informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/NETCOMMUNITY/net_com.012

779 lines
34 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

NETWORKS AND COMMUNITY : feb 7, 1994
Networks and Community is devoted to encouraging
LOCAL resource creation & GLOBAL resource sharing.
compiler : Sam Sternberg <samsam@vm1.yorku.ca>
The 6th report of 1994 is the 12th weekly survey.
This special issue consists of a REPORT on the POWERING UP NORTH
AMERICA conference - Feb 2 & 3 - Toronto Canada.
================================================
This conference - which cost $1,000. to attend - presented a very
high power cross-section of the Information Network Business
community. Fortunately for readers of this newsletter, almost
everything said at the conference has been covered on the Internet
previously. In particular, recipients of Gleason Sackman's netnews
missed very little by not attending.
I will summarize the items that were "news" and the describe the
talks at the PUBLIC ACCESS panel. Extracts from two of those talks
are also provided.
The first extract is an excellent explanation of convergence -
provided by Andrew Bjerring, President of Canarie, canada's nsf net
equivalent. Mr. Bjerring can be reached at Bjerring@canarie.ca
The second extract is from the talk on the future of community
networks by Garth Graham, a TELECOMMUNITIES CANADA board member,
and on the steering committee of the COALITON FOR PUBLIC
INFORMATION. Mr. Graham's net address is aa127@freenet.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEWS FROM THE CONFERENCE
Most participants acknowledged that we are really dealing with a
GLOBAL information infrastructure, a GII, but that political
realities often lead to discussions from a national perspective.
Minister John Manley - who opened the conference by appearing over
the network from OTTAWA - asked participants to offer advice on
what the game plan for Canada should be. Specificly he asked for
comments on what type of government - industry collaboration was
appropriate, what type of public access should be sought, how
privacy rights could be defined and protected, and what kind of
support should be provided to protect Canadian culture and
soveriegnty. He did not indicate how that advice should be
addressed to him.
Near the close of the conference Minister Jon Gerrard announced
that a advisory council is being formed and solicited suggestions
for members. His net address is gerrard.jon@istc.ca .
Dr. Michael Nelson - a Clinton-Gore Whitehouse advisor - Said the
administration hopes to complete its legislative agenda within a
year. They feel that it makes economic sense to allow the market
to take care of the connect needs of 2/3rds of the citizenry. The
additional 1/3 would require some form of assistance to meet the
social goal of 100% access. He also mentioned that the Whitehouse
had already begun assisting a few 3rd world countries in developing
Internet access by using Foreign Aid funds. They hope to expand
that program. He felt it was important for the U.S. and other
countries to assist in bringing the entire world onto the global
network.
He also said the Whitehouse Internet document facilities had
already DIRECTLY distributed over 100,000 copies of various
documents. As you know that is usually just the begining of a
distribution chain. This is probably the largest distribution of
any government information since Chairman Mao's LITTLE RED BOOK got
such good press in China.
Ted Rogers - canada's primary cable system owner - announced that
his company would be able to provide 2 way service on all its
systems soon. 80% of his systems already are equiped for 2 way
service.
[ The following day his company announced a bid for the #2 cable
provider in Canada. He is commiting his company to providing a
full range of data and voice services over cable. In Canada, were
95% of homes are passed by a cable and 86% subscribe, this amounts
to a virtual declaration of war on the Telco's. I personally
believe that he is at least as interested in that company's
business magazines. His staff are actively looking for publications
to turn into CABLE CHANNELS. The company he is persuing owns over
150 business magazines many of which operate internationally.
Potentially each magazine provides the "software" for a channel and
comes with a built in stream of advertising revenue. Several years
ago, well before the current battle over Paramount, Rogers tried
to by a peice of "Hollywood" but failed to pull of the financing -
ed ]
Not to be outdone, Wes Scott, representing the alliance of phone
companies in Canada, announced that by the end of the summer,
Canada would have a national commercial ATM network in place. Every
hospital is to be linked to the net for advanced medical services.
