NY Times and The Internet
weed-matthew at cs.yale.edu
Sat May 22 03:15:24 EST 1993
In article <1tj9hlINN8lf at MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> smith-una at yale.edu writes:
>weed-matthew at cs.yale.edu (Matthew Weed) writes:
>: >Huh??? I am confused, since the business-related material
>: >does not seem to relate directly to the (directly)
>: >above statement. I see a broad difference between business-related
>: >satelliteinformation transfer, and the growing use of the internet
>: >as a source of business advertising etc, which has been referred
>: >to elsewhere. Can you please restate....
>Don't confuse the Internet with Usenet. There has been an increase in
>the use of Usenet for commercial advertising (specifically the biz.*
Unquestionably, and if those who are providing the hardware to make usenet possible choose
to advertise on it, then this is well within their rights.
As to Gopher, Wais, mail, FTP(oldstyle), etc,
again, the people who have given over the hardware (through
government purchase of the space), have some right to say how
that hardware will be used. This is something like the contract
that one makes with the manager of an apartment complex.
You rent the space, live in it according to the rules established,
and if those rules change (because a new set of tenants moves in who don't
like the former set), you either change or leave.
As the Government stops funding internet, universities will have to decide
whether they want to set up a consortium to get their own satellite-based
communications system in place. Those who want to will choose to allocate the
funds necessary, and those that do not, will either be forced to use a network which
they can't control, or to lose satellite access alltogether.
We allready know that gateways are available between the internet and other
networks, so an edunet or something like it could easily gateway as well.
>domain), but the issue of who is to design, build and use the Internet,
>and for what purposes, is separate (though not unrelated). This is the
>very point that got major press coverage during Clinton and Gore's
>economic summit, where Al Gore faced down statements from the telephone
>industry on exactly this issue.
As well it should. Interests have the right to express themselves,
but in a money-driven open-market economy such as that here in the US,
those who have the resources to make this kind of communication possible
should have the right to control their use, or minimally,
to set the price at which the resource will be "sold".
>Michael Holloway (mhollowa at ic.sunysb.edu) wrote:
>: As I've understood it, the proposal has been made that the government help
>: fund the construction of a new high speed fiber optic network that companies
>: like AT&T could then use to provide services. Perhaps AT&T could use
>: satellites to augment a network but it seems that the satellites would not
>: suffice. The fear then is that this would necessarily mean that the
>: government would discontinue funding of the existing Internet networks and
>: the cost of doing what we're doing now will sky-rocket. Do I have this right?
>Yes, as far as I can tell. The telephone companies already have a deep
>involvement, in that their right-of-ways, their hardware, and their
>expertise have all been used to construct the physical networking infra-
>structure that supports the Internet. The Internet is made up of layer
>upon layer of hardware and software technology, and so who decides what
>new technologies are going to be used in the future is of vital economic
>and perhaps social importance. I think it's apparent that there will be
>one super-network, and everyone will have a hand in it: whose hand will
>be on top?
Hopefully those who have offered the space for the job at hand.
Or if not, then the "tenants" who pay for the "privilige" of
using that resource. This may mean
that universities have to get off of the government's welfare list in order to pay
for the resources. Either they will choose to do so,
or they will not. Smaller institutions will doubtless have the worst time of it,
but again, the cost can be passed on to students, researchers or whomever,
and my guess would be that since this network would
be set up by the phone companies, that they will not make access
so expensive as to prohibit the average homeowner from having access.
What it may mean, is that students will not have access to multiple
accounts at various universities due to the redundant expenseof
these accounts. It will (temporarily), make things more difficult, but there
are few areas (even in education), where the market has not proven
competitive, (in terms of efficiency), with the government over the long-term.
> Una Smith Biology Department smith-una at yale.edu
"In popular government results worth having, can only be achieved
by men who combine worthy ideals with practical good sense."
--President Theodore Roosevelt Matthew Weed Yale/Silliman: 93.
weed-matthew at yale.edu premetriculant: Princeton Univ: Woodrow Wilson School
More information about the Bioforum