. Robert Jacobson, Ph.D. Former Principal Consultant (Senior Staff Analyst) and Committee Staff Director, Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee, CA Legislature, 1981-1989 From correav@clpgh.org Tue Nov 15 09:53:01 1994 Received: from clp2.clpgh.org (clp2.clpgh.org [192.204.3.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA15276 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:53:00 -0800 Received: by clp2.clpgh.org (MX V4.1 VAX) id 60; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:45:13 EST Sender: correav@clpgh.org Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:45:07 EST From: Virginia Correa Reply-To: correav@clpgh.org To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-ID: <009877F6.09E3BD80.60@clp2.clpgh.org> Subject: testing alt.ntia.avail Path: clpgh.org!correav From: correav@clpgh.org (Virginia Correa) Newsgroups: alt.ntia.avail Subject: testing alt.ntia.avail Message-ID: <1994Nov15.094430.2653@clp2> Date: 15 Nov 94 09:44:30 -5 Organization: Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to alt.ntia.avail Lines: 8 Test msg. from correav to alt.ntia.avail -- +++ Virginia Correa - Head, Automation Division +++ The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh +++ 4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213 +++ correav@clpgh.org - 412-622-1945 +++ Virginia Correa - Head, Automation Division +++ The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh +++ 4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213 +++ correav@clpgh.org - 412-622-1945 From chage@rahul.net Tue Nov 15 10:11:21 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 KAA15513 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:11:11 -0800 Received: from bolero.rahul.net by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA03651 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:03:14 -0800 Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA18596 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:03:06 -0800 Received: by slick.chage.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18658; Tue, 15 Nov 94 03:11:23 PST Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 03:11:23 PST From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage) Message-Id: <9411151111.AA18658@slick.chage.com> To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Key Issues of Affordability and Availability There has been a significant amount of discussion about availability and affordability issues, in the prior meeting. However, I believe that much of the discussion has been at a high level, and some important details of the economic issues have been omitted. In this message, I'll list what I think are the key problems to be addresses. Perhaps some of the other readers whould like to comment, and perhaps offer solutions. In a later message, I will offer my own comments on solutions for these problems and other problems raised by other readers. I. 10 KEY PROBLEMS Here are what I think are some key problems which need to be addressed as part of the NII program: 1. Current Internet access costs favor large organizations. 2. Large organizations have better network services available. 3. Telecommunications resources currently are not efficiently utilized. 4. Telephone companies do not offer packet oriented service at low cost 5. Monopoly Telephone and Cable companies are competing with each other, not providing an economical digital communications infrastructure. 6. On demand video may be subsidized by telephone and computer data 7. Types of telephone service available decrease competition for net access 8. Internet access fees are based on peak transmit rate not quantity of data 9. The networking industry is building products for large businesses 10. High density areas may obtain preferential access to independent providers ----- 1. Current Internet access costs favor large organizations. High speed internet access over a dedicated connection can be obtained in a large company (or medium speed access in a medium sized company) for a few dollars per month. An individual (e.g. telecommuter, home user, small library, kiosk, disabled telecommuter, etc.) or small business cannot afford dedicated access. Slow (modem) speed dialup access costs an order of magnitude more than the dedicated access to large organizations. Lets compare the monthly costs per person for a few scenarios. Suppose each person will retrieve about 1MB per day, or about the equivalent of 10 books 100 pages long in compressed form. (The numbers below are representative of costs in the San Francisco area. Not all detailed costs are shown, but the comparisons should be valid.) Large 1000 person company Premium connection at 1500Kb/s $3000 T1 telephone line 20miles $1000 Cost per user/month $4 Time to retrieve a 100 page document .5sec Utilization over 8 hours 20% Medium 100 person company ISDN connection at 128Kb/s $310 ISDN telephone line $30 Usage charges 8hrs local $192 Usage if provider is >7 miles $768 Cost per user/month $5 Time to retrieve a 100 page document 6sec Utilization over 8 hours 20% Individual (1 person company, telecommuter, library, ATM machine, etc.) Dedicated service at 14Kb/s $90 POTS telephone line $15 Usage charges 8hrs local $96 Usage if provider is >7 miles $384 Cost per user/month $100-200 Time to retrieve a 100 page document 56sec Utilization over 8 hours .2% In a large organization a high speed communication link can be obtained for a few dollars per person per month, which permits very fast retrieval of documents. The cost of very low because a single internet link can be shared across a LAN with thousands of users. A medium sized organization would need to pay substantially more per person to obtain high speed (T1) access. However an ISDN line could be used to obtain a moderate speed link and still keep costs within a few dollars per month. A nearby commercial internet service provider would be needed to avoid high telephone usage costs. In this scenario, no usage is assumed after business hours. If a local internet provider was not available, or if access after the 8hr business day is required, a Frame-Relay connection could be obtained at comparable cost at half the speed. An individual has no ability to share the telecomunications costs, except by finding a nearby commercial internet service provider who will provide modem access. If a user wants a dedicated connection, they would need to pay for 2 phone lines (1 for the user plus 1 dedicated line to the internet provider) to the internet provider's modem and router. All modem users at the provider's router share a link to the provider who in turn connects to the internet. Most individuals cannot afford a dedicated connection, so a slow (modem) speed dialup connection would be used instead. This puts the individual or small business at a disadvantage. An internet access account is typically about $20/month. Some providers charge usage fees which are $2/hour. A medium-small business (e.g. 10-100 users) can obtain an