[ Canada's socialized medicine system makes this much easier to do
here than it would be in the U.S. ]
George Gilder - a father of "supply-side economic policy" and
proponent of the unrestrained regulation that lead to both rampent
homelessness, and the Savings And Loan Disaster during the Reagan
years - again demonstrated his unflappable wrongheadedness by
predicting that the newspaper industry would be the primary
beneficiary of the Information highway.
As for most of the other speakers - what wasn't old news, was
primarily promos for their particular company agenda.
-----------------------------------------------
THE PUBLIC ACCESS SESSION
Chaired by Brian Milton, National Director for Social Policy at
Stentor; It was probably the most lively of all the panel sessions.
Mr Milton - who appears not to have done much prior coordination
with the participants - proposed a discussion agenda which was
promptly ignored by all. He complained about that at end of the
session.
Ian Angus - who is one of the most knowlegable people in Canada on
telecommunication policy issues spoke last - saying that Canadian
phone companies have failed to diversify their service base because
of their monopoly postion. He made the most interesting comment at
the conference on hardware issues; describing TV as a poor vehicle
for delivering information. He also said that the P.C was
unsuitable for entertainment, though he felt it was overall the
better of the two options.[ he is right of course - computers may
get you on the Internet, but they are no ones idea of a great
family entertainment device. He did not speculate as to what an
appropriate Mutimedia appliance might be. My own candidate is
interactive high definition TV - HDTV. Their introduction is being
held up by fierce behind the scenes international trade warfare.-
ed ] He suggested that U.S. style regulatory reform designed to
stimulate competition was neccessary. It should be accompanied by
reduced rates for network access by schools, libraries, etc. Saying
the Hiway is here already - he recommended that we pave the
driveways since today we only have back roads to the home.
Andrew Bjerring - from Canarie - reported satisfaction with its
progress to date and delivered a fine explanation of the
convergence issue - it is extracted below. [ At the end of the
conference the Canarie Board met to decide if Canarie is to return
to its roots as an Industrial research network or seriously
undertake becoming the primary arm of the GII in Canada. That
discussion results from the fact that the telco's are already
commited to created a national hi speed data net before the year
end, the Ostry reports saw Canarie as an inadaquate solution, and
the present plans call for a 5 year wait for Canarie to reach
traffic volumes and rates similar to those already available in the
U.S. - I will report on their decision in a future issue ].
Garth Graham - who coordinated the First International Free-net
Conference last August - delivered an inspiring speech on the
future importance of community networks - which is summarized
below.
Barbara O'Conner - a california based Professor of Communications -
presented the position of the U.S. based Alliance for Public
Technology. That groups represents 40 non profits committed to
universal access policies. In line with the Clinton administration
they advocate a combination of regulated competition and social
assistance funding as the best solution. Her suggestions on
possible social funding mechanisms largely focused on the proposed
creation of a Universal Service Fund - to be paid for by either a
customer premise equipment tax, a fee included in the price of
every "appliance" designed for net use, or a payment by access
providers. All of those mechanisms are currently in use or proposed
as the solution for other communication related issues.
Joe Schmidt - President of the Business Telecommunication Alliance
- delivered a standard discussion of the issues and opportunities
this technology presents. His real strength is in his presentations
before the CRTC. Were he ably represents the view of business
consumers in a forum largely dominated by the Telecom Industry.
During the Q & A session many of the usual questions were raised
about censorship, protection of children, privacy, poor user
interfaces, difficulties in finding access, and the hi cost of
access. One audience member suggested communication stamps as a
possible solution. Another echoing Garth Graham's themes worried
about the devestation of the job market and the disruption of work
that will result from the introduction of these technologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Grahams talk : THE PUBLIC AWAKES:
ANTICIPATING PUBLIC INTEREST AGENDAS IN AN INFORMATION SOCIETY
--------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION: FINDING A COMMON VOCABULARY
2. EMERGENCE OF PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
3. THE PUBLIC INTEREST AGENDA
- THE EXPECTED PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA
- THE UNEXPECTED PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA
a. Cyberspace is public space, not "infrastructure"
b. Computer mediated communications is about talking
c. Accelerate the flow of ideas, of knowing
d. Drive governments toward open government
e. Full public participation in the policy debate
f. FreeNets as examples of public behaviour in an information
society.
