> Look at radio, when that was first
>invented, people could transmit freely over the air
>with no license but now you have to get a license or
>be in big legal trouble.
> I think we will soon
>have a net equilvalent of the FCC which will make
>it cost prohibitive for small groups a real voice on
>the net.
What about HAM radio and citizens band? Granted you don't hear many
discussions of majorly important issues (like the last episode of Trek :-) )
on the CB, but there seems to be more intelligent discussion amoung HAMs, and
the net could eventually be like that...if fact, it almost is: there are no
liscenses (yet!), but we all pay for our access in one way or another
(even us students have to "buy" our access with tuition).
Also, bandwidth is a major limiting factor with personally owned radio,
but with the net, BW is infintly large (isn't it?). It's just a matter of
having the equipment to supply more. (Please correct me if my understanding
of net BW is off.)
David D.
--
David E. Doughty | "Far over the Misty Mountains cold,
-}------- | To dungeons deep, and caverns old,
sa...@hubcap.clemson.edu | We must away, ere break of day,
ddo...@eng.clemson.edu | To find our long forgotten gold."
--
Merry Christmas and happy New Year to all.
Member: National Federation of the Blind
"Proud, Angry, and Strong" -- Jennifer Restle
(The complete information access agenda - You print it you braille it too!)
>Hello. Well, I don't think the internet is going to die and it will
>hopefully stay similar to the way it is now. The difference will be that
>more people will have access. There are some problems but not major ones.
It has been said that the internet is the only functional Marxist State.
It seems to be true - people work for the general good, and receive services
for free. (*On* the net, services are free. *Getting* on the net is entirely
different of course.)
The only reason this works (has worked so far) is because of the culture.
The internet is comprised of hackers. We love doing this stuff, and earn
respect and popularity in the community though doing neat net things, like
writing new servers & services & protocols, or setting up new sites.
The respect of fellow hackers is sufficient payment.
When the net slowly becomes populated with non-hackers, who aren't part of
that community, and don't do anything productive for the net at large,
much of the motivation driving the current system will die. (Yes, of
course there will be non-hackers who find some usefull thing to do that
is beneficial to the net. I think most will just be TV-watching drone
types though.)
The raw population problem can be dealt with (specialize more) but the
community motivation problem is harder.
-<=>- Dave Fischer -<=>- Help Fight Ambient Light! -<=>- da...@cca.org -<=>-
>It has been said that the internet is the only functional Marxist State.
>It seems to be true - people work for the general good, and receive services
>for free. (*On* the net, services are free. *Getting* on the net is entirely
>different of course.)
One point that I haven;t made often enough in my own posts, is
that when I say the net is *free*, I mean that (at least in the
USA) there is no additional costs. Much of the development and
growth of the net was paid via citizen's taxes, when it was only
the ARPANET, and then later (and still now) with the NSF funding
for the NSFNET and the various entities which make it up now on
the US. Continent - not talkingabout other countries.)
>The only reason this works (has worked so far) is because of the culture.
>The internet is comprised of hackers. We love doing this stuff, and earn
>respect and popularity in the community though doing neat net things, like
>writing new servers & services & protocols, or setting up new sites.
>The respect of fellow hackers is sufficient payment.
This is an interesting point - however, I do not think that only
"hackers" are interested in giving things back.
>When the net slowly becomes populated with non-hackers, who aren't part of
>that community, and don't do anything productive for the net at large,
>much of the motivation driving the current system will die. (Yes, of
>course there will be non-hackers who find some usefull thing to do that
>is beneficial to the net. I think most will just be TV-watching drone
>types though.)
THis point I strongly disagree with. The "public at large" is not
the TV-watching drone which has become a gross sterotype. People
are much more intelligent than they are given credit for. Either
way, the people who will *want* to use the Net, will not be of
"drone" type. Since the net is an active medium, it will not be
attractive to people who want passive entertainment.
>-<=>- Dave Fischer -<=>- Help Fight Ambient Light! -<=>- da...@cca.org -<=>-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael Hauben CC '95 |Write ME for the Fall'92 Amateur Computerist|
| hau...@columbia.edu | Special Supplement on Usenet News called |
| am...@cleveland.freenet.edu | "The Wonderful World of Usenet News" |
I read recently (I think in EFF newsletter) that Al Gore supports the EFF
stance on open access. I know that he & Billy haven't exactly been batting
1.00, but the position exists...
--
_______oOOo________oOOo_______________________________________________
| Bill Rehm
|"Somedays, it's all I can do just to hold on." wjr...@pitt.edu
I'm not sure about this. I'm not quite sure how you define hacker, I
suspect I don't qualify (have been on internet for 3 years, have
programmed some over the last 15 years, but I'm a biologist, and do very
little programming now). But in any event I am one of the many folk who
help keep some aspects of the net going (manage 3 lists, and co-moderate
a newsgroup, have been involved in creating one too.) Now I don't write
new protocols, etc (a bit beyond me at this point), but I am invested in
seeing it keep on, and don't get paid for my time.
>When the net slowly becomes populated with non-hackers, who aren't part
of
>that community, and don't do anything productive for the net at large,
>much of the motivation driving the current system will die. (Yes, of
>course there will be non-hackers who find some usefull thing to do that
>is beneficial to the net. I think most will just be TV-watching drone
>types though.)
See, I'm not sure that these folk won't be a flash in the pan, they'll
lurk for a while, ask newbie questions, get bored when they realize that
to get anything out of the medium you can't be passive, and go away. I
think that we will reach a steady state. Folks who can't deal with some
level of complexity will stay on AOL and Prodigy, make forays into the
internet now and again, I guess, but spend lots of time chatting.
>The raw population problem can be dealt with (specialize more) but the
>community motivation problem is harder.
I think that there are enough folk out there who do enough stuff to keep
us going. I don't think we are going to run out of that energy anytime
soon.
> See, I'm not sure that these folk won't be a flash in the pan, they'll
> lurk for a while, ask newbie questions, get bored when they realize that
> to get anything out of the medium you can't be passive, and go away.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YES! YES! I was saying just this to a friend this evening, when the
subject of net expansion came up.
Now, if I can just keep my sense of humor until they're gone... :-}
--
Roy M. Silvernail [ ] r...@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org
head -2 /usr/philosophy/survival | PGP 2.3a public key
#! /usr/local/bin/perl -n | available upon request
next unless /$clue/; | (send yours)
This medium is very non-passive, you have to be very aggressive and assertive.
Not only of your rights, but to search and look for and grab any and all
information you can, and see what you can use it for..
Who dares, wins!
===
Ghost Wheel - ns...@acad3.alaska.edu
also 1@9714 WWIVnet..