email and news only access. With this type of account, the newer services like gopher and WWW are not available except via a email server. A scenario for email only service is: 10 Person Company with email/news only access: UUCP Access $20 Telephone line $15 Telephone Usage charges (xmit) $9 Telephone usage polling $40 Cost per person $8 The polling charge is the cost to dial the provider once every 20 minutes during the day (once per hour other times). In this case it might take 20 minutes to deliver an email message. If this company had a dedicated connection, email would be delivered within a minute or so. 2. Large organizations have better network services available. As explained in the scenarios above, medium-high speed dedicated access is easily within reach in medium-large companies. An individual or small business may not be able to afford dedicated access, limiting the applications which could be used, and adding substantial delivery times for email, etc. Instead of having email delivered within a minute, a delay, e.g. 20 minutes, might be added. 3. Telecommunications resources currently are not efficiently utilized. Currently, two dedicated telephone lines plus one shared line is used for modem access, whereas a single shared line could be used. The telephone companies may use thousands of times the neighborhood and interoffice transmission resource to provide connection oriented service vs packet oriented digital communications. Consider the typical access available to most people with modems: user (modem)-------------------------------->(telco office) | v provider POP (modem)<------------------------(telco office) provider POP (modem)<-- (other dialup lines) ... | v router (digital line)------------------------>(telco office) | v provider HQ<---------------------------------(telco office) | v router (digital line)=======================>(telco office) | v (internet backbone) In order to access the internet, a user must dial a modem supplied by an access provider. In order to avoid long distance telephone charges, each internet provider (IP) must provide a nearby POP (Point Of Presence) which has a set of modems connected a router linked to the IP headquarters via a shared digital link. At the headquarters, the IP has a central router to computers for services it offers, e.g. news, and a high speed connection to the internet backbone. Three telephone lines are used to get to the IP-HQ. Two lines are consumed to connect to a POP, and the third line from the POP to the IP-HQ is shared by all users who connect to the POP. The telephone companies offer only "connection oriented" service rather than the "packet oriented" service used for computer communication. If a user dials up an IP, the telephone company is continuously transmitting 64Kb per direction for each connection, even though the user is not transmitting any information. For example, a page of information (e.g. email) might take a few minutes to read, but might take only a second to transmit. A message which took three minutes to read would consume 5000 times as much information in the connection oriented telephone switch as would be required to transmit via a packet oriented switching technology. If the telephone companies offered packet oriented digital service, the topology of the diagram above might look like: user (box)===|(street) user (box)===|(router)==========| ... ===| | user (box)===| |(neighborhood) |(router )=====>(telco office) user (box)===|(building) | | user (box)===|(router )========| | ... ===| v user (box)===| provider HQ<========(telco office) Rather than have each user consume a complete line to the telco central office (CO), a single line could be shared by several users. Since the average transmission utilization of an individual is low, a shared line, like a "party line", would have almost the same performance as a dedicated line. If the distance between the user and the first level of router is small, then high speed transmission is possible. For example, a 15000Kb transmission rate is possible over ordinary phone wire for limited distance, which is 1000 times faster than the typical 14Kb modem. A similar configuration is used to provide the "video dial tone" service, which is actually mostly traditional cable TV service supplied by the telephone company. Although the telcos investing in "video on demand" service mention computer data, I do not see the plans or infrastructure for allowing general purpose digital communication. An open question is who will provide the building, street, and neighborhood routers. The telephone (or cable) companies own the exising lines and access to them. Because they are in a monopoly position, they do not necessarily have any interest in providing the kind of service required for low cost computer communications or to provide access to third party 4. Telephone companies do not offer packet oriented service at low cost Computer communications occurs in "packets", which is a chunk of data transmitted. A short email message might take a single packet, and a file might take many packets. In between packets, a computer link is idle, so a packet oriented computer data link can be shared by multiple users. The existing voice telephone circuits are "connection oriented", which means they consume a constant amount of data (64Kb) even when people are not speaking. Actually, voice data can be compressed into packets which consumes 1/4 to 1/8 the amount of data normally transmitted (compression ratio of 2:1 to 4:1, unidirectional data flow). Some sounds compress better than others, so the transmission capacity varies slightly. Compressed video also can be divided into a variable number of packets. Typically, however, a fixed transmission rate is used (since that is the type of service available) and the quality is degraded when necessary in order to fit within the fixed transmission capacity. If a variable speed packet switched connection were available, then the transmission rate can be increased when movement occurs, and decreased when the images do not move. This leads to higher quality images, better utilization of the transmission resources, and lower cost. Pacific Bell offers the Frame-Relay service, which is a flat-rate packet oriented service. The delivery times are not guaranteed, so it is not suitable for compressed audio or video. However, they could be used to access an internet service provider without incurring usage charges or mileage fees. The monthly charges are: 56Kb $140 15000Kb $328 45000Kb ATM $4,85O Frame relay on ISDN might be another approach, and PacBell has announced it but (I believe) is not currently pursuing it. I do not know if usage charges would be added. Concievably, ISDN frame-relay could be used to lower the >$200/mo telephone charges in the scenario above. For heavy users, e.g. large companies, this can become attractive and low cost if spread over a large number of users. For an individual with low utilization, these prices are unaffordable. 