4. SOCIAL IMPACT: THE FUTURE OF WORK
5. ACTION CONTRIBUTING TO REAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
6. CLOSE: RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP AND COMMUNITY
-------------------------------------------------
THE PUBLIC AWAKES:
ANTICIPATING PUBLIC INTEREST AGENDAS IN AN INFORMATION SOCIETY
If you only take two words away from my presentation, those two
words should be "community" and "citizen." If there's one word
that acts as a red flag for you in the public policy debate, that
word should be "consumer." .... [ .... means information
deleted by the editor ]
The transition to an Information Society is not about technology.
It's about social change. ...
We need to know much more about the social, political and economic
consequences of the choices we make in our transition to an
Information Society. The more I look into it, the more it seems
to me that the language used to articulate the "vision" of a
privately constructed electronic super highway is quite deliberate,
quite consciously chosen, and quite wrong.
The vocabulary of "constructed" superhighways and electronic
"infrastructure" evokes ideas in people's minds that obscure the
public interest. ... I want to change the language of debate.
We need to coin new terms for our understanding of the issues we
face in our use of Cyberspace.
(OVERHEAD) - MY OBJECTIVES:
* I want to change the language of public policy
debate about our transition to an Information Society so that the
public can frame the issues in a broader context than the
production and consumption of electronic services.
* I want better ways to ensure significant public
participation in a debate that is fully open to anyone who wants
to understand or influence the issues. In true Information
Society, it is neither desirable nor possible to contain the
learning that will occur in such a debate.
* I want to anticipate what a true agenda for open
public discussion will actually contain. ....
1. Emergence of public interest groups.
2. The public interest agenda.
3. Social impact: the future of work
4. What is feasible as action contributing to real public
participation.
[ G G provides a list of public interest groups in Canada here ]
What's still missing from this list are the social service, labour
and environmental organizations that traditionally adopt social
policy issues.
But I believe that these organizations are now beginning to see
through the obfuscations of technobabble and to understand the
impact issues on their own terms. I think that very soon we'll be
hearing from them.
3. THE PUBLIC INTEREST AGENDA
I feel privileged to be present at the formation of a new dream in
the national mythology. Never-the less I'm going to point out that
it is a myth.
There is no "electronic superhighway." Whatever "it" is, it isn't
"infrastructure." We are not "building" a new national dream of
a railroad to the Pacific of the imagination. Presently, there is
no capacity within Canada to address social consequences.
. There is great danger in viewing citizens as mere
consumers of electronically delivered products and services
.............
In a Knowledge-based economy, people will carry all the tools they
need for thinking and connecting with others with them. Then they
can move in Cyberspace to where the ideas are. But I don't think
any of us has a very clear idea of where they will move in the
physical landscape they actually inhabit.
My best guess is, don't invest in office buildings.
(OVERHEAD) - THE EXPECTED PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA:
* Support all Canadians' right to learn and to know through a
universally accessible and affordable Canadian communications and
information infrastructure (CCII)
* Information essential to citizenship must be free.
* Ask what's CCII's impact on society, not just a sector of the
economy
* Ensure CCII's connection to the information infrastructures of
other nations by resolving issues of access, cultural expression,
convergence, security, censorship, tariffs, and privacy.
* Guarantee the functional integrity of the CCII by establishing
critical technical requirements including; public domain tools,
ease of use, widespread availability, full functionality, high
reliability, privacy protection, and evolutionary expansion.
* Use electronic technologies to improve the work environment
rather than dehumanize it, ensure that equity and nondiscriminatory
practices form the core of work in the new information marketplace.
