SCN: Re: principles
Joe Mabel
jmabel at speakeasy.org
Tue Apr 2 03:25:51 PST 2002
JJ, perhaps you are confused, but not totally, judging by what you go on to say.
And I suspect that the source of the confusion is tha you, more than anyone, are
focused on day-to-day operations, and that my point was about the opposite
extreme of focus.
Let me try this from another angle.
When we started SCN, it wasn't really part of the Internet. Indeed, the Internet
as we know it today barely existed. "Internet" still largely connoted an
academic/research network. There were many competing visions for what was
variously called an "Information Superhighway", a "Cybercommons", etc.
Now the Internet is "the only game in town". We can add more content
to the Web, we might even imaginably add another technology to it, but we
are less likely to "replace" it than to replace the Interstate
Highway system or the spelling of the English language. Similarly, someone can
perhaps add new technologies to e-mail, or repurpose old ones, but Internet
email is the only email that matters. A system can have some very local, very
obscure way to move files around, but if we do not support ftp, http, etc., we
are choosing a hard road, and we may find ourselves travelling it alone.
For better or worse, the only way to build any sort of Information Superhighway
or Cybercommons in the near future is to participate, one way or another, in the
common project of building the Internet. Nobody wants another non-Internet BBS.
Hell, even a giant like Microsoft is running into trouble over the fact that the
desktop is ultimately not part of the Internet, and they are trying to
reposition themselves as the world's largest ASP.
When we said, almost 10 years ago, "We will make the SCN accessible from public
places" or stated a particular concern for providing access for the poor, this
was not the state of the world. For example, it was not a given that you could
access ANY computer services from a public library. Now, in many libraries, teh
majority of the available information services - not to mention communication
services - come from a computer.
Let me be clear: I think it's fine that we provide 24 lines of essentially free
dialup, especially because you can use it successfully from your home with even
the sort of equipment you can now scavenge from the city dump. There are
obviously
people - JJ among them - who find this useful. Let's keep doing it. However,
we should recognize that this is a solution limited to protocols that were in
common use a decade ago. It seems to me that if we can work out how to get full,
modern Internet services to people - whether through technology we provide,
through fundraising and support of other groups, through helping people learn
about what resources are available through whatever channels, etc. - and if the
net result is to provide a PPP connection (and the equipment to use it) or
equivalent to people for little or no cost to them, then (1) there are far more
people who want that than there are people who want a text-only connection and
(2) it will not matter one jot that the connection may not be directly to SCN:
any Internet connection today gives you (among many other things) what we meant
10 years ago by "access to SCN". There is no meaningful user access to the SCN
system that you cannot get through the Internet.
In short, I'm not proposing that we stop doing anything we are now doing. What I
am proposing is that SCNA take a look at what we can do as an organization -
perhaps by technical means, perhaps simply by providing a forum for discussion,
etc. - to best provide resources (especially public resources) to those who need
them.
Along the way in this exchange of emails someone (I think it was Steve. If I'm
wrong, sorry, I haven't been saving all my emails; also, sorry if I didn't
understand the point correctly) seemed to be saying, well, we've supported the
city government's efforts to get Internet access in public places, and they seem
to think it's a solved problem, so what else is there to do?
Is SCN actually to be limited to seeing no farther than our elected officials?
Do we really feel that, even in Seattle, the digital divide has been abolished?
And in the unlikely even that we conclude that in this city (admittedly
uncommonly successfuly in this respect) the strictly local problem has been
solved, does that mean we shouldn't look at the problem in a broader context?
Hell, if we think Seattle is a great example of conquering the digital divide,
what do we do to evangelize the model and get it adopted elsewhere?
In short, if we shift the focus briefly off of our own short-term operational
concerns, and off of the concept that we have to make everything happen
ourselves, rather than catalyzing, what can we best do to enhance access of
the poor and otherwise disenfranchised to:
1) Access the internet as users
2) Place content on the internet
3) Use the internet as a means of mutual communication
4) Have a role in hepinp determine the future of the internet.
This is not a simple issue, and it is so out of proportion to the question of
day-to-day operations that I do not expect it to have immediate effects on
everyday operations. However, if we do not revisiti this kind of questions on
these levels - especially if the Board does not - we are dooming ourselves to
irrelevance in the long run.
"Where there is no vision, people perish." - Proverbs 29:18.
--------------------
Joe Mabel
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, J. Johnson wrote:
> I am indeed a little confused here. Let's sort it out.
>
> To the extent that people access SCN _from_ the Internet they implicitly
> _already have_ access _to_ the Internet, independently of SCN. It seems
> to me that you're saying we should provide Internet access to those that
> already have it.
>
> The "particular advantage" of accessing SCN via dialup is for the inverse
> case of those (like myself) that otherwise are without access to the
> Internet. For sure it has its limitations, but if (as has been suggested)
> we dropped the dailup lines then reaching SCN would be subordinate to
> reaching the Internet, which would be conditioned on paying monthly fees
> to the likes of Qwest/AT&T/MCI/AOL/etc.
>
> One interpretation of what you may be saying is that SCN provide some
> _other_ kind of access to the Internet as would permit full graphic
> browers _back_ to SCN. Well, if you're talking about some sort of walk-up
> kiosk, to a large extent we already have that. If you're talking about
> accessing the Internet and/or SCN (with full graphics) from home, well,
> that's either broadband (Qwest...) or--dialup! And if we had the Internet
> connection for doing that (and were set up for it) it could be done
> directly, without any kind of backtracking. But perhaps this wasn't what
> you meant.
>
> (Such considerations all tending back the original question of purpose.)
>
> === JJ =============================================================
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Joe Mabel wrote:
>
> > You misunderstood me. I meant that now anyone with access to the Internet has
> > access to SCN. There is no paticular advantage to anyone to get to SCN any
> > other way than via the Internet. So if we give them access to the Internet, owe
> > have just given them access to SCN. There is no partiulcar advantage to coming
> > at SCN through an SCN dialup. In fact, there is what I (and Isuspect most
> > users) would consider a distinct disadvantage: lack of a visual browser.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Joe Mabel
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, J. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think I'd agree with your statement that "access to SCN merely
> > > means access to the Internet". There was some discussion a ways back
> > > about whether SCN should "be an on-ramp to the Internet". (That could be
> > > taken several ways, e.g.: be a non-Internet local BBS, or be a rest-stop
> > > on the Internet but with no local access.) But I don't think we want to
> > > be "merely" an on-ramp.
> > >
> > > === JJ =============================================================
> > >
> > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Joe Mabel wrote:
> > >
> > > > [SNIP]
> > > > > * We will make the SCN accessible from public places.
> > > > [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > > How long since the Board, or some other appropriate body, gave any thought to
> > > > what this now means? Now that access to SCN merely means access to the Internet,
> > > > what (if anything) are we doing to enhance the availability of access to the
> > > > Internet in pubic places?
> > > >
> > > > JM
> > > >
> > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type:
> > > > unsubscribe scn
> > > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *
> > > >
> > >
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type:
> > > unsubscribe scn
> > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *
> > >
> >
> >
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * *
> . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * *
. To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *
More information about the scn
mailing list