US/ND-2: Re: Reply to Ronda's Reply
Re: Reply to Ronda's Reply
Ronda Hauben (rh120@columbia.edu)
Thu, 5 Sep 1996 05:56:11 -0400 (EDT)
Replying to "Steve Kohn" <NOTES.SKOHN@A50VM1.trg.nynex.COM>
>Replies to Ronda's replies. And I agree with the moderator's note.
>> But who is working on making Internet access, particularly access
>> to the worldwide communication that the Internet makes possible
>> available to everyone in the U.S.? That's why the concept of
>> POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) was so important as it provided
>> a minimum that would be available to everyone.
>>
>> It seems once you start saying there is no need for a minimum
>> service, you can argue for all sorts of things, but the minimum
>> gets lost and therefore not available.
>Reply:
>In my mind once you have defined a minimum, you might just have also
>defined the maximum.
>I think the full range of telecommunications services should be available to
>schools via US.
>Again, I don't think we should fixate on Internet access as the solution
>to all of the needs of education.
The confusion here is that unless there is a basic equivalent of
POTS established with regard to the home user having access to
the Internet, there is no means of making sure it is available
to all.
By setting a minimum standard, one makes it possible to determine
what is essential.
By talking about "maximum" definitions, one doesn't ever figure
out what is essential.
>> I've wondered why NYNEX hasn't helped there to be a free-net or
>> community network in NYC. NYC is a major city and yet it is
>> backward in what it offers its citizens. Several of us presented
>> talks at the NYPL (New York Public Library) about the important
>> communications that the Internet made possible. Many people came
>> to the talks. Several of those who came felt it was crucial
>> for NYC to have some form of community network that would provide
>> basic access to Usenet newsgroups and email and a text based
>> browser like the Freenets and community networks provide in
>> many other cities around the U.S. and in a number of cities in
>> Canada. The talks were announced in lots of the local
>> newspapers that announce events. Also, the talks were announced on
>> Usenet. I would have expected someone from NYNEX to have been
>> interested. However, no one got in contact with us or seemed
>> interested.
>Reply:
>It sounds like an interesting discussion and if I had known about it I would
>have probably attended.
>I live on Long Island so I don't read the local NYC papers and even though I'm
>on the Internet daily, I don't participate in Usenet newsgroups yet. So...
>next time you are going to have a meeting please email me with the info.
>Thanks
Good to hear that you would be willing to attend.
But meanwhile we spent a year giving talks and several people
made efforts toward trying to determine what would help there
to be a NYC community network like the Cleveland Freenet and
still there is no community network or Freenet in NYC.
My conclusion is that there needs to be government support for
such (as in Canada) and that that helps others in the community
or city to work together to make something that is needed happen.
In Canada, various government entities have encouraged and even
helped with start up funds for a freenet or community network.
In Amsterdam, Holland, the city council provided start up funds.
This has begun to provide minimal Internet access available free
to those dialing up from home.
This is the establishment of a minimal level of Internet access
available to all (so they can for example have a way to send
email to the FCC or other government bodies and participate in
other public forums on important issues).
This is what this forum should be discussing as an example of
how universal service might be provided to all home users
in the U.S. Instead I am being told this is off topic.
Thus the real issue of how to provide a POIS (Plain Old Internet
Service) is off topic in a discussion that is supposedly
dealing with universal service.
>> That's why it seems that there needs to be some government provision
>> identifying what is a minimum standard and providing the regulation
>> to provide for it. Otherwise it would seem that the teleco's would
>> determine what they think is needed, and citizens will be considered
>> "customers" rather than citizens.
>Reply:
>I think you have a misconception on how this procedure is going to be rolled
>out. Telcos will not be deciding what is offerred to schools and
>libraries - the FCC will. See above for comments on minimum standards.
But who is the FCC able to get comments from as input into the process?
It seems that the interests of the home user are still very poorly
represented in this whole process. Who has the ability to influence
the FCC? They claim to be following the mandates of a law that the
U.S. Congress created by asking the Teleco's what they wanted,
and now the FCC is being asked to put the final touches on the process.
So it seems that there is a need to discuss the interests of
the home user and the rationale behind POTS as it seems to have
been lost in the whole process that created the current Telecommunications
Act.
The process of radically restructuring the Telecommunications Act
without inviting and making possible the input of those most affected
by it, the home user, demonstrates a serious breach of democratic
processes by the U.S. Congress. It is now up to the FCC to open
the process up, and unfortunately that isn't yet happening.
>> Steve, is there some reason that NYNEX isn't in support of having
>> a Freenet or local community network like the Cleveland Free-Net in
>> New York City? Is there some reason that they haven't been encouraging
>> to have such a minimal set of access to Usenet newsgroups, email
>> and a text based browser made available to everyone at a low or
>> free cost so that people will have some minimal level of Internet
>> connection available as people in the U.S. in other cities like
>> Cleveland, and Youngstown, and Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, etc.
>> have available?
>Reply:
>Access isn't the limiting factor for people to participate in free-nets. More
>people have phone service. How many people have PCs equipped with modems???
There are many more people who have computers than have Internet access.
And whenever a freenet opens its doors, there is run on modems
so that many more people get them.
The value of a free-net is that it provides a common means of
people having access to the communications facilities of the Internet -
to Usenet newsgroups, and email. Also, they make some www available,
(though much of the www involves information rather than interactive
communication and thus is less important if communication is the
criteria of what to make available.)
>I can't speak for NYNEX, put I think we would be more than willing to
>sit down with any group that is thinking about forming a freenet in
>NYC. Please see other discussion on this board concerning the Buffalo
>freenet and NYNEX's involvement.
How does one go about setting up such a meeting?
What kind of government support would be helpful to make such happen?
Clearly there is a problem as there is no freenet or community network
in NYC and it is hard to know where to even start in the process.
This is some of what actually helps make minimal access available,
and it shouldn't be left as an impossible burden on a few individuals,
but there need to be social and political structures that help
solve the problems.
Ronda
rh120@columbia.edu