* Provide public access to, and inter-active communications with,
all levels of government, so that the boundaries dividing
participating communities of interest and inhibiting the emergence
of consensus can be transcended.
* Promote a competitive marketplace in terms of the content of
CCII. No one should control both the content and conduits into our
homes.
(OVERHEAD) - THE UNEXPECTED PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA:
Here are some issues where you are going to get blind-sided. The
public IS finding its way onto the Net and these new citizens of
cyberspace see things differently from you.
a. Cyberspace is public space, not "infrastructure"
The gateways into it are the function of information
technology, and therefore have a price. But the metaphor of
"infrastructure" as used in NII and CCII suggests that cyberspace
is NOT a place but a "thing" that we build. By the use of this
metaphor, business is enclosing a public common for private gain.
They occupying the transit lounges and shoreline properties for the
oceans of imagination.
b. Interactivity (Computer mediated communications) is about
connecting and talking. It serves people and communities, not mass
audiences. Universal access includes the freedom to communicate.
Interactivity, or computer mediated communications (CMC) is about
human connections. It's about talking. It serves a society that
is egalitarian and decentralized. It serves individuals and
communities, not mass audiences.
We've got the bizarre notion that access to "information" is
somehow about access to a bunch of value neutral "facts." Nothing
could be further from the truth. Let's take the example of a
teacher who has just got access to SchoolNet. She's fought with
the Board and principal for a phone jack in the classroom. She
thought that the big problem was connecting, but now she knows that
over 1000 schools have done that already. It's late at night, and
she's out surfing the Internet, and suddenly she realizes that
the Internet is not what she thought.
It's not a universe of facts. There's too much raw human
imagination there, too much beliefs, opinions, perversions,
darkness, cynicism and right shining passions to think about it in
terms of passive facts. Anyone can and does imagine and express
anything to anyone anywhere. And then she thinks of those 30 kids
in her crowded class. Without parental authority, she's going to
give them this window into every recess of the human mind!
Suddenly, they too can know anything they want to know, imagine
any possibility, but also find someone somewhere that wants to
talk about it. And she knows that the institution she represents
is consciously designed to channel and control children's'
thinking. She knows it's present purpose is to socialize them in
the direction of acceptable social behaviour.
Now here, through the interface, is the entire panoply of possible
human behaviour. Here are ideas that, in the old social order,
we'd never in our wildest flights of fancy imagine were possible.
Some so dark they plunge you into despair. some so exciting they
change the direction of your life....WHAT IS SHE GOING TO DO?
Teachers call this the "content" problem, and they are terrified.
The National Capital FreeNet on-line annual general meeting ( a
demonstration of faith in electronic democracy underway at this
moment) actually has a teachers' motion on the table to allow for
group memberships. The intention of the motion to control access
in classrooms is anathema to the open access spirit of individual
responsibility inherent in FreeNets.
c. Accelerate the flow of ideas, of knowing -
Knowledge, as such, cannot be commodified. When we speak about
the necessity of learning organizations we aren't about the
significance of that objective. Any organization established to
satisfy wants and needs to know will reconfigure its
socio-structural matrix (ie. its human connections) around
different principles. It must accelerate rather than
control the flow of ideas.
Here is a truism of the information society:
universal access means access to knowledge generating systems, not
just to the goods and services distribution systems. We are moving
into an economy of intangibles that commodifies artificial
experience. People will pay to experience "implied'
realities. Forget about economics and call this "imaginomics."
But how will we know that we're wealthy, when there's no quantum
of knowledge to allow us to quantify value, no measurable chunk of
information?
...............
d. Drive governments, kicking and screaming, toward open systems
as a means of achieving open government.
The significant "infrastructure" change would be to connect the
networks of similar types of programs in municipal, regional,
provincial and federal levels of government. This would de-layer
the management of public services toward the point of service
delivery. Then the "best provider" at whatever level of government
it appeared could do it all.