5. Monopoly Telephone and Cable companies are competing with each other, not providing an economical digital communications infrastructure. The telephone companies, e.g. Pacific Bell, are deploying digital video service, known as "on demand video", as a testbed in a few high density areas. The technology used will be the $4,85O/mo ATM technology to neighborhoods, with either 15000Kb ADSL service over existing twisted pair wiring, or higher rates with new coaxial cable installed. The "video" service is one way TV broadcast, no 2 way videophone service. In all the press releases, the usage for computer communications is barely mentioned. As far as I know, the tests will only involve video service, and no plans exist to permit internet access providers or other digital information sources to have access to this infrastructure. The technology used to deliver cable TV by the telephone companies could be used as a general digital communications infrastructure, offering very high speed access at reasonably low cost. However, the equipment must be designed for bidirectional communications, and users and information providers must have access at the digital packet switching level, not at the video broadcast level. 6. On demand video may be subsidized by telephone and computer data The economics of on demand TV is questionable. The projected cost to deliver a 2 hour movie is $2-$4, depending on whether it is a new release. Note this cost includes, the video servers which hold and retrieve the digital movie data. If we assume the servers have no cost, then comparing the cost for video against existing audio: Video Movie = 6GB Cost/GB = $3/6GB = $.50/GB Audio telephone = .48MB/min Cost/GB = $.01/.00048 = $21/GB The projected cost of delivering video is 40 times the usage charges for telephone service. Unless the tarriffs are radially changed, the price for transmitting audio (and possibly computer data) will be much higher than the price for transmitting video, even though with digital data transmission, there is no distinction, except in level of service. With audio or video transmissions, a guaranteed transmission rate is important. However, most computer data transmissions are not time sensitive, and the speed can be reduced as traffic increases. Thus, computer data can be used to fill the capacity at a lower priority than audio and video transmissions. Thus computer data should be charged at a lower rate than audio or video. It does not appear to me that less than $.50/GB is economically feasable for digital computer data, and the telephone companies would need to charge more. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for monopoly providers to discriminate costs on the content of the data transport. Instead the type of service (guaranteed delivery vs degradable) and total quantity should be used as the basis for usage charges. 7. Types of telephone service available decrease competition for net access Since the telephone companies, etc. do not provide modem access or low cost packet switched service (e.g. frame relay), access must be obtained from a third party internet provider(IP) or BBS, using the extra telephone lines as shown in the diagrams above. In order to avoid very expensive long distance telephone charges, IPs must provide POPs scattered across thier service areas. Because each IP must supply thier own remote POPs, the number of providers with POPs in a given location may be limited. For example, in the San Francisco area, there are a couple dozen companies offering internet access. However, there might only be 3 or 4 companies with local dialup numbers. In some areas there is only 1, and in some all providers are long distance. The major national companies, e.g. Compuserve, have many local numbers, but these companies have very high fees and limited services (e.g. Compuserve does not have full internet access). 8. Internet access fees are based on peak transmit rate not quantity of data There is a current tradition of charging for internet access based on the maximum transmission speed. For example, a 28.8Kb access is 1/2 a 56Kb access, which is 1/2 a 128Kb, etc. A user who uses 100% of the transmission capacity pays the same amount as a user who only uses 1% of the transmission capacity. For some new internet tools such as WWW, an infrequent high speed burst is very desirable. For example, a WWW page containing graphics might need to be retrieved within a few seconds, and then a user might spend a few minutes reading the data. In a large business this type of access is available for a few dollars per month, whereas an individual might need to pay more than $1000/mo with very high setup fees. Users with flat-rate high speed access can transmit video, which can use 100% of a transmission line, whereas a typical WWW user might only use a fraction of a percent. Thus video users end up paying very small rates, whereas typical WWW and email users pay high rates per unit of data. Many users have resisted the idea of usage fees as they could discourage usage. However, if the use fees were set at the cost to add additional capacity (perhaps at a larger scale in the future), then the cost would still be low except for high consumption use like video. For comparison, here are some typical usage charges: Local Daytime telephone $21/GB On demand Video Movie $.50/GB Discount night long dist telephone $100/GB 1000 miles of T3 @ 25% utilization $12/GB PacBell packet data $6400/GB Prodigy Internet Email $16667/GB The T3 trunk lines are used as part of the internet backbone to connect the nation. If over a 24hr period, the trunk line is used on average at 25% of the maximum capacity, then the cost is currently about $10/GB, to add extra backbone capacity. Note this does not include the cost of local access and routers, but does give an approximate order of magnitude. Usage charges for telephone use, e.g. $21/GB, should be higher than computer data since the telephone use requires guaranteed capacity, whereas computer data transfer rates can be degraded as capacity fills. What may users are fearful of is the unreasonable usage rates which do not reflect incremental transmission costs. The usage charges from PacBell for packet switched data and email from major services like Prodigy and Compuserve are examples. If usage charges are comparable to daytime telephone, then a user who retrieves the equivalent of 1000 pages of compressed text per day would only pay $.63/mo in usage charges. In order to reduce usage over the network, there must be some economic incentive for internet providers to keep local copies of data for thier customers, and for users to use the network at night. A usage charge which is lower at off peak times is needed to shift use for bulk email, news, etc. from peak use times to times with excess capacity. Usage charges are also needed to permit reselling of capacity. If the charge is based on peak transfer rate, then companies which divide up and resell access to many users pay the same rate as a single user. Thus many companies restrict the types of use, which ends up limiting competition for service providers. On the other hand, it becomes difficult to choose a provider as they might have thier transmission capacity oversold. 