Andy Macdonald, as the federal government's first Chief Information
Officer, represents an approach to the electronic delivery of
government services that is driven by technology management. He's
focussed on the reduction of costs through the automation of shared
common administrative services. That most certainly will reduce
costs. But it concentrates on what government does to itself
internally, not on what government actually does with and for the
people of Canada.
The way we express needs will drive our technological evolution
toward open government:
* Do we talk about governing in an Information Society, or
about electronic delivery of government services? They are not the
same thing.
A change agenda that was driven by "governing" would first focus
on understanding what government actually does, not on how it does
it.
* .... Talking to the people who actually receive the
service sounds idealistic, but, if you do this, the service then
evolves pragmatically from experience .... (ie. the system of
service "learns"). Cutting administrative costs through sharing
common services sounds rational, until you discover
there's no "why?" There's no first premises related to
socio-political implications (ie. the system manages, it is
preoccupied by management methods to the exclusion of real
results).
* The open government approach identifies what everyone
involved in a system of service wants or needs to know. The
"citizen" is the client for the total system of program delivery.
The "electronic delivery of government services" approach doesn't
care what you know. It just moves the data. It sees "programs,"
not citizens, as the clients for systems of administrative
services.
e. Full public participation in the policy debate, not just the
"circling of one wagon" as now. If you told the Canadian public
that the intention of the "superhighway" was to put control of
government back in their hands, they would definitely support it.
f. FreeNets as examples of public behaviour in an information
society. We have a concrete example of how the public will behave
in the Information Society. It's called FreeNet. I think we
should be promoting community networks as keys to self governance,
to revitalizing communities and to meeting the public interest in
network access.
In the Ottawa Citizen, January 25/94, there was an article with the
title,
"HIGH-TECH HIGHWAY GATHERS SPEED: QUEBEC PROJECT TO LINK 34,000
HOMES TO ELECTRONIC NETWORK BY NEXT YEAR." The article states this
is, the FIRST test-run on Canada' electronic superhighway, which
will cost $750 million over the next decade. I'd suggest that this
Videotron Group project is not really the first test-run. National
Capital Freenet was, and it isn't going to cost $750 million per
decade. It's going to cost $4 million per decade. You might call
NCF an "application," but the people who are in
them see community networks as a social movement. We think that
support for community networks has the biggest social and political
payoff of any strategy for transition to the Information Society.
Jay Weston's CRTC "Comment" on telephone rates calls for:
- universal access
- flat rates, forget about time-distance pricing or local measured
services
If, as Tip O'Neil said, "All politics is local," how will we govern
in a society where anyone can connect to anyone else, anywhere on
earth. What dimension of locality will you use to define your
politics? On the Internet, there are communities of "interest"
that are located in the mix of ideas, conflicts and issues
surrounding specific social concerns. The people that belong to
them feel that virtual communities of common interests ARE
communities. Net-based discussion groups are inherently
political arenas where the exercise of politics lies in being able
to shift opinion in the context of the conversation.
(OVERHEAD) - COMMUNITY NETWORK DESIGN PRINCIPLES
..... this also can be read as a set of design principles for
community itself. These are as much principles for the design of
community as they are specifications for the functions of community
networking technology:
* Does it encourage universal access to a new global
conversation and universal participation in shaping its
content.
* Does it promote reciprocity in learning and the flow of
knowledge?
* Is it self-governing?
* Does it support skills in imagining and building physical and
virtual communities?
* Does it leave the power in the hands of individual users?
* Does it grant "on-line" access as a right, not a privilege?
* Does it leave control of community communications technologies
in the hands of communities?
* Are conversations open to everyone, not just to those making
claims of representation?
* Does the choice to act or not act, speak or not speak,
reside with the chooser?
4. SOCIAL IMPACT: THE FUTURE OF WORK
(OVERHEAD) - CARTOON: SALARY FOR THE ROBOT
(OVERHEAD) - UNEMPLOYMENT PER DECADE, 1950 - 2010
(OVERHEAD) - THE FUTURE OF WORK
The future of work is not in the cycle of production and
consumption. We've been using "work" as the mechanism for the
distribution of wealth. We all work to produce, so that we can have
money to consume. But now we've solved the production problem.
Not only are labour and capital being replaced by process
knowledge, but wetware is being replaced by software. It no longer
takes very many people to produce goods and services. This gives
us a crisis of consumption. We don't need producers to produce,
but we do need consumers to consume. How do the surplus non-
producers get any wealth to exchange for the products, so they can
continue to fuel the economy? Now that jobs don't distribute
wealth, what will? Early in the next century, we'll only have 15%
of the "workforce" involved in what we've traditionally thought of
as work. What do we think the other 85% will be doing? They won't
just die, at least not without trying to avoid it. We don't really
know how to measure an economy of intangibles, where the real
"commodity" becomes packaged experiences (ie "virtual
realities as learning spaces, anticipatory models, feedback systems
and entertainment).
Do any of you really know what those knowledge worker jobs in the
Information Society will really do? Given that the majority of my
partners in crime are sustained by the Internet, and that I
independently contract on a per project basis, I suppose I am one.
I will, by reflex, share anything I know to gain an edge in
learning more. No secrets, no copyright, no proprietary
information. I know that I have to stimulate the learning of
others in order to become a nodal switch point in an issue. But
your existing organizations don't really like people like me. We
are oblivious to authority and arbitrary status. We are loyal only
to the good idea. We are free to question what the actual
parameters of a problem really might be rather than accept the
context you define.
5. WHAT IS FEASIBLE AS ACTION CONTRIBUTING TO REAL PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION.
Allowing "representatives" of the public interest on closed
"advisory panel" discussions is just NOT meaningful participation.
(OVERHEAD) - DEMOCRATIZE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN MAKING
TECHNOLOGY POLICY BY:
* Consensus conferences, public forums and workshops
* Citizen advisory boards
* Community research centers / participatory research
* Social and political impact statements
* Use the Internet to bypass media based manipulation of
opinion
* Lobbying
* Tax credits for research or investment advancing social
objectives
* Worker involvement in design and management of workplace
technology
* Designate 3% of technological project budgets for studies of
social implications
Help people in low income neighborhoods understand and influence
economic development
* Match local production to local demand, complementing the tilt
toward global markets
Counterbalance ties of universities and governments to business,
by participating in local social issues and citizens' concerns
* Educate students, via internships and volunteer work, for
independent social criticism and responsible citizenship
These are quite conventional examples of traditional community
development options for action. By including this checklist here,
I'm serving notice that these sorts of tactics are going to start
appearing in Cyberspace
6. CLOSE: RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP AND COMMUNITY
Electronic infrastructure.....Electronic super highways
In the name of economic necessity, these expressions depersonalize
actions that have profoundly personal consequences. Some of those
consequences are exciting, some are appalling. But we are using
them to translate the practice of citizenship into the art of
shopping. The public needs to take back the language of discourse.
An "electronic superhighway" sounds both high tech engineering and
also imaginary. It sounds like a concept we can ignore. But this
concept, however described, is having a socio-economic impact on
physical geography and spatial relationships that far exceeds all
the hydro dams, pipelines or roads to resources that we've ever
built. Where's the socio-economic impact statement? It's far past
time that we knew who benefits and who pays.
>From the experience of FreeNets, there are four assumptions about
the public interest in the Information Society that I find
important, but very difficult to communicate. An awareness of
their significance doesn't really occur until you've wandered into
cyberspace. That is to say, they are reports from the other side.
They represent important choices for everyone, but choices that are
more apparent to those who have already made a conscious transition
to an Information Society.
(OVERHEAD) - THESE TRUTHS ABOUT CYBERSPACE I HOLD TO BE SELF
EVIDENT:
1. We can develop "community" with information technology.
2. Networks are more about conversations mediated by computer
communications than they are about access to information.