9. The networking industry is building products for large businesses There has been an impressive development in networking technology which offers high speed at low cost. For example, ethernet interfaces for a computer cost $40 and transmit up to 100 meters at 10Mb (10000Kb). These LAN products, and other WAN products, e.g. routers are designed to be used within a single company which might combine many workstations on a LAN with a router to other locations including an internet provider. Likewise, the digital telecommunications services offered by the telephone companies also address the needs of large businesses. Left out are similar products which are designed to be used by multiple companies or individuals, and routers, etc. which are designed to be placed between an individual home or office and the telephone company. For example, the 10Mb ethernet technology could almost be used in an apartment building, professional office building, shopping center, etc. in the way as for a LAN within a single corporation, sharing a single internet access line. However, the telephone company owns the lines outside of each apartment, etc. so it is difficult to implement. Also, the LAN equipment does not assume data from one user should be hidden from another. Although LAN equipment is very low cost, it couldn't be directly used (without encryption) as one business could trivially wiretap another. In order for industry to develop products designed for the ideal topology diagrammed above, there must be some organization to develop standards for equipment and to develop a market controlled by the telephone companies. 10. High density areas may obtain preferential access to independent providers If universal packet switched digital communications is not available through a telephone or cable monopoly, then independent companies will fill the gap. This is more or less the current state for internet access, where a number of companies (from part time bedroom operations to major national providers) compete to provide internet access with a wide variety of services for a wide variety of customers. This can be a free email only connection via modem up to optical fiber tied to the internet backbone. Though internet access is still relatively sparse, the percentage of homes and businesses which have internet access will continue to grow rapidly. Soon, some of the internet providers might try to work around the telephone company and provide service directly to multiple end users. Consider the office buildings in downtown San Francisco. A provider might be able to hook up all companies in a skyscraper with a high speed internet connection at a relatively low cost using LAN technology. Adjacent buildings could be connected together into the same router which uses a single high speed line into the internet. Dozens or hundreds of companies could be pooled together to share a single high speed line, e.g. optical fiber. Even if only 10% of the companies in a skyscraper subscribed, the high density makes costs to provide the service low. A similar scenario can be made for shopping centers, office buildings, apartment and condominium complexes etc. An independent provider would most likely wire up these kinds of buildings before individual houses and other low density areas. If the monopoly providers do not implement low cost packet switched access, then the result may be that the independents may "cherry pick" the high density areas with the lowest cost and highest return, leaving the rest for some future service to be provided by the telephone company. The telephone companies might then be stuck with customers with the highest costs. From vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us Tue Nov 15 11:43:58 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 LAA21968 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 11:43:55 -0800 Received: from latte.spl.lib.wa.us by rs6a.wln.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.06) id AA85367; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:34:21 -0800 Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM) id AA06858; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:38:06 -0800 Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM) id AA06850; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:38:06 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:38:01 -0800 (PST) From: Affordabilty and Availability To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII subscribe Reggie Moyer subscribe rmoyer "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." From ronda@panix.com Tue Nov 15 12:45:24 1994 Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA00822 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:23 -0800 Received: by panix2.panix.com id AA19711 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:37:32 -0500 From: Ronda Hauben Message-Id: <199411151737.AA19711@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: [AVAIL:13] To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:37:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9411150254.AA51246@admaix.sunydutchess.edu> from "Whittle, Frank" at Nov 15, 94 11:47:55 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 5778 > > 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. This is a helpful distinction because it seems that the real terms of the debate are confused by the effort to replace benefitting the people of the society with "economic development" The two are not the same. The people of our society need the net and need universal service. Economic development substitutes the interests of a small sector of the population and claims it is the whole population. The Internet and the Global Computer Network are providing a very important means for the people of our society to have an ability to speak for themselves and to fight their own battles to better the society. Those who are trying to take the Net away, which the NII thus far has been part of by focusing on the business interests and ignoring the public interests, are forces to try to impede the further development of the Net. I have a paper I have written recently about the development of the Global Network -- looking at its history and development. I would like to post it to this discussion but it is lengthy so want to know if that is ok. Knowing the history of the development of the Net is a very important piece of figuring out how to continue that development, yet that history is hidden while book publishers rush to publish books about how to make a "fortune" off the internet. They won't publish books about how the Net was built. If the Clinton Administration had been interested in the history and development of the Net, one wonders if they would have rushed to place the NII committee in the U.S. Dept of Commerce. > > 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. > The whole notion that government has an obligation to serve the public has been lost - instead there is only concern with serving business interests. That is a real loss for our society and has resulted in the U.S. government support and aid to the ever lowering living standard of the majority of people in the U.S. and the lengthening hours of work. Technological advances like the global computer network are needed to make life better for the public - that requires that the whole debate and discussion not only be opened up so the public can be able to make its voices heard, but also that the interests of the public be the primary concern, not the interests of the big corporations. Even Adam Smith in his economic work "The Wealth of Nations" notes that the interests of the public and the interests of the business community are not the same. > 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. I suggest you and others interested in this question look at the netbook that is available via www and gopher and ftp titled "The Netizens and the Wonderful World of the Net: An Anthology on the History and Impact of the Net" it is available via www in a formated copy from http://scrg.cs.tcd.ie/scrg/u/rcwoods.html and in an unformatted copy from http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~hauben/project_book.html by Gopher: gopher://gopher.cic.net/1/e-serials/alphabetic/a/amateur-computerist/netbook by Anonymous FTP: wuarchive.wustl.edu in directory /doc/misc/acn/netbook > Frank Whittle > email: whittle@sunydutchess.edu > The process by which the Global Computer Network has been built needs to be studied and learned from if the development will go forward - thus there is an important reason to carefully look at the history and impact of what has been built before rushing ahead to change that course. The role the Global Computer Network plays today in helping to make automation work is a tremendously important role. The computer pioneers who were creating time sharing back in the early 1960's were interested in creating a community for those involved in applying and developing computer technology. That is what the Net has become and it has made it possible for this technology to go forward because people get the help they need to solve the difficult problems posed by the technology. When J.C.R. Licklider, who can be called the Father of the old Arpanet (which set the basis for the internet) looked to a future vision for the Net, he proposed that as the Net expanded it would need more and more people to help with the debugging that was required to help it expand and therefore there was a need to expand access to many more folks so they could be online to help with that debugging. This a very different vision than any of the so called "electronic shopping marts" that permeate the current proposed visions for the future of the Net. Thus from the history will come a sense of what is the needed way forward and without considering the history, those involved in policy will be more likely to propose a backwards step. Ronda ronda@panix.com -------- ronda@panix.com or ae547@yfn.ysu.edu Norbert Wiener, the father of cybernetics, proposed that the governed have to find a way to get feedback to the governors But the process seems especially hard with regard to the policy planning that has been going on about the future of the Net. From don@dcez.com Tue Nov 15 13:30:40 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 NAA01466 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:30:40 -0800 Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxqdt19649; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:22:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:19:05 -500 (EST) From: Don Evans Subject: Testing To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: don@dcez.com Why can't I get anything to post here?????? don@dcez.com From don@dcez.com Tue Nov 15 13:44:26 1994 Received: from relay4.UU.NET (relay4.UU.NET [192.48.96.14]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA01691 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:44:26 -0800 Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay4.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxqdu09749; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:36:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:32:47 -500 (EST) From: Don Evans Subject: Re: [AVAIL:17] Key Issues of Affordability and Availability To: virtconf.ntia.doc.gov!avail@uunet.uu.net In-Reply-To: <9411151111.AA18658@slick.chage.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: don@dcez.com testing avail Don Evans National Endowment for the Arts don@dcez.com From rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu Tue Nov 15 13:46:10 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA01719 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:46:09 -0800 Received: from hopper.itc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26213; 15 Nov 94 13:38 EST Received: (from rbarry@localhost) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id NAA19929 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:38:16 -0500 From: Rey Barry Message-Id: <199411151838.NAA19929@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: [AVAIL:16] testing alt.ntia.avail To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:38:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <009877F6.09E3BD80.60@clp2.clpgh.org> from "Virginia Correa" at Nov 15, 94 11:50:16 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1009 > > Path: clpgh.org!correav > From: correav@clpgh.org (Virginia Correa) > Newsgroups: alt.ntia.avail > Subject: testing alt.ntia.avail > Message-ID: <1994Nov15.094430.2653@clp2> > Date: 15 Nov 94 09:44:30 -5 > Organization: Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh > News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to alt.ntia.avail > Lines: 8 > > Test msg. from correav to alt.ntia.avail > > -- > +++ Virginia Correa - Head, Automation Division > +++ The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh > +++ 4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > +++ correav@clpgh.org - 412-622-1945 > > +++ Virginia Correa - Head, Automation Division > +++ The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh > +++ 4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > +++ correav@clpgh.org - 412-622-1945 There are at least two of us alive, Virginia. -- rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu Freeware Hall of Fame BBS The only thing Americans Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 have in common is paranoia. Free BBS - 1st call downloads From public4@efn.org Tue Nov 15 14:10:02 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 OAA02158 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:10:00 -0800 Received: from efn.org by skinner.cs.uoregon.edu with SMTP id AA06016 (5.65/IDA-1.4.2 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 94 10:58:38 -0800 Received: by efn.efn.org (4.1/smail2.5/05-07-92) id AA21505; Tue, 15 Nov 94 10:56:26 PST Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:56:23 -0800 (PST) From: Public Terminal 4 To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Where's the discussion? In-Reply-To: <1994Nov15.002742.7646@virgin.uvi.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hellooooooo???? Is there a problem from the listserv? We haven't received any discussion since 14:40 yesterday. Penny From markwood@metolius.cocc.edu Tue Nov 15 15:28:01 1994 Received: from news.u.washington.edu (news.u.washington.edu [140.142.64.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA03419 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:28:00 -0800 Received: from metolius.cocc.edu by news.u.washington.edu (5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.22 ) id AA29496; Tue, 15 Nov 94 12:19:55 -0800 Received: from FirstClass (2400037) by metolius.cocc.edu (PostalUnion/SMTP 1.2) id AA2400037.429783; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:35:46 PDT Message-Id: <1994Nov15.113216.429783@metolius.cocc.edu> To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov From: markwood@metolius.cocc.edu (Dick Markwood) Organization: Central Oregon Community College Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 11:32:16 PDT Subject: Re: [AVAIL:11] Re: subcribe wvia From ntiagate@virgin.uvi.edu Tue Nov 15 15:31:13 1994 Received: from virgin.uvi.edu (virgin.uvi.edu [146.226.200.110]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA03504 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:31:06 -0800 Received: from localhost (ntiagate@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id QAA22826 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:09:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:09:05 GMT From: ab147@virgin.uvi.edu (Gary M. Goodlander) Message-ID: <1994Nov15.140905.16422@virgin.uvi.edu> To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Cheap Public Access I want to see cheap public access to the Internet, and other informational services. If this isn't something 'good' that government can do for the people relatively inexpensively... I don't know what is. Rich people can afford good home libraries, but poor kids can't. Many of those poor kids, however, either have access to a computer at school, elsewhere, or (perhaps) even a home. Let's make sure that the collective information of our society is availible (as much as possible) to everyone... rich or poor. Thanks for listening. PS. I live on a small boat anchored off a tiny island. To residents of the 'turd world', the internet is a wonderful resource... Gary, aka Cap'n Fattt >From news Tue Nov 15 10:14:47 1994 Received: from localhost (news@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id KAA16619 for alt-ntia-intellec@virgin; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:14:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:14:46 -0400 From: News User Message-Id: <199411151414.KAA16619@virgin.uvi.edu> To: alt-ntia-intellec@virgin.uvi.edu Status: RO X-Status: D From barcelom@ERE.UMontreal.CA Tue Nov 15 16:47:18 1994 Received: from condor.CC.UMontreal.CA (condor.CC.UMontreal.CA [132.204.2.103]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA05097 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:47:16 -0800 Received: from eole.ERE.UMontreal.CA by condor.CC.UMontreal.CA with SMTP id AA18132 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:37:53 -0500 Received: from alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA by eole.ERE.UMontreal.CA (940406.SGI/5.17) id AA21855; Tue, 15 Nov 94 16:37:52 -0500 Received: by alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (940406.SGI/5.17) id AA13463; Tue, 15 Nov 94 16:37:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:37:50 -0500 (EST) From: Barcelo Alain-Michel Sender: Barcelo Alain-Michel Reply-To: Barcelo Alain-Michel Subject: Re: [AVAIL:17] Key Issues of Affordability and Availability To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <9411151111.AA18658@slick.chage.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII One issue of affordability and availability which has not been raised yet is the question of trans-national or international use of, for example, the Internet. Since there is no multilateral organization to regulate rates between countries with public and/or private telecom companies, we could have people deprived of access to important information which would have been conceived especially for them, or without any tought given to their deprivation. -----------------barcelom@ERE.UMontreal.CA-------------------------- | | | Michel Barcelo | Institut d'urbanisme | | Professeur titulaire | Universite de Montreal | | | Faculte de l'amenagement | | Tel.:(1)(514) 343-6893 | C.P. 6128, Succ. "Centre-ville" | | Fax :(1)(514) 343-2338 | MONTREAL (Quebec) H3C 3J7 CANADA | -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 mcdonald@cais.com Tue Nov 15 19:49:23 1994 Received: from cais.cais.com (cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA00725 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:49:22 -0800 Received: from [198.69.141.116] (mcdonald.cais.com [198.69.141.116]) by cais.cais.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA20668; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:41:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199411160041.TAA20668@cais.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:41:38 -0500 To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov From: mcdonald@cais.cais.com (Bill McDonald) Subject: Re: [AVAIL:21] Testing Cc: don@dcez.com >Why can't I get anything to post here?????? > >don@dcez.com You got this to post!!!! Bill McDonald mcdonald@cais.com From mnasstro@ednet1.osl.or.gov Tue Nov 15 19:57:30 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 TAA01632 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:57:29 -0800 Received: by ednet1.osl.or.gov id AA23385 (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:18:03 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:18:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199411152318.AA23385@ednet1.osl.or.gov> From: mnasstro@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Mark C. Nasstrom) To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: [AVAIL:18] Key Issues of Affordability and Availability Reply-To: mnasstro@ednet1.osl.or.gov Testing..Testing.... All Systems Go, on The Edge Of North America. This is a Test of the Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative. 1521 Hrs PST -- "Credible Deterrence Starts Here..." @ ---*> The Lumberyard BBS <*--- @ *> Hardwired On The Edge of North America @ YACHATS 503.547.4605 OREGON <* *******> Member Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative <******* From don@dcez.com Tue Nov 15 20:24:21 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 UAA05334 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:24:19 -0800 Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxqev03423; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:16:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:12:09 -500 (EST) From: Don Evans Subject: Re: [AVAIL:23] Re: testing To: virtconf.ntia.doc.gov!avail@uunet.uu.net In-Reply-To: <199411151838.NAA19929@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: don@dcez.com Testing from DCEZ.COM...... From don@dcez.com Tue Nov 15 20:27:01 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 UAA05777 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:27:00 -0800 Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP id QQxqev03797; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:19:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:14:54 -500 (EST) From: Don Evans Subject: Re: [AVAIL:21] Testing To: Bill McDonald cc: virtconf.ntia.doc.gov!avail@uunet.uu.net, dcez.com!don@uunet.uu.net In-Reply-To: <199411160041.TAA20668@cais.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: don@dcez.com I am really confused about how this thing is working. I thought my post to avail@virtconf.ntia.doc would be send back to me, and I would see it show up in my email box, so how did it get to Bill McDonald? On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Bill McDonald wrote: > >Why can't I get anything to post here?????? > > > >don@dcez.com > > You got this to post!!!! > > Bill McDonald mcdonald@cais.com > > >  From twigs@sils.umich.edu Tue Nov 15 20:42:07 1994 Received: from sils.umich.edu (sils.umich.edu [141.211.203.30]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA07878 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:42:06 -0800 Received: by sils.umich.edu (8.6.8/2.0) id UAA08504; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:36:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:36:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Cynthia S. Terwilliger" Subject: Re: [AVAIL:32] Re: Key Issues of Affordability and Availability To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov cc: Multiple recipients of list In-Reply-To: <199411152318.AA23385@ednet1.osl.or.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I'l like to hear more from the Oregon edge of the world. Being from a small, rural library in the Upper Penisula of Michigan, with a very small tax base...faced with geographical isolation and no clout...how do we get our voices heard and assure our partrons equal and universal access to these new and wonderful services...we have no local nodes...every hook up is a long distance call. What are you doing over there? From rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu Tue Nov 15 21:41:41 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA15056 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:41:40 -0800 Received: from hopper.itc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20568; 15 Nov 94 18:28 EST Received: (from rbarry@localhost) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id SAA43939 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:28:16 -0500 From: Rey Barry Message-Id: <199411152328.SAA43939@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: [AVAIL:22] Re: Key Issues of Affordability and Availability To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:28:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Don Evans" at Nov 15, 94 05:52:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 382 > > testing avail > > Don Evans > National Endowment for the Arts > don@dcez.com > You are coming through. Shall I say hello to my friend Robert Garfias for you? -- rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu Freeware Hall of Fame BBS The only thing Americans Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 have in common is paranoia. Free BBS - 1st call downloads From rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu Tue Nov 15 21:41:42 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA15062 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:41:42 -0800 Received: from hopper.itc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21186; 15 Nov 94 18:31 EST Received: (from rbarry@localhost) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id SAA43534 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:31:12 -0500 From: Rey Barry Message-Id: <199411152331.SAA43534@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: [AVAIL:24] Where's the discussion? To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:31:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Public Terminal 4" at Nov 15, 94 05:53:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 462 > > > Hellooooooo???? Is there a problem from the listserv? We haven't > received any discussion since 14:40 yesterday. Penny, we received nothing at all Monday and very little Tuesday here in Virginia. How much traffic did you see Monday? -- rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu Freeware Hall of Fame BBS The only thing Americans Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 have in common is paranoia. Free BBS - 1st call downloads From hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu Tue Nov 15 22:12:34 1994 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA17211 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:12:33 -0800 Received: from fulton.seas.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01582; 15 Nov 94 22:04 EST Received: (from hwh6k@localhost) by fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id WAA57037 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:04:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:04:37 -0500 From: Henry Huang Message-Id: <199411160304.WAA57037@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.3 5/22/91) To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: [AVAIL:1] NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address Sorry if much of this stuff has been covered already ... I've been busy/sick as of late and haven't had othe chance to wade through all the messages from the various lists ... On Nov 14, 9:08, NTIA Virtual Conference wrote: > Through the NII, the Administration is focusing on the ability of > computer mediated communications to enhance the life and work of > every American. The NII is a harbinger of change, both economic > and political, and holds great promise for the future of America. The NII is NOT a harbringer of change ... the Internet WAS -- hence this conference (run using list server software on a UNIX box, and sent mostly over Internet links). This is further reflected in your next statement: > Some benefits of the NII include telecommuting, distance learning > and active life-long education, remote consultations with expert > medical professionals, as well as new forms of art, entertainment > and culture. All of this has been kicked around in one form or another on the Internet; the idea of videoconferencing (i.e. remote consultations) dates back at LEAST 20 years to some of the early demos at Xerox PARC (just saw a fascinating video on this in one of my classes today). All of these things CAN already be done in one form or another; if the NII turns out to be just a higher-bandwidth Internet, that's fine -- but that doesn't make it a "harbringer of change" in and of itself. I think the best way to think about the NII is to frame it in the scenario of past technologies, in both their successes and failures. We're sitting here talking about wiring up people's houses for the Net when an awful lot of people don't even have PHONE service. Also, merely providing access barely scratches the surface of what's required -- it's easy for us to fall into the trap of thinking that ALL people who have this will be instantly fascinated by it, and somehow have both the skill and motivation required to MASTER the new techology. Bringing technology that's both powerful and unusable does no one any good -- think of VCR programming (or setting the clock on a VCR, for that matter! =) 2 *BIG* problems with the Internet right now are the lack of a consistent, usable interface, and the TOTAL lack of people at individual sites who are willing to train and educate new users. Also, resources for newbies tend to be few, far between, and hard to find (i.e. you have to KNOW how/where to find the answer in order to get it -- thus totally defeating the purpose). USENET newsgroups such as news.announce.newusers attempt to alleviate the problem, but they're not the right answer -- the responsibility for this has to be assumed by the administrators at each site. Failing that, the responsibility rests on the rest of us who know to help educate others, in whatever way we can. The availability of such user training/education is crucial, because the consequences of NOT getting it right are insidious, serious -- and inevitable. Not making technology accessible -- both physically and mentally -- to those who have not experienced it ultimately affects societal attitudes toward technology. When people can't use E-mail, or can't figure out FTP, or Windows, or even their word processor, they don't think "oh, I can't use this because the interface SUCKS", it's usually more like "gee, everybody else is getting this; I must NOT BE GOOD WITH COMPUTERS or something". This is really more of a psychological consequence than anything else, but it's still valid. We already live in a world of technical "haves" and "have nots" -- both in technology AND in knowledge ("knows" and "knows nots"?) Understanding why the gap exists and the consequences of such a societal split is the FIRST step to understanding what needs to be addressed with the NII. Ultimately, it may even predict whether the NII succeeds or fails miserably (remember: a lot of people don't have PHONES, much less network service. The question is WHY?) > This conference is an experiment in a new form of dialog among > citizens and with their government. The conference is not a one- > way, top down approach, it is a conversation. It holds the > promise of reworking the compact between citizens and their > government. This is true only if both sides are listening to what the other has to say -- and are ultimately willing to ACT on it. If not, then whatever's said here will be for naught. Although I heartily support the idea of this conference, my gut suspicion tells me that an awful lot of this will be for naught, primarily because some of the key points under examination may ultimately be determined by other factors than what us users (and voters) think -- be it political, market- driven, social, whatever. In particular, although I support the ideal of free (or cheap -- like a newspaper) public access, I'm somewhat doubtful as to whether it's practical; hopefully when I have more time I'll be able to read some of these replies and find out. -H From marym@Finesse.COM Tue Nov 15 22:30:20 1994 Received: from thyme.finesse.com (thyme.finesse.com [140.174.171.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA18196 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:30:18 -0800 Received: by thyme.finesse.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01799; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:19:26 +0800 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:19:26 +0800 From: marym@Finesse.COM (Mary Morris) Message-Id: <9411160319.AA01799@thyme.finesse.com> To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: [AVAIL:34] Re: Testing X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII content-length: 811 Two things to be aware of here. Some listservs don't send a copy back to you. Secondarily, and relating to availability of service, someone has done a serious email spam today to aproximatly 950 Bitnet email lists. Since this type of traffic is about 3 times the email that the Internet handles in a day, many email things are very slow. I am still receiving email so I may not be caught up at this point, but here's my discussion/question. How do you manage availability when one person can destroy the infrastructure so easily? NII may be a vast resource, but it isn't unlimited. Mary > I am really confused about how this thing is working. I thought my post > to avail@virtconf.ntia.doc would be send back to me, and I would see it > show up in my email box, so how did it get to Bill McDonald? From silke001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Tue Nov 15 23:39:50 1994 Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu (root@maroon.tc.umn.edu [128.101.118.21]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA20697 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:39:50 -0800 Received: from dialup-4-30.gw.umn.edu by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Tue, 15 Nov 94 22:29:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 22:35:14 CST From: "Chris Silker" Message-Id: <90695.silke001@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_16 Reply-To: X-POPMail-Charset: English To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Info for Don Evans; Privacy conference query You can't read your own posts unless you send a command to the listserv to do so (assuming that this list is set up to do such things at all). If it can, you would send a message to "listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov" (without the quotes) - body of the message reads "set avail repro". Nothing goes in the subject line. Is anyone signed onto the Privacy conferences, and if so, have you received anything from it yet? Forgive me if this is a simplistic question, but what are the possibilities of providing e-mail accounts to the interested who do not have the opportunity for access elsewhere (such as people who don't have phone service or can't spring for a private carrier) through the public library system? I have seen messages that indicate they are being sent from public libraries. Is this widespread? My branch librarian was just exclaiming that they recently got on the Net. C. Silker