3. To make the networks function as the neurons of social
connection, it is essential that the technologies be
designed to place all of the power to connect and to
communicate into the hands of the individual.
4. In the view of economics, all that is left of our social
role in public life is our duty to consume. In an Information
Society, there is a very real possibility of regaining the
role of citizen.
My own vision of the Information Society includes a positive push
toward social change in the direction of communities that are less
"representative" and more participative, based on individual
responsibility.
I'm not in FreeNet to gain access to more electronic toys, and in
the process give my hard earned money to those who already have
more than I do. I'm in it because of the potential to discuss,
understand and act on common problems with my real and virtual
neighbours.
If our emerging "Knowledge Society" merely defines everybody as
"consumers" of information then we fail. There's much more at
stake in cultural survival than the success of markets. Universal
access to that new global conversation means universal
participation in shaping its content. That's the mission and
purpose of community networks.
...... <---- information deleted by the editor
Garth Graham
aa127@freenet.carleton.ca
<<< NGL/CANIS (Community Access Network Information Services)
>>> Box 86, Ashton, Ont., K0A 1B0 613-253-3497
=================================================================
Andrew Bjerrings talk included this outline for his explanation of
UNDERSTANDING CONVERGENCE ON THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY
[ I will attempt to flesh it out a bit. ed ]
Three Starting Paradigms
Telcos Internet Cable
Each has the following unique characteristics
Appliance: Telephone Computer Television
[ what you use ]
Application: Voice Call E-mail T.V. Channel
Network: Switched Routing Broadcast
Circuit Hierarchy "Islands"
Business: Private Volunteer Entrepr'n.
Monopoly Organization
Planning: Closed- Open- Closed-
Centralized Decentralized Decentralized
Customer: Home/ Universities/ Home
Business Research Instn.
Allies: Governments Schools/ Information
Communities Industries
Information Carrier of A universal A "500
Highway wide range of peer-to-peer Channel
Goal info. services network universe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ each of these models is completely different and the owners don't
understand each others universes ]
INFORMATION HIGHWAY
Towards Convergence
[ Mr Bjerring now goes on to suggest that in convergence the
following characteristics will dominate; and each characteristic
derives from one of the distinct models listed above ]
Closest Current Property - Prototype will come form
Local Ubiquity: Telcos
Global Reach: Telcos/Internet
Open Architecture: Internet
Ease-of-use: Telcos/cable
Capacity/bandwidth: Cable (one-way)
Intelligent Appliances: Internet
Interactivity: Telcos/Internet
Info. Services Provision: Cable/Internet
Affordability: Telcos
Diversity of Applications: Internet
Flexibility: Internet
Business Organization: Telcos
[ Its a hard to capture in this form but he feels that each of the
above characteristics will be part of our future and the closed
current model for that future characteristic is listed accross form
it. As you can see he proposes the each of the now distinct system
will provide some of the FEEL of the coming system. ]
==============================================
NETWORKS and COMMUNITY is a public service of FUTURE DATA; a
partnership of researchers and research system designers.
For commercial services contact Gwyneth Store - circa@io.org
Net facilities for the preparation of this newsletter are provided
by the DISTRIBUTED KNOWLEDGE PROJECT - York University - Canada
Back issues are archived through the kindness of the staff at
the WELL : gopher ----> well.sf.ca.us ->networks -->community
"subscriptions" are available through the generosity of the
listowner for the RRE NEWS SERVICE: subscribe by sending e-mail to
rre-request@weber.ucsd.edu) with a SUBJECT LINE
reading "subscribe <firstname> <lastname>".
Additional distribution is assisted by the managers and owners of
NET-HAPPENINGS, COMMUNET, & the CANADIAN FREENET listservs
This newsletter is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN and may be used as you
see fit. To contribute items or enguire about this newsletter
contact Sam Sternberg <samsam@vm1.yorku.ca>
.
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink