From ntiagate@virgin.uvi.edu  Mon Nov 14 20:24:55 1994
Received: from virgin.uvi.edu (virgin.uvi.edu [146.226.200.110]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09606 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:24:50 -0800
Received: from localhost (ntiagate@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id VAA08514 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:02:54 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:27:42 GMT
From: ab368@virgin.uvi.edu (Bruce Potter)
Message-ID: <1994Nov15.002742.7646@virgin.uvi.edu>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Need for Federal Oversight of Access and Availability



Joe Miller made a good case for the supremacy of state authority and 
regulation of most aspects of access and availability to National 
Information Infrastructure telecommunications facilities. His analysis, 
however, overlooks the real problems faced by small, geographically 
isolated areas such as the US Virgin Islands, where this message 
originates. 

Until Chairman Charles Ferris held local hearings in the Virgin Islands 
in the late 1970's, the Federal government had exercised no control over 
the extortionate rates then being charged by the Territory's monopoly 
long distance carrier, which were four to five times greater per mile 
than long distance tariffs in the continental United States.

When faced with the resources and persuasive power (legal and otherwise) 
of enormous multinational corporations with annual incomes that are 
orders of magnitude greater than some of the territories they serve, only 
a capable and committed national guarantee of access, and a national cost 
pool can provide access to these new technology resources.

And THE INTERNET IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT to areas with limited access to 
technical and scientific rerources. As one of the leading non-profit 
eduational foundations devoted to the environmental problems of small 
tropical islands, we (Island Resources Foundation) are amazed at the 
richness of the Internet resource, and terribly concerned that our 
constituents throughout all of the world's oceans are going to closed out 
from access to this resource because of monopoly pricing policies.

To the NTIA, we ask careful attention to the equity issues of access, and 
a federal guarantee of access and availability.

Island Resources Foundation
iresource@aol.com
-- 
ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION         {&} 1718 "P" Street NW, #t-4   
6296 Estate Nazareth, #11, STT 00802{#} Washington, DC  20036
809/775-6225; fax 779-2022          {#} 202/265-9712; fax 232-0748
ab368@virgin.uvi.edu                {#} iresources@aol.com


From ntiagate@virgin.uvi.edu  Mon Nov 14 20:25:01 1994
Received: from virgin.uvi.edu (virgin.uvi.edu [146.226.200.110]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09608 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:24:54 -0800
Received: from localhost (ntiagate@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id VAA08510 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:02:53 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:24:16 GMT
From: ab368@virgin.uvi.edu (Bruce Potter)
Message-ID: <1994Nov14.142416.16498@virgin.uvi.edu>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Affordability and Availability for Offshore Territories



Access to the services of the Internet is quickly becoming an essential 
element of many of the information intensive organizations in the United 
States. Our organization -- Island Resources Foundation -- is a 
non-profit educational organization which has been working with small 
developing island-states on the environmental problems of development 
for the past 23 years. 

We see the Internet as an indispensable tool for our own communication and
research needs, as long as we are working out of our Washington DC branch
office. Until the recent establishment of a Freenet in the US Virgin
Islands, however, we had virtually no way to link our activities in
Washington with any of our constituents. Now we can communicate better
with clients in the Virgin Islands, but further links to other Caribbean
states are almost impossible because of the extremely high communication
charges levied by regional long distance carriers, outside of the US
possessions. 

In previous years the Virgin Islands also suffered from extremely high 
telephone rates charged by ITT. In hearings conducted by Charles Ferris, 
former chairman of the FCC, these rates were shown to be purely the 
result of monopoly power by the long distance company, and the tarifs 
were ordered sharply reduced by the FCC. In the course of those hearings 
Chairman Ferris clearly made the case that access and availablility of 
telecommunications services at exorbitant rates was not acceptable in a 
democratic society.

The territories are not naive in insisting that the information 
infrastructure must accomodate both access AND low rates. Without both, 
the territories will receive no benefit and will in fact find their needs 
increasingly marginalized.

-- 
ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION         {&} 1718 "P" Street NW, #t-4   
6296 Estate Nazareth, #11, STT 00802{#} Washington, DC  20036
809/775-6225; fax 779-2022          {#} 202/265-9712; fax 232-0748
ab368@virgin.uvi.edu                {#} iresources@aol.com

>From news Mon Nov 14 20:27:47 1994
Received: from localhost (news@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id UAA07699 for alt-ntia-avail@virgin; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:27:46 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:27:46 -0400
From: News User <news>
Message-Id: <199411150027.UAA07699@virgin.uvi.edu>
To: alt-ntia-avail@virgin.uvi.edu
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From twigs@sils.umich.edu  Mon Nov 14 20:38:06 1994
Received: from sils.umich.edu (sils.umich.edu [141.211.203.30]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09731 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:38:05 -0800
Received: by sils.umich.edu (8.6.8/2.0)
	id UAA02379; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:32:05 -0500
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:32:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "Cynthia S. Terwilliger" <twigs@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:8] 
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9411141134.C23051-0100000@lydian.scranton.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411142037.A2135-0100000@sils.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

please subscribe

On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, WVIA Virtual Conference Account wrote:

> subscribe wvia
> 
From twigs@sils.umich.edu  Mon Nov 14 20:42:26 1994
Received: from sils.umich.edu (sils.umich.edu [141.211.203.30]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA09798 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:42:25 -0800
Received: by sils.umich.edu (8.6.8/2.0)
	id UAA02636; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:36:25 -0500
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:36:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Cynthia S. Terwilliger" <twigs@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:8] 
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9411141134.C23051-0100000@lydian.scranton.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411142019.A2571-0100000@sils.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, WVIA Virtual Conference Account wrote:

> subscribe wvia
> 
From WHITTLE@SMTPGATE.sunydutchess.edu  Mon Nov 14 22:02:58 1994
Received: from admaix.sunydutchess.edu (admaix.sunydutchess.edu [198.242.208.250]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA10524 for <AVAIL@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 22:02:57 -0800
Received: by admaix.sunydutchess.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA51246; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:54:26 -0500
Message-Id: <9411150254.AA51246@admaix.sunydutchess.edu>
Received: from smtpgate   id: 2EC82295.9C9
    (WordPerfect SMTP Gateway V3.1a  04/27/92)
Received: from admaix	(WP Connection)
Received: from TCPBRIDGE	(WP Connection)
Received: from CCBET_SERVER	(WP Connection)
Received: from CIS_SERVER	(WP Connection)
From: <WHITTLE@SMTPGATE.sunydutchess.edu>  (Whittle, Frank )
To: <AVAIL@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>
Date: Mon Nov 14 21:53:09 1994

I am currently conducting dissertation research on the
relationship between promoting a telecommunication policy
favoring  economic development and one favoring universal
service. Specifically, I am interested in providing a stakeholder
analysis to determine the level of agreement and/or disagreement 
in perceptions on this relationship.

The term "economic development" has become prominent in state
telecommunication policy during the last ten years as the states
battle to retain and attract industry. It appears from the
preliminary research that the issue of providing universal access
(services) has become less prominent in policy documents.

Although my study will concentrate on policy in New York State, I
would welcome any leads on previous research in this area. Also,
I am interested in any comments you may have and/or suggestions
in this area.


Thanks.

Frank Whittle
Chairman, CIS
Dutchess Community College
Poughkeepsie, New York
PhD Candidate SUNY @ Albany
email: whittle@sunydutchess.edu


From vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us  Mon Nov 14 23:35:50 1994
Received: from rs6a.wln.com (rs6a.wln.com [192.156.252.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA11207 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 23:35:47 -0800
Received: from latte.spl.lib.wa.us by rs6a.wln.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.06)
          id AA103194; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:26:30 -0800
Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM)
	id AA05880; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:30:15 -0800
Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM)
	id AA05872; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:30:14 -0800
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:30:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Affordabilty and Availability <vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: your mail
In-Reply-To: <199411141707.JAA06933@virtconf.digex.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.91.941114202942.5857B-100000@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Subscribe Ref Lindmark


"The above message was sent from the Seattle Public Library public access
point.  Though the Library is pleased to make this service available, The
views expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the position 
of the Seattle Public Library."

On Mon, 14 Nov 1994 vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us wrote:

> Subject: [AVAIL:1] NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment:  Gatewayed to newsgroup alt.ntia.avail
> Status: O
> 
> X-From: NTIA Virtual Conference <ntia@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
> 
> 
>                     WELCOMING STATEMENT FROM 
>             DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE DAVID BARRAM
> 
> Welcome to the Virtual Conference on Universal Service and Open
> Access to the Telecommunications Network.  In hosting this
> conference we seek to broaden our reach beyond the physical
> limits of any conference room or auditorium.  The NII will tear
> down the barriers of time and distance.  This conference, like
> the NII itself, is meant to be inclusive and your ideas are
> welcome and encouraged.  Your participation will help make it a
> success.
> 
> This effort is jointly sponsored by the National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the
> Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), as part of the
> Administration's National Information Infrastructure initiative. 
> Through the NII, the Administration is focusing on the ability of
> computer mediated communications to enhance the life and work of
> every American.  The NII is a harbinger of change, both economic
> and political, and holds great promise for the future of America. 
> Some benefits of the NII include telecommuting, distance learning
> and active life-long education, remote consultations with expert
> medical professionals, as well as new forms of art, entertainment
> and culture.
> 
> This conference continues the dialog started by NTIA's five field
> hearings, held over the past nine months in cities throughout
> America.  Unlike the field hearings, this conference allows for a
> much wider participation, and more in-depth discussion on the
> issues.  There are over 80 public access points in 25 states.
> 
> With this conference we are hoping to:
> 
>     Garner opinions and views on universal telecommunications
>      service that may shape the legislative and regulatory
>      debate.
> 
>     Demonstrate how networking technology can broaden
>      participation in the development of government policies,
>      specifically, universal service telecommunications policy.
> 
>     Illustrate the potential for using the NII to create an
>      electronic commons.
> 
>     Create a network of individuals and institutions that will
>      continue the dialog started by the conference, once the
>      formal sponsorship is over.
> 
> This conference is an experiment in a new form of dialog among
> citizens and with their government.  The conference is not a one-
> way, top down approach, it is a conversation.  It holds the
> promise of reworking the compact between citizens and their
> government.
> 
> I thank you once again for your participation.
> 
From cyberoid@u.washington.edu  Tue Nov 15 00:27:48 1994
Received: from stein1.u.washington.edu (cyberoid@stein1.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA11571 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:27:46 -0800
Received: by stein1.u.washington.edu
	(5.65+UW94.4/UW-NDC Revision: 2.30 ) id AA23585;
	Mon, 14 Nov 94 21:19:55 -0800
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 21:19:55 -0800
From: Robert Jacobson <cyberoid@u.washington.edu>
Message-Id: <9411150519.AA23585@stein1.u.washington.edu>
X-Sender: cyberoid@stein1.u.washington.edu
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Brief History: CA's Universal Telephone Service Act

CALIFORNIA'S UNIVERSAL TELEPHONE SERVICE ACT

ITS ORIGIN IN 1983:  A CHANGING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SCENE

	California's  Universal Telephone Service Act, the "Moore Act"
of 1983 (Asm.  Gwen Moore, D-L.A.), has set one successful example for
how to manage  universal  telephone/telecommunications  service.   The
Moore Act, which I helped to draft, enunciated  certain principles  of
civic rights and necessities  requiring citizen access to the means of
communication;  set forth  the necessary rules to  govern  the way  in
which  rates for  local  service  and  long-distance,  including  more
advanced digital services,  would be balanced;  and delegated  to CA's
Public Utilities  Commission responsibility  for overseeing  the Moore
Act's  mechanisms,  providing  outreach  to  target  communities,  and
preventing fraud on the part of service recipients.

	The necessity of  the  Moore Act became  clear in 1982, when a
Consent Decree was signed breaking up the former AT&T Bell System.  As
part  of the  Decree,  competitive  long-distance  services  would  be
permitted   to  set  their   own   rates   (within  certain  antitrust
guidelines);  usually, this meant they went down.  Local rates, on the
other hand, were not permitted to vary since local telephone companies
in 1982  and thereafter  held  effective monopolies  in their  service
areas.   Nevertheless,  they  were  responsible   for  expansion   and
maintenance  of the  local  telephone  network which  remained a vital
"feeder  system"  for  the  long-distance companies.   Even  with  the
imposition of a  so-called "access  charge"  paid by the long-distance
companies  to  the  local  companies, prices for long-distance service
still  fell   precipitously.    Long-distance   customers,   who  were
overwhelming large corporations and government agencies (fewer than 35
percent  of all  telephone customers  made  the vast majority of long-
distance  phone  calls), were receiving the vast  benefits of  reduced
rates.

	This  situation  was exacerbated  by  the  FCC's imposition of
another  type  of  "access  charge,"   this  one  on  local  telephone
customers,  supposedly  to  offset  losses   to  the  local  telephone
companies  of  support  formerly  built  into  the  unified   national
telephone   system.   It  was  estimated,  by  1986  --   even  though
competition was just getting started in a  big way -- that the subsidy
flowing  from  local  telephone   customers  (individuals  and   small
businesses) to  large customers was  as  much  as $4 billion annually.
(Today it may be more.)

	Those who  paid the worst  price were less able  to benefit by
reduced long-distance rates:  the poor.   Faced  with customer  access
charges and climbing local rates, the poor were on the verge of losing
all  telephone  service.   This would create  potential  voids  in the
social fabric  and non inconsequential fiscal effects.  Not only would
it be more difficult to reach certain people via any form of telephone
service,  but the  social costs of  emergencies  untended (which could
very  well  affect  insurance  premiums  and public outlays) might  be
considerable.

A SOLUTION IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE:  THE MOORE ACT

	In  1983,  an  unusual  coalition  of local  and long-distance
telephone  companies, cable television companies, the PUC, and  public
interest  groups combined  to pass  the Moore Act.   A fairly complete
account of the up's and down's  of  this legislation, and its eventual
passage  by  a  Democratic  legislature  and signing  into  law  by  a
Republican governor, can be read in  AN "OPEN" APPROACH TO INFORMATION
POLICYMAKING, R. Jacobson, Ablex, 1989.

	The resulting  law  set forth a minimal local service to which
one could subscribe --  a  limited number  of calls each month -- at a
low  price.  There was no means test  associated with the legislation:
the quality of the  reduced Lifeline  Service was  intended  to  be an
inherent  deterrent to abuse.  It was an absolute minimum.  Subsequent
surveys and random spot checks by  the PUC produced evidence  that the
law  was  in  fact serving its  intended  population:  fewer than five
percent of all subscribers were earning above the poverty line, a rate
of  "abuse"  much lower  than  almost  any other entitlement  program.
Support for the program was obtained by a small proportional charge on
long-distance service (which  nevertheless hardly reduced cost savings
to long-distance customers).   Very few  complaints  were  heard  from
participants on either side of the  line.  No one wanted holes to form
in California's telephone service.

	Moreover, no  phone  company  in  CA, local  or long-distance,
suffered appreciably from this legislation.  The most ardent opponent,
AT&T, consistently tried to reduce the level of support  for the Moore
Act; but not with great heat.  Its customers' savings were still large
and  the   company  did   not  lose  its   position  as  the  dominant
long-distance telephone company as a result of the Moore Act, either.

	The  one exception  to  paying  into  the Universal  Telephone
Service Fund,  as the pool of monies for offering Lifeline Service was
called, was the  cable television companies -- so long as they did not
offer two-way telephone service.  The  PUC must  revisit the issue  if
the  cable  television  companies  in  fact  become  telephone service
providers.

	A measure of comity among the various parties to the Moore Act
has made  it  a  success,  both  as a  statement of  social  policy --
everyone in a free  society must have access to the means of effective
communication --  and as a mechanism for keeping  intact an  imperiled
public telecommunications network.  Although several attempts  to pass
legislation based on the Moore Act were attempted by both other states
and the Congress, the  breakdown  of  this  comity led  to rivalry and
self-interest.  As  a  result,  some  of  these  new laws incorporated
elements antithetical to the Moore Act  (for example, at the urging of
long-distance carriers, many  state  enacted a  lifeline-service means
test, which converted telecommunications  policy  into  social-welfare
policy).  Others simply missed the boat and did not effect the balance
of interests maintained by the Moore Act to this day.

CONCLUSIONS

	The  PUC is empowered by the legislation to revisit  the Moore
Act on  a regular basis  and  adjust both  the definition  of Lifeline
Service  and  various  rate  flows, as  it sees  fit.   At last count,
something like 15  percent of the CA telephone  subscribing population
--  almost all  resident in households earning at or below the poverty
level -- received Lifeline Service.  Obviously, this does not  include
all  families currently receiving  local  telephone  service  of other
types  whose use patterns and income  makes them  likely recipients of
Lifeline  Service: as  many as another  10 percent of local  telephone
customers should be  availing themselves of Lifeline Service.  The PUC
has had  to compel telephone  companies  in CA  to inaugurate outreach
efforts to  these citizens.  (At  one point, a local telephone company
had  to  be  fined for  not  properly informing new  subscribers about
Lifeline Service,  and  the  amount has been used, in  part, for these
outreach efforts.)  Generally, however, Lifeline  Service  has  worked
well.

	 While  the  Moore Act  was  passed and  first  implemented in
simpler times, when  telephone  service was  still  largely POTS mixed
with  patches of cellular telephone service and smatterings of digital
services, it retains its relevance  and  applicability today.  The PUC
is  authorized to report to the legislature its conclusions  regarding
the  quality  of   Lifeline  Service,  which  it  may  implement  with
legislative approval.  It  is quite that plans to  fully digitize CA's
telephone  network,  promoted  most   avidly  by  CA's  largest  local
telephone  service companies, Pacific  Bell and  GTE California,  will
best  be  realized  if  Lifeline Service, for those most  in need,  is
redefined to include basic  digital services as  well as  conventional
analog service.   After  all, from  the  standpoint  of the  customer,
delivery  of  service  is  technologically invisible  except  for  new
services that  could not  exist  without a digital  network.  The same
principles  of funding expansion of  the local  network, as a  digital
rather  than  analog system, can be logically applied in 1994 as  they
were in 1984, the first year that  the Moore Act took effect.  The PUC
can determine, after public  hearings with input from various parties,
just how broad Lifeline  Service needs to be to  prevent  tears in the
social fabric of communications.

	Much is said these days about the  need for "redefinition" and
"availability"  of  universal telephone  service.  In fact,  this very
discussion  was preceded by  these  unfortunate terms.   First,  these
terms presume that universal  service exists  already, which it  by no
means  does:  many Americans are still involuntarily without telephone
service because they are poor or  transients.   Some  living  in  rual
areas find the cost of telephone service disproportionately expensive.
(In CA, a Rural  Telephone  Fund was established, on a company-company
basis,  to keep  rural people  comfortably on  the  net  and thus  not
encourage them to  abandon  farms and businesses in  rural areas  that
might otherwise become  uneconomic because of rapidly rising prices of
service.)  While opinions and surveys differ, this unserved proportion
of the population  is at least five  and may be as large as 15 percent
of all Americans -- a  lot of people.  Second,  reduced-cost  services
like CA's Lifeline Service are the exception,  not the rule.  They are
completely unavailable to  most Americans.   The nation might  have as
its most immediate goal remedying these situations before beginning to
overhaul the few programs that do exist to provide equitable access to
communications,  in  an "information  age" the  essence of  American's
First Amendment rights.

	The  NTIA  and  FCC  can further  the cause of  communications
equity by examining existing  programs designed to  provide  universal
access to the  means of  communication,  not only  for  their economic
viability but also  for their deep  principles.  These principles, and
not trendy  neo-  economic rationales, should be  applied to answering
the problem of attaining universal access on a national basis, for all
Americans.

Robert Jacobson, Ph.D.

Former Principal Consultant
(Senior Staff Analyst) and
Committee Staff Director,
Assembly Utilities and
Commerce Committee, CA
Legislature, 1981-1989
From correav@clpgh.org  Tue Nov 15 09:53:01 1994
Received: from clp2.clpgh.org (clp2.clpgh.org [192.204.3.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA15276 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:53:00 -0800
Received: by clp2.clpgh.org (MX V4.1 VAX) id 60; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:45:13 EST
Sender: correav@clpgh.org
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:45:07 EST
From: Virginia Correa <correav@clp2.clpgh.org>
Reply-To: correav@clpgh.org
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Message-ID: <009877F6.09E3BD80.60@clp2.clpgh.org>
Subject: testing alt.ntia.avail

Path: clpgh.org!correav
From: correav@clpgh.org (Virginia Correa)
Newsgroups: alt.ntia.avail
Subject: testing alt.ntia.avail
Message-ID: <1994Nov15.094430.2653@clp2>
Date: 15 Nov 94 09:44:30 -5
Organization: Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to alt.ntia.avail
Lines: 8

Test msg. from correav to alt.ntia.avail

-- 
+++  Virginia Correa - Head, Automation Division
+++  The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
+++  4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213
+++  correav@clpgh.org - 412-622-1945

+++  Virginia Correa - Head, Automation Division
+++  The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
+++  4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213
+++  correav@clpgh.org - 412-622-1945

From chage@rahul.net  Tue Nov 15 10:11:21 1994
Received: from tango.rahul.net (root@tango.rahul.net [192.160.13.5]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA15513 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:11:11 -0800
Received: from bolero.rahul.net by tango.rahul.net with SMTP id AA03651
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:03:14 -0800
Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA18596
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 07:03:06 -0800
Received: by slick.chage.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA18658; Tue, 15 Nov 94 03:11:23 PST
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 03:11:23 PST
From: chage@rahul.net (Carl Hage)
Message-Id: <9411151111.AA18658@slick.chage.com>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Key Issues of Affordability and Availability

There has been a significant amount of discussion about availability and
affordability issues, in the prior meeting. However, I believe that much
of the discussion has been at a high level, and some important details of
the economic issues have been omitted.

In this message, I'll list what I think are the key problems to be
addresses. Perhaps some of the other readers whould like to comment,
and perhaps offer solutions. In a later message, I will offer my own
comments on solutions for these problems and other problems raised
by other readers.

I. 10 KEY PROBLEMS

Here are what I think are some key problems which need to be addressed
as part of the NII program:

1. Current Internet access costs favor large organizations.
2. Large organizations have better network services available.
3. Telecommunications resources currently are not efficiently utilized.
4. Telephone companies do not offer packet oriented service at low cost
5. Monopoly Telephone and Cable companies are competing with each other,
   not providing an economical digital communications infrastructure.
6. On demand video may be subsidized by telephone and computer data
7. Types of telephone service available decrease competition for net access
8. Internet access fees are based on peak transmit rate not quantity of data
9. The networking industry is building products for large businesses
10. High density areas may obtain preferential access to independent providers


-----

1. Current Internet access costs favor large organizations.

    High speed internet access over a dedicated connection can be obtained
    in a large company (or medium speed access in a medium sized company)
    for a few dollars per month. An individual (e.g.  telecommuter, home
    user, small library, kiosk, disabled telecommuter, etc.) or small
    business cannot afford dedicated access. Slow (modem) speed dialup
    access costs an order of magnitude more than the dedicated access to
    large organizations.
        
    Lets compare the monthly costs per person for a few scenarios.
    Suppose each person will retrieve about 1MB per day, or about
    the equivalent of 10 books 100 pages long in compressed form.
    
    (The numbers below are representative of costs in the San Francisco
    area. Not all detailed costs are shown, but the comparisons should
    be valid.)
    
      Large 1000 person company
         Premium connection at 1500Kb/s		$3000
         T1 telephone line 20miles		$1000
         
         Cost per user/month			$4
         Time to retrieve a 100 page document	.5sec
         Utilization over 8 hours		20%	

      Medium 100 person company
         ISDN connection at 128Kb/s		$310
         ISDN telephone line			$30
         Usage charges 8hrs local		$192
         Usage if provider is >7 miles	$768
         
         Cost per user/month			$5
         Time to retrieve a 100 page document	6sec
         Utilization over 8 hours		20%	

      Individual (1 person company, telecommuter, library, ATM machine, etc.)
         Dedicated service at 14Kb/s		$90
         POTS telephone line			$15
         Usage charges 8hrs local		$96
         Usage if provider is >7 miles	$384
         
         Cost per user/month			$100-200
         Time to retrieve a 100 page document	56sec
         Utilization over 8 hours		.2%	

    In a large organization a high speed communication link can be
    obtained for a few dollars per person per month, which permits
    very fast retrieval of documents. The cost of very low because
    a single internet link can be shared across a LAN with thousands
    of users.
    
    A medium sized organization would need to pay substantially more
    per person to obtain high speed (T1) access. However an ISDN
    line could be used to obtain a moderate speed link and still
    keep costs within a few dollars per month. A nearby commercial
    internet service provider would be needed to avoid high telephone
    usage costs. In this scenario, no usage is assumed after business
    hours. If a local internet provider was not available, or if access
    after the 8hr business day is required, a Frame-Relay connection
    could be obtained at comparable cost at half the speed.
    
    An individual has no ability to share the telecomunications costs,
    except by finding a nearby commercial internet service provider
    who will provide modem access. If a user wants a dedicated connection,
    they would need to pay for 2 phone lines (1 for the user plus 1
    dedicated line to the internet provider) to the internet provider's
    modem and router. All modem users at the provider's router share
    a link to the provider who in turn connects to the internet.
    
    Most individuals cannot afford a dedicated connection, so a
    slow (modem) speed dialup connection would be used instead.
    This puts the individual or small business at a disadvantage.
    An internet access account is typically about $20/month. Some
    providers charge usage fees which are $2/hour.
    
    A medium-small business (e.g. 10-100 users) can obtain an email and
    news only access. With this type of account, the newer services
    like gopher and WWW are not available except via a email server.
    A scenario for email only service is: 
    
    10 Person Company with email/news only access:
      UUCP Access			$20
      Telephone line			$15
      Telephone Usage charges (xmit)	$9
      Telephone usage polling		$40
      
      Cost per person			$8
      
    The polling charge is the cost to dial the provider once every 20
    minutes during the day (once per hour other times). In this case
    it might take 20 minutes to deliver an email message. If this
    company had a dedicated connection, email would be delivered within
    a minute or so.
    
2. Large organizations have better network services available.

    As explained in the scenarios above, medium-high speed dedicated
    access is easily within reach in medium-large companies. An individual
    or small business may not be able to afford dedicated access, limiting
    the applications which could be used, and adding substantial delivery
    times for email, etc.
    
    Instead of having email delivered within a minute, a delay, e.g.
    20 minutes, might be added.

3. Telecommunications resources currently are not efficiently utilized.

    Currently, two dedicated telephone lines plus one shared line is used
    for modem access, whereas a single shared line could be used. The
    telephone companies may use thousands of times the neighborhood and
    interoffice transmission resource to provide connection oriented
    service vs packet oriented digital communications.
    
    Consider the typical access available to most people with modems:
    
      user (modem)-------------------------------->(telco office)
                                                         |
                                                         v
      provider POP (modem)<------------------------(telco office)
      provider POP (modem)<-- (other dialup lines)
         ...
         |
         v
      router (digital line)------------------------>(telco office)
                                                         |
                                                         v
      provider HQ<---------------------------------(telco office)
         |
         v
      router (digital line)=======================>(telco office)
                                                         |
                                                         v
                                                  (internet backbone)

    In order to access the internet, a user must dial a modem supplied
    by an access provider. In order to avoid long distance telephone
    charges, each internet provider (IP) must provide a nearby POP (Point
    Of Presence) which has a set of modems connected a router linked
    to the IP headquarters via a shared digital link. At the headquarters,
    the IP has a central router to computers for services it offers,
    e.g. news, and a high speed connection to the internet backbone.
    
    Three telephone lines are used to get to the IP-HQ. Two lines are
    consumed to connect to a POP, and the third line from the POP
    to the IP-HQ is shared by all users who connect to the POP.
    
    The telephone companies offer only "connection oriented" service
    rather than the "packet oriented" service used for computer
    communication. If a user dials up an IP, the telephone company is
    continuously transmitting 64Kb per direction for each connection, even
    though the user is not transmitting any information. For example, a
    page of information (e.g. email) might take a few minutes to read, but
    might take only a second to transmit. A message which took three
    minutes to read would consume 5000 times as much information in
    the connection oriented telephone switch as would be required to
    transmit via a packet oriented switching technology.
    
    If the telephone companies offered packet oriented digital service,
    the topology of the diagram above might look like:

      user (box)===|(street)
      user (box)===|(router)==========|
       ...      ===|                  |
      user (box)===|                  |(neighborhood)
                                      |(router      )=====>(telco office)
      user (box)===|(building)        |                         |
      user (box)===|(router  )========|                         |
       ...      ===|                                            v
      user (box)===|                   provider HQ<========(telco office)


   Rather than have each user consume a complete line to the telco
   central office (CO), a single line could be shared by several
   users. Since the average transmission utilization of an individual
   is low, a shared line, like a "party line", would have almost
   the same performance as a dedicated line.
   
   If the distance between the user and the first level of router
   is small, then high speed transmission is possible. For example,
   a 15000Kb transmission rate is possible over ordinary phone wire
   for limited distance, which is 1000 times faster than the typical
   14Kb modem.
   
   A similar configuration is used to provide the "video dial tone"
   service, which is actually mostly traditional cable TV service
   supplied by the telephone company. Although the telcos investing
   in "video on demand" service mention computer data, I do not
   see the plans or infrastructure for allowing general purpose
   digital communication.
   
   An open question is who will provide the building, street, and
   neighborhood routers. The telephone (or cable) companies own
   the exising lines and access to them. Because they are in a monopoly
   position, they do not necessarily have any interest in providing
   the kind of service required for low cost computer communications
   or to provide access to third party 
   

4. Telephone companies do not offer packet oriented service at low cost

    Computer communications occurs in "packets", which is a chunk of data
    transmitted. A short email message might take a single packet, and a
    file might take many packets. In between packets, a computer link is
    idle, so a packet oriented computer data link can be shared by
    multiple users. The existing voice telephone circuits are "connection
    oriented", which means they consume a constant amount of data (64Kb)
    even when people are not speaking.
    
    Actually, voice data can be compressed into packets which consumes 1/4
    to 1/8 the amount of data normally transmitted (compression ratio of
    2:1 to 4:1, unidirectional data flow). Some sounds compress better
    than others, so the transmission capacity varies slightly.
    
    Compressed video also can be divided into a variable number of
    packets. Typically, however, a fixed transmission rate is used (since
    that is the type of service available) and the quality is degraded
    when necessary in order to fit within the fixed transmission capacity.
    If a variable speed packet switched connection were available, then
    the transmission rate can be increased when movement occurs, and
    decreased when the images do not move. This leads to higher quality
    images, better utilization of the transmission resources, and
    lower cost.
    
    Pacific Bell offers the Frame-Relay service, which is a flat-rate
    packet oriented service. The delivery times are not guaranteed, so it
    is not suitable for compressed audio or video. However, they could be
    used to access an internet service provider without incurring usage
    charges or mileage fees. The monthly charges are:
        56Kb		$140
        15000Kb		$328
        45000Kb ATM	$4,85O
    
    Frame relay on ISDN might be another approach, and PacBell has
    announced it but (I believe) is not currently pursuing it. I do
    not know if usage charges would be added. Concievably, ISDN
    frame-relay could be used to lower the >$200/mo telephone charges
    in the scenario above.
    
    For heavy users, e.g. large companies, this can become attractive
    and low cost if spread over a large number of users. For an individual
    with low utilization, these prices are unaffordable.
    
5. Monopoly Telephone and Cable companies are competing with each other,
   not providing an economical digital communications infrastructure.
   
   The telephone companies, e.g. Pacific Bell, are deploying digital
   video service, known as "on demand video", as a testbed in a few
   high density areas. The technology used will be the $4,85O/mo ATM
   technology to neighborhoods, with either 15000Kb ADSL service over
   existing twisted pair wiring, or higher rates with new coaxial cable
   installed. The "video" service is one way TV broadcast, no 2 way
   videophone service.
   
   In all the press releases, the usage for computer communications is
   barely mentioned. As far as I know, the tests will only involve video
   service, and no plans exist to permit internet access providers or
   other digital information sources to have access to this infrastructure.
   
   The technology used to deliver cable TV by the telephone companies
   could be used as a general digital communications infrastructure,
   offering very high speed access at reasonably low cost. However,
   the equipment must be designed for bidirectional communications,
   and users and information providers must have access at the digital
   packet switching level, not at the video broadcast level.
   
6. On demand video may be subsidized by telephone and computer data

   The economics of on demand TV is questionable. The projected cost
   to deliver a 2 hour movie is $2-$4, depending on whether it is a new
   release. Note this cost includes, the video servers which hold and
   retrieve the digital movie data. If we assume the servers have no
   cost, then comparing the cost for video against existing audio:
   
       Video Movie = 6GB             Cost/GB = $3/6GB =      $.50/GB
       Audio telephone = .48MB/min   Cost/GB = $.01/.00048 = $21/GB
       
   The projected cost of delivering video is 40 times the usage
   charges for telephone service. Unless the tarriffs are radially
   changed, the price for transmitting audio (and possibly computer data)
   will be much higher than the price for transmitting video, even
   though with digital data transmission, there is no distinction, except
   in level of service.
   
   With audio or video transmissions, a guaranteed transmission rate
   is important. However, most computer data transmissions are not
   time sensitive, and the speed can be reduced as traffic increases.
   Thus, computer data can be used to fill the capacity at a lower
   priority than audio and video transmissions. Thus computer data
   should be charged at a lower rate than audio or video.
   
   It does not appear to me that less than $.50/GB is economically feasable
   for digital computer data, and the telephone companies would need to
   charge more. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for monopoly providers
   to discriminate costs on the content of the data transport. Instead
   the type of service (guaranteed delivery vs degradable) and total
   quantity should be used as the basis for usage charges.
   
7. Types of telephone service available decrease competition for net access

   Since the telephone companies, etc. do not provide modem access or
   low cost packet switched service (e.g. frame relay), access must
   be obtained from a third party internet provider(IP) or BBS, using
   the extra telephone lines as shown in the diagrams above. In order
   to avoid very expensive long distance telephone charges, IPs must
   provide POPs scattered across thier service areas.
   
   Because each IP must supply thier own remote POPs, the number of
   providers with POPs in a given location may be limited. For example,
   in the San Francisco area, there are a couple dozen companies
   offering internet access. However, there might only be 3 or 4
   companies with local dialup numbers. In some areas there is only 1,
   and in some all providers are long distance.
   
   The major national companies, e.g. Compuserve, have many local numbers,
   but these companies have very high fees and limited services (e.g.
   Compuserve does not have full internet access).

8. Internet access fees are based on peak transmit rate not quantity of data

  There is a current tradition of charging for internet access based
  on the maximum transmission speed. For example, a 28.8Kb access is
  1/2 a 56Kb access, which is 1/2 a 128Kb, etc. A user who uses 100%
  of the transmission capacity pays the same amount as a user who only
  uses 1% of the transmission capacity.
  
  For some new internet tools such as WWW, an infrequent high speed burst
  is very desirable. For example, a WWW page containing graphics might
  need to be retrieved within a few seconds, and then a user might spend
  a few minutes reading the data. In a large business this type of
  access is available for a few dollars per month, whereas an individual
  might need to pay more than $1000/mo with very high setup fees.
  
  Users with flat-rate high speed access can transmit video, which
  can use 100% of a transmission line, whereas a typical WWW user might
  only use a fraction of a percent. Thus video users end up paying
  very small rates, whereas typical WWW and email users pay high rates
  per unit of data.
  
  Many users have resisted the idea of usage fees as they could discourage
  usage. However, if the use fees were set at the cost to add additional
  capacity (perhaps at a larger scale in the future), then the cost
  would still be low except for high consumption use like video.
  
  For comparison, here are some typical usage charges:
  
     Local Daytime telephone		$21/GB
     On demand Video Movie		$.50/GB
     Discount night long dist telephone $100/GB
     1000 miles of T3 @ 25% utilization $12/GB
     
     PacBell packet data		$6400/GB
     Prodigy Internet Email		$16667/GB
     
  The T3 trunk lines are used as part of the internet backbone to
  connect the nation. If over a 24hr period, the trunk line is
  used on average at 25% of the maximum capacity, then the cost
  is currently about $10/GB, to add extra backbone capacity. Note
  this does not include the cost of local access and routers, but
  does give an approximate order of magnitude. Usage charges for
  telephone use, e.g. $21/GB, should be higher than computer data since
  the telephone use requires guaranteed capacity, whereas computer
  data transfer rates can be degraded as capacity fills.
  
  What may users are fearful of is the unreasonable usage rates which
  do not reflect incremental transmission costs. The usage charges
  from PacBell for packet switched data and email from major services
  like Prodigy and Compuserve are examples.
  
  If usage charges are comparable to daytime telephone, then a user
  who retrieves the equivalent of 1000 pages of compressed text per day
  would only pay $.63/mo in usage charges.
  
  In order to reduce usage over the network, there must be some
  economic incentive for internet providers to keep local copies of
  data for thier customers, and for users to use the network at night.
  A usage charge which is lower at off peak times is needed to
  shift use for bulk email, news, etc. from peak use times to times
  with excess capacity.
  
  Usage charges are also needed to permit reselling of capacity. If
  the charge is based on peak transfer rate, then companies which
  divide up and resell access to many users pay the same rate as
  a single user. Thus many companies restrict the types of use, which
  ends up limiting competition for service providers. On the other hand,
  it becomes difficult to choose a provider as they might have thier
  transmission capacity oversold.

9. The networking industry is building products for large businesses

    There has been an impressive development in networking technology
    which offers high speed at low cost. For example, ethernet interfaces
    for a computer cost $40 and transmit up to 100 meters at 10Mb
    (10000Kb).  These LAN products, and other WAN products, e.g. routers
    are designed to be used within a single company which might combine
    many workstations on a LAN with a router to other locations including
    an internet provider. Likewise, the digital telecommunications
    services offered by the telephone companies also address the needs
    of large businesses.
    
    Left out are similar products which are designed to be used by
    multiple companies or individuals, and routers, etc. which are
    designed to be placed between an individual home or office and the
    telephone company. For example, the 10Mb ethernet technology
    could almost be used in an apartment building, professional
    office building, shopping center, etc. in the way as for a LAN
    within a single corporation, sharing a single internet access line.
    However, the telephone company owns the lines outside of each
    apartment, etc. so it is difficult to implement. Also, the LAN
    equipment does not assume data from one user should be hidden
    from another. Although LAN equipment is very low cost, it couldn't
    be directly used (without encryption) as one business could trivially
    wiretap another.
    
    In order for industry to develop products designed for the ideal
    topology diagrammed above, there must be some organization to
    develop standards for equipment and to develop a market controlled
    by the telephone companies.

10. High density areas may obtain preferential access to independent providers

    If universal packet switched digital communications is not available
    through a telephone or cable monopoly, then independent companies will
    fill the gap. This is more or less the current state for internet
    access, where a number of companies (from part time bedroom operations
    to major national providers) compete to provide internet access with
    a wide variety of services for a wide variety of customers. This
    can be a free email only connection via modem up to optical fiber
    tied to the internet backbone.
    
    Though internet access is still relatively sparse, the percentage of
    homes and businesses which have internet access will continue to
    grow rapidly. Soon, some of the internet providers might try to
    work around the telephone company and provide service directly
    to multiple end users. Consider the office buildings in downtown
    San Francisco. A provider might be able to hook up all companies
    in a skyscraper with a high speed internet connection at a relatively
    low cost using LAN technology. Adjacent buildings could be connected
    together into the same router which uses a single high speed line
    into the internet. Dozens or hundreds of companies could be pooled
    together to share a single high speed line, e.g. optical fiber.
    Even if only 10% of the companies in a skyscraper subscribed, the
    high density makes costs to provide the service low.
    
    A similar scenario can be made for shopping centers, office buildings,
    apartment and condominium complexes etc. An independent provider
    would most likely wire up these kinds of buildings before individual
    houses and other low density areas.
    
    If the monopoly providers do not implement low cost packet switched
    access, then the result may be that the independents may "cherry
    pick" the high density areas with the lowest cost and highest return,
    leaving the rest for some future service to be provided by the
    telephone company. The telephone companies might then be stuck with
    customers with the highest costs.
From vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us  Tue Nov 15 11:43:58 1994
Received: from rs6a.wln.com (rs6a.wln.com [192.156.252.2]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA21968 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 11:43:55 -0800
Received: from latte.spl.lib.wa.us by rs6a.wln.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.06)
          id AA85367; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:34:21 -0800
Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM)
	id AA06858; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:38:06 -0800
Received: by latte.spl.lib.wa.us; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Oct94-0722PM)
	id AA06850; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:38:06 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:38:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Affordabilty and Availability <vcavail@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.91.941115083637.6832D-100000@latte.spl.lib.wa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

subscribe Reggie Moyer
subscribe rmoyer


"The above message was sent from the Seattle Public Library public access
point.  Though the Library is pleased to make this service available, The
views expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the position 
of the Seattle Public Library."

From ronda@panix.com  Tue Nov 15 12:45:24 1994
Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA00822 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:23 -0800
Received: by panix2.panix.com id AA19711
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:37:32 -0500
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Message-Id: <199411151737.AA19711@panix2.panix.com>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:13]
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:37:31 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9411150254.AA51246@admaix.sunydutchess.edu> from "Whittle, Frank" at Nov 15, 94 11:47:55 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 5778      

> 
> I am currently conducting dissertation research on the
> relationship between promoting a telecommunication policy
> favoring  economic development and one favoring universal
> service. Specifically, I am interested in providing a stakeholder
> analysis to determine the level of agreement and/or disagreement 
> in perceptions on this relationship.

This is a helpful distinction because it seems that the real
terms of the debate are confused by the effort to replace 
benefitting the people of the society with "economic development"
The two are not the same.

The people of our society need the net and need universal service.

Economic development substitutes the interests of a small sector
of the population and claims it is the whole population.

The Internet and the Global Computer Network 
are providing a very important means for the people of our society
to have an ability to speak for themselves and to fight their own
battles to better the society.

Those who are trying to take the Net away, which the NII thus far
has been part of by focusing on the business interests and ignoring
the public interests, are forces to try to impede the further 
development of the Net.

I have a paper I have written recently about the development of
the Global Network -- looking at its history and development.

I would like to post it to this discussion but it is lengthy
so want to know if that is ok.

Knowing the history of the development of the Net is a very important 
piece of figuring out how to continue that development, yet that
history is hidden while book publishers rush to publish books 
about how to make a "fortune" off the internet. They won't publish
books about how the Net was built.

If the Clinton Administration had been interested in the history
and development of the Net, one wonders if they would have rushed
to place the NII committee in the U.S. Dept of Commerce.

> 
> The term "economic development" has become prominent in state
> telecommunication policy during the last ten years as the states
> battle to retain and attract industry. It appears from the
> preliminary research that the issue of providing universal access
> (services) has become less prominent in policy documents.
> 

The whole notion that government has an obligation to serve 
the public has been lost - instead there is only concern with
serving business interests.

That is a real loss for our society and has resulted in the U.S.
government support and aid to the ever lowering living standard
of the majority of people in the U.S. and the lengthening hours
of work.

Technological advances like the global computer network are 
needed to make life better for the public - that requires that
the whole debate and discussion not only be opened up so the 
public can be able to make its voices heard, but also that
the interests of the public be the primary concern, not the 
interests of the big corporations.

Even Adam Smith in his economic work "The Wealth of Nations"
notes that the interests of the public and the interests of 
the business community are not the same.

> Although my study will concentrate on policy in New York State, I
> would welcome any leads on previous research in this area. Also,
> I am interested in any comments you may have and/or suggestions
> in this area.

I suggest you and others interested in this question look at the 
netbook that is available via www and gopher and
ftp titled "The Netizens and the Wonderful World of the Net: An
Anthology on the History and Impact of the Net"

it is available via www in a formated copy from
http://scrg.cs.tcd.ie/scrg/u/rcwoods.html
and in an unformatted copy from

	http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~hauben/project_book.html

by Gopher:

gopher://gopher.cic.net/1/e-serials/alphabetic/a/amateur-computerist/netbook

by Anonymous FTP:

wuarchive.wustl.edu
in directory
/doc/misc/acn/netbook



> Frank Whittle
> email: whittle@sunydutchess.edu
> 
The process by which the Global Computer Network has been built
needs to be studied and learned from if the development will go
forward - thus there is an important reason to carefully look at
the history and impact of what has been built before rushing ahead
to change that course.

The role the Global Computer Network plays today in helping to
make automation work is a tremendously important role.

The computer pioneers who were creating time sharing back in the 
early 1960's were interested in creating a community for those
involved in applying and developing computer technology. That
is what the Net has become and it has made it possible for this
technology to go forward because people get the help they need
to solve the difficult problems posed by the technology.

When J.C.R. Licklider, who can be called
the Father of the old Arpanet (which set the basis for
the internet) looked to a future vision for the Net, he 
proposed that as the Net expanded it would need more and more
people to help with the debugging that was required to help it
expand and therefore there was a need to expand access to many
more folks so they could be online to help with that debugging.

This a very different vision than any of the so called "electronic
shopping marts" that permeate the current proposed visions for
the future of the Net.

Thus from the history will come a sense of what is the needed
way forward and without considering the history, those involved
in policy will be more likely to propose a backwards step.


Ronda 
ronda@panix.com
--------
ronda@panix.com or ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Norbert Wiener, the father of cybernetics, proposed that the
governed have to find a way to get feedback to the governors
But the process seems especially hard with regard to the policy
planning that has been going on about the future of the Net.
From don@dcez.com  Tue Nov 15 13:30:40 1994
Received: from relay2.UU.NET (relay2.UU.NET [192.48.96.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA01466 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:30:40 -0800
Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP 
	id QQxqdt19649; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:22:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:19:05 -500 (EST)
From: Don Evans <don@dcez.com>
Subject: Testing
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411151305.A2445-0100000@dcez.dcez.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: don@dcez.com

Why can't I get anything to post here??????

don@dcez.com

From don@dcez.com  Tue Nov 15 13:44:26 1994
Received: from relay4.UU.NET (relay4.UU.NET [192.48.96.14]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA01691 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:44:26 -0800
Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay4.UU.NET with SMTP 
	id QQxqdu09749; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:36:33 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:32:47 -500 (EST)
From: Don Evans <don@dcez.com>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:17] Key Issues of Affordability and Availability
To: virtconf.ntia.doc.gov!avail@uunet.uu.net
In-Reply-To: <9411151111.AA18658@slick.chage.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411151328.B2445-0100000@dcez.dcez.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: don@dcez.com

testing avail

Don Evans
National Endowment for the Arts
don@dcez.com

From rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu  Tue Nov 15 13:46:10 1994
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA01719 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:46:09 -0800
Received: from hopper.itc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa26213;
          15 Nov 94 13:38 EST
Received: (from rbarry@localhost) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id NAA19929 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:38:16 -0500
From: Rey Barry <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>
Message-Id: <199411151838.NAA19929@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:16] testing alt.ntia.avail
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:38:16 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <009877F6.09E3BD80.60@clp2.clpgh.org> from "Virginia Correa" at Nov 15, 94 11:50:16 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1009      

> 
> Path: clpgh.org!correav
> From: correav@clpgh.org (Virginia Correa)
> Newsgroups: alt.ntia.avail
> Subject: testing alt.ntia.avail
> Message-ID: <1994Nov15.094430.2653@clp2>
> Date: 15 Nov 94 09:44:30 -5
> Organization: Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
> News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to alt.ntia.avail
> Lines: 8
> 
> Test msg. from correav to alt.ntia.avail
> 
> -- 
> +++  Virginia Correa - Head, Automation Division
> +++  The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
> +++  4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> +++  correav@clpgh.org - 412-622-1945
> 
> +++  Virginia Correa - Head, Automation Division
> +++  The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
> +++  4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> +++  correav@clpgh.org - 412-622-1945

There are at least two of us alive, Virginia.

-- 
 
 rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu          Freeware Hall of Fame BBS  
    The only thing Americans       Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 
   have in common is paranoia.       Free BBS - 1st call downloads  
From public4@efn.org  Tue Nov 15 14:10:02 1994
Received: from skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (skinner.cs.uoregon.edu [128.223.4.13]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA02158 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:10:00 -0800
Received: from efn.org by skinner.cs.uoregon.edu with SMTP id AA06016
  (5.65/IDA-1.4.2 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 94 10:58:38 -0800
Received: by efn.efn.org (4.1/smail2.5/05-07-92)
	id AA21505; Tue, 15 Nov 94 10:56:26 PST
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:56:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Public Terminal 4 <public4@efn.org>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: Where's the discussion?
In-Reply-To: <1994Nov15.002742.7646@virgin.uvi.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.941115105516.20476B-100000@efn.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


Hellooooooo????  Is there a problem from the listserv?  We haven't 
received any discussion since 14:40 yesterday.  

Penny

From markwood@metolius.cocc.edu  Tue Nov 15 15:28:01 1994
Received: from news.u.washington.edu (news.u.washington.edu [140.142.64.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA03419 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:28:00 -0800
Received: from metolius.cocc.edu by news.u.washington.edu
	(5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.22 ) id AA29496; Tue, 15 Nov 94 12:19:55 -0800
Received: from FirstClass (2400037)
 by metolius.cocc.edu (PostalUnion/SMTP 1.2)
 id AA2400037.429783; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:35:46 PDT
Message-Id: <1994Nov15.113216.429783@metolius.cocc.edu>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
From: markwood@metolius.cocc.edu (Dick Markwood)
Organization: Central Oregon Community College
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 11:32:16 PDT
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:11] Re:

subcribe wvia

From ntiagate@virgin.uvi.edu  Tue Nov 15 15:31:13 1994
Received: from virgin.uvi.edu (virgin.uvi.edu [146.226.200.110]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA03504 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:31:06 -0800
Received: from localhost (ntiagate@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id QAA22826 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:09:27 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 14:09:05 GMT
From: ab147@virgin.uvi.edu (Gary M. Goodlander)
Message-ID: <1994Nov15.140905.16422@virgin.uvi.edu>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Cheap Public Access



I want to see cheap public access to the Internet, and
other informational services. 

If this isn't something 'good' that government can do
for the people relatively inexpensively... I don't know
what is. 

Rich people can afford good home libraries, but poor
kids can't. 

Many of those poor kids, however, either have access to 
a computer at school, elsewhere, or (perhaps) even a home. 

Let's make sure that the collective information of our society
is availible (as much as possible) to everyone... rich or poor.

Thanks for listening. 

PS. I live on a small boat anchored off a tiny island. To residents
of the 'turd world', the internet is a wonderful resource...

Gary, aka Cap'n Fattt


>From news Tue Nov 15 10:14:47 1994
Received: from localhost (news@localhost) by virgin.uvi.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5) id KAA16619 for alt-ntia-intellec@virgin; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:14:46 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:14:46 -0400
From: News User <news>
Message-Id: <199411151414.KAA16619@virgin.uvi.edu>
To: alt-ntia-intellec@virgin.uvi.edu
Status: RO
X-Status: D

From barcelom@ERE.UMontreal.CA  Tue Nov 15 16:47:18 1994
Received: from condor.CC.UMontreal.CA (condor.CC.UMontreal.CA [132.204.2.103]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA05097 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:47:16 -0800
Received: from eole.ERE.UMontreal.CA by condor.CC.UMontreal.CA with SMTP id AA18132
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:37:53 -0500
Received: from alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA by eole.ERE.UMontreal.CA (940406.SGI/5.17)
	id AA21855; Tue, 15 Nov 94 16:37:52 -0500
Received: by alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA (940406.SGI/5.17)
	id AA13463; Tue, 15 Nov 94 16:37:51 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:37:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Barcelo Alain-Michel <barcelom@ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Sender: Barcelo Alain-Michel <barcelom@ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Reply-To: Barcelo Alain-Michel <barcelom@ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:17] Key Issues of Affordability and Availability
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <9411151111.AA18658@slick.chage.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9411151613.A12657-0100000@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII


One issue of affordability and availability which has not been raised yet 
is the question of trans-national or international use of, for example, 
the Internet. Since there is no multilateral organization to regulate 
rates between countries with public and/or private telecom companies, we 
could have people deprived of access to important information which would 
have been conceived especially for them, or without any tought given to 
their deprivation. 


-----------------barcelom@ERE.UMontreal.CA-------------------------- 
|                                                                  | 
|         Michel Barcelo       |      Institut d'urbanisme         | 
|      Professeur titulaire    |     Universite de Montreal        | 
|                              |    Faculte de l'amenagement       |
|     Tel.:(1)(514) 343-6893   |  C.P. 6128,  Succ. "Centre-ville" | 
|     Fax :(1)(514) 343-2338   |  MONTREAL (Quebec) H3C 3J7 CANADA | 
--------------------------------------------------------------------                                
 




From BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU  Tue Nov 15 19:36:52 1994
Received: from mitvma.mit.edu (MITVMA.MIT.EDU [18.92.0.3]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA00164; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:36:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199411160336.TAA00164@virtconf.digex.net>
Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 7450; Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:04:30 EST
Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin BMSLIB@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail
 V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6943; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:04:30 -0500
Date:         Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:04:14 EST
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Introduction to LINCT for low cost availability
To: NTIA Forum on Availability and Cost <AVAIL@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>,
        NTIA discussion on Universal Service
 <REDEFUS@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>



At the suggestion of my associate, Dr. Curtiss Priest, who has been forwarding
to me many insightful messages from members of this list about the development
of the NII and community networks, I'd like to share with you the following
information about a recently formed coalition to help provide developing
community networks with required assistance and software tools.
I share this publication in the hope that some of you may give me
some feedback and others interested in joining the coalition can get
in touch with us.

Thanks, Ken Komoski (email: komoski@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________________
                               LINCT
       (Learning and Information Network for Community Telecomputing)

LINCT is a not-for-profit coalition of socially-concerned organizations --
working with affiliated businesses and local governments, libraries, schools,
and social services-- to help communities achieve universal, equitable access
to integrated, community -wide electronic information and learning services.
LINCT does this by stimulating the growth of grassroots community telecomputing
cooperatives, to which it provides strategic advice and technical assistance.
In addition to helping communities integrate local services, LINCT helps
communities to build low-cost, locally-managed "on-ramps" to the national
information highway.  Through the "BET Initiative" LINCT helps communities to
recycle used business computers to poverty-level and low-income families and
seniors who may earn them by learning how to use them through training provided
by volunteer computer-literates at local community centers and/or libraries and
schools.

The first communities assisted by LINCT are five towns in Eastern Long Island,
NY where LINCT is working closely with the library system, town governments,
schools, and social services agencies within an integrated, systemic model.
Other communities on Long Island, in New York City, and in upstate New York, and
in seven other states are affiliated with LINCT in order to achieve the shared
goal of low-cost, universal, equitable access to information and learning.

LINCT's purposes:

(1)  help achieve low-cost, universal and equitable access to telecomputing for
homes, schools, libraries, municipal and social service agencies, and community
businesses;

(2) promote lifelong learning and earning in all communities via cooperative
telecomputing ;

(3)  keep the cost of telecomputing low through cooperative purchasing and
licensing agreements with regional and national providers of network services,
including the Internet;

(4) create specific programs and databases that will help communities to achieve
the above.

An example of one such program is Businesses for Equity in Telecomputing (BET).
BET helps communities to:

(a) facilitate the recycling of used business computers to low-income families,
by enabling them to earn them through their learning to use them to
telecommunicate locally and nationwide;

(b) develop cooperative training programs conducted by community volunteers,
during which low-income families earn a home computer-and-modem by learning how
to use a computer to become full participants in America's fast-changing
information society.

Other LINCT programs being developed include improving home-school-social agency
communications, primary health and crime prevention, online homework mentoring,
and the online operation of community-based "time-dollar" exchanges  linked to
at-home, work-related training.  LINCT and its growing network of affiliated
not-for-profit organizations are prepared to assist communities to develop local
telecomputing cooperatives to bring the benefits of low-cost telecomputing to
all community members.
________________________________________________________________________
              LINCT % The Hamlet Green\ Hampton Bays, NY 11946    Tel:
                            516.728.9100


LINCT's Member Organizations

The member organizations of the LINCT coalition are the Center for Information,
Technology and Society (CITS), Melrose, Massachusetts;  The Educational Products
Information Exchange (EPIE) Institute, Hampton Bays, New York, and the Time
Dollars Network, Washington, D.C.  Each organization is making a significant,
in-kind contribution in staff time assigned to LINCT as its match of Federal
grant dollars.

LINCT's affiliates:  Science Linkages in the Community (SLIC), a national
community-outreach program of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, as well as the LINCT-affiliated, communities (eight, in six states as
of (9/1/94), including community libraries, local governments, schools,
community colleges, human services, and local and regional businesses
cooperating in the BET Initiatives.

LINCT's leadership:  Each of LINCT's three, founding organizations brings both
expert staffing and information resources to this planning and development
project that will contribute to its success:

% Curtiss Priest, Director of CITS, is a systems analyst, economist, software
designer, who has conducted policy, evaluation, technology-transfer, and cost-
effectiveness studies of information technology for the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S.DoE, NASA, MIT, the American Association of
Retired Persons (AARP), and EPIE Institute

% Kenneth Komoski, LINCT's Administrative Director, has been consulting and
writing on community telecomputing since 1986, and has directed the work of EPIE
Institute for over two decades; under his leadership EPIE maintains the nation's
only comprehensive, electronic databases of information on all types of
electronic learning resources.

% Edgar Cahn, founder of the Time Dollars Network, consults with community Time
Dollar Exchanges operating in 30 U.S. states, Japan, and other countries. With
LINCT, the Time Dollars Network will develop community-networkable software and
training programs to facilitate the ability of members of low-income and
minority communities to learn-and-earn the computers, modems and software needed
to access the NII for job-training and work opportunities.


LINCT's Program of Activities

%  TAP --  Technical Assistance and Planning  support for local community
telecomputing initiatives in need of help in designing, developing and
delivering social and educational services with an emphasis on arriving at the
most cost-effective system for a particular community.

%  BET --  Businesses for Equity in Telecomputing,  enabling low-income families
to earn a family computer -- plus computer training -- by earning "time dollars"
for completing training at a community center in how to use telecomputing to
improve family learning and earning power. Business-donated computers-plus-
modems are currently being received from large and small businesses on Long
Island, N.Y. where the BET Initiative is being piloted by LINCT (nationally,
businesses currently own over 150 million computers, more than 15 million of
which are replaced annually).  LINCT envisions a nationwide, community-focused
BET distribution system for donated computers to local community centers where
low-income families will be trained in telecomputing, as a means of earning a
home computer and modem.

%  LET -- Learning-for-Earning Training, providing any community member (but
especially the unemployed) with the means to learn useful skills at home via
telecomputing resources available via DIRECT (see below);

%  DIRECT -- Digital Information Resources for Education and Career Training,
electronically accessible by learners (and/or parents and teachers) for the
planning and the delivery of learning resources to homes and schools via
community telecomputing cooperatives.

% TACT -- Teachers Assisted by Community Telecomputing, assisting teachers to
use community telecomputing to (a) communicate more efficiently and effectively
with parents, (b) integrate student at-home computer learning with in-school
learning, (c) access to information on teaching resources via DIRECT, (d) access
to professional training via distance learning, (f) access to SELF (see below)
to facilitate students' development as self-directed learners.

% SELF -- Self-Exploration of Learning Frameworks, helping learners of all ages
to use DIRECT to explore areas of learning in relation to school curricula or in
response to personal interests and/or career development needs;

%  PPP -- Primary Prevention Programs, a means for assisting local health
service agencies and local police to use telecomputing to maintain healthier and
less violent communities;

%  CDA -- Community Development Activities,, such as online neighborhood
organizations and projects, community planning forums, town meetings, school-
business academies, library outreach, etc;

% TDE -- Time Dollar Exchanges,; "dollars" that may be earned by any member of a
community willing to help others by providing skilled or unskilled services
ranging from babysitting to yardwork and from database development to  computer
trouble-shooting.  Time-Dollar transactions will be arranged for, recorded,
managed, and traded through a community managed Time-Dollar Exchange (reinforced
by both LET and DIRECT, see above).

For further information about LINCT contact:

                              Kenneth Komoski
                          Administrative Director
            LINCT %  Suite 3 \The Hamlet Green\ Hampton Bays, NY 11946
  Voice: (516) 728-9100 \ Fax (516) 728-9228\ email: KOMOSKI@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV
______________________________________________________________________________
From BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU  Tue Nov 15 19:36:52 1994
Received: from mitvma.mit.edu (MITVMA.MIT.EDU [18.92.0.3]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA00167; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:36:52 -0800
Message-Id: <199411160336.TAA00167@virtconf.digex.net>
Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 7465; Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:05:23 EST
Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin BMSLIB@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail
 V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6973; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:05:21 -0500
Date:         Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:05:07 EST
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Information about LINCT's BET program to get business help for
 networks
To: NTIA Forum on Availability and Cost <AVAIL@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>,
        NTIA discussion on Universal Service
 <REDEFUS@VIRTCONF.NTIA.DOC.GOV>



At the suggestion of my associate, Dr. Curtiss Priest, who has been forwarding
to me many insightful messages from members of this list about the development
of the NII and community networks, I'd like to share with you the following
information about an iniative I have been discussing with the Whitehouse
about a way to provide low cost networking for this country
I share this publication in the hope that some of you may give me
some feedback and others interested in encouraging others to support
this initiative.

Thanks, Ken Komoski (email: komoski@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________________
See the companion paper describing LINCT
(Learning and Information Network for Community Telecomputing)

LINCT's Associated Business Communities
LINCT has initiated an outreach program to Long Island
businesses in order to develop "LINCT's Associated Business
Communities (ABCs)."

Some business communities (e.g., telephone, cable, computer
software) have obvious relevance to LINCT's activities, but
LINCT's position is that all businesses can relate
productively to community telecomputing -- if only through
the benefits of low-cost E-mail service. But many, such as
the banking and newspaper communities, see the benefits of
having a community of telecomputing-using customers, who are
more likely to use online banking and online news services.

While ABCs are likely to become an ongoing source of fund-
raising support for special needs and projects,  LINCT's
outreach to ABCs at present is primarily focused on a project
designed to encourage businesses to donate used computers to
low-income families in LINCT communities. This effort is
called BET (Businesses for Equity in Telecomputing ).  Its
rationale:  "It's a low stakes gamble for businesses to bet
on the power of community telecomputing to stimulate and to
develop the learning and earning power of low-income families
in LINCT communities."  This part of LINCT's program simply
is encouraging businesses to place a no cost bet on in the
form of used equipment for which they can get a modest tax
credit (plus good public relations) via a tax-deductible
contribution.  (note:  LINCT has proposed in discussion with
members of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy that it arrange for a Presidential Commendation
Certificate to be presented to every business on Long Island
-- and in other regions where community telecomputing is
developing -- whenever a business donates used computers for
low-income family use. The hope is that LINCT can convince
the White House to stimulate  BET-like programs in other CPB-
funded CWEIS projects.)

Given the fact that there are an estimated 150 million
microcomputers currently in use in America's businesses, and
that, conservatively, about 10 percent of these are being
displaced each year by more powerful machines, LINCT expects
BET to pay off well for low-income families on Long Island,
where there are many high-tech businesses. Initial
discussions with a number of such businesses about BET are
quite encouraging (see appendix for letters).


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT BET CONTACT:

                              Kenneth Komoski
                          Administrative Director
            LINCT %  Suite 3 \The Hamlet Green\ Hampton Bays, NY 11946
  Voice: (516) 728-9100 \ Fax (516) 728-9228\ email: KOMOSKI@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV
______________________________________________________________________________
From mcdonald@cais.com  Tue Nov 15 19:49:23 1994
Received: from cais.cais.com (cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA00725 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:49:22 -0800
Received: from [198.69.141.116] (mcdonald.cais.com [198.69.141.116]) by cais.cais.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA20668; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:41:23 -0500
Message-Id: <199411160041.TAA20668@cais.cais.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:41:38 -0500
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
From: mcdonald@cais.cais.com (Bill McDonald)
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:21] Testing
Cc: don@dcez.com

>Why can't I get anything to post here??????
>
>don@dcez.com

You got this to post!!!!

Bill McDonald      mcdonald@cais.com


From mnasstro@ednet1.osl.or.gov  Tue Nov 15 19:57:30 1994
Received: from ednet1.osl.or.gov (ednet1.osl.or.gov [192.84.215.8]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA01632 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:57:29 -0800
Received: by ednet1.osl.or.gov id AA23385
  (5.67a8/IDA-1.5 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov); Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:18:03 -0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:18:03 -0800
Message-Id: <199411152318.AA23385@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
From: mnasstro@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Mark C. Nasstrom)
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:18] Key Issues of Affordability and Availability
Reply-To: mnasstro@ednet1.osl.or.gov



Testing..Testing....
All Systems Go, on The Edge Of North America.
This is a Test of the Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative.
1521 Hrs PST

--
"Credible Deterrence Starts Here..."   @ ---*> The Lumberyard BBS <*--- @ 
 *> Hardwired On The Edge of North America @ YACHATS 503.547.4605 OREGON <*
*******> Member Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative <*******

From don@dcez.com  Tue Nov 15 20:24:21 1994
Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA05334 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:24:19 -0800
Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP 
	id QQxqev03423; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:16:22 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:12:09 -500 (EST)
From: Don Evans <don@dcez.com>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:23] Re: testing
To: virtconf.ntia.doc.gov!avail@uunet.uu.net
In-Reply-To: <199411151838.NAA19929@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411152045.B13992-0100000@dcez.dcez.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: don@dcez.com

Testing from DCEZ.COM......
From don@dcez.com  Tue Nov 15 20:27:01 1994
Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA05777 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:27:00 -0800
Received: from dcez.dcez.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP 
	id QQxqev03797; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:19:06 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:14:54 -500 (EST)
From: Don Evans <don@dcez.com>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:21] Testing
To: Bill McDonald <cais.cais.com!mcdonald@uunet.uu.net>
cc: virtconf.ntia.doc.gov!avail@uunet.uu.net, dcez.com!don@uunet.uu.net
In-Reply-To: <199411160041.TAA20668@cais.cais.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411152044.C13992-0100000@dcez.dcez.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: don@dcez.com

I am really confused about how this thing is working.  I thought my post 
to avail@virtconf.ntia.doc would be send back to me, and I would see it 
show up in my email box, so how did it get to Bill McDonald?


On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Bill McDonald wrote:

> >Why can't I get anything to post here??????
> >
> >don@dcez.com
> 
> You got this to post!!!!
> 
> Bill McDonald      mcdonald@cais.com
> 
> 
> 
From twigs@sils.umich.edu  Tue Nov 15 20:42:07 1994
Received: from sils.umich.edu (sils.umich.edu [141.211.203.30]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA07878 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:42:06 -0800
Received: by sils.umich.edu (8.6.8/2.0)
	id UAA08504; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:36:05 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:36:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Cynthia S. Terwilliger" <twigs@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:32] Re: Key Issues of Affordability and Availability
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
cc: Multiple recipients of list <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>
In-Reply-To: <199411152318.AA23385@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9411152007.B7150-0100000@sils.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I'l like to hear more from the Oregon edge of the world.  Being from a 
small, rural library in the Upper Penisula of Michigan, with a very small 
tax base...faced with geographical isolation and no clout...how do we get 
our voices heard and assure our partrons equal and universal access to 
these new and wonderful services...we have no local nodes...every hook up 
is a long distance call.  What are you doing over there?
From rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu  Tue Nov 15 21:41:41 1994
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA15056 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:41:40 -0800
Received: from hopper.itc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20568;
          15 Nov 94 18:28 EST
Received: (from rbarry@localhost) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id SAA43939 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:28:16 -0500
From: Rey Barry <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>
Message-Id: <199411152328.SAA43939@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:22] Re: Key Issues of Affordability and Availability
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:28:16 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9411151328.B2445-0100000@dcez.dcez.com> from "Don Evans" at Nov 15, 94 05:52:17 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 382       

> 
> testing avail
> 
> Don Evans
> National Endowment for the Arts
> don@dcez.com
> 

You are coming through.  Shall I say hello to my friend Robert Garfias
for you?



-- 
 
 rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu          Freeware Hall of Fame BBS  
    The only thing Americans       Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 
   have in common is paranoia.       Free BBS - 1st call downloads  
From rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu  Tue Nov 15 21:41:42 1994
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA15062 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:41:42 -0800
Received: from hopper.itc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21186;
          15 Nov 94 18:31 EST
Received: (from rbarry@localhost) by Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id SAA43534 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:31:12 -0500
From: Rey Barry <rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu>
Message-Id: <199411152331.SAA43534@Hopper.itc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:24] Where's the discussion?
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:31:12 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.90.941115105516.20476B-100000@efn.org> from "Public Terminal 4" at Nov 15, 94 05:53:32 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 462       

> 
> 
> Hellooooooo????  Is there a problem from the listserv?  We haven't 
> received any discussion since 14:40 yesterday.  

Penny, we received nothing at all Monday and very little Tuesday here in
Virginia.  How much traffic did you see Monday?

-- 
 
 rbarry@hopper.itc.virginia.edu          Freeware Hall of Fame BBS  
    The only thing Americans       Hayes Optima 288 - 804-293-4710 
   have in common is paranoia.       Free BBS - 1st call downloads  
From hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu  Tue Nov 15 22:12:34 1994
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.7]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA17211 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:12:33 -0800
Received: from fulton.seas.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa01582;
          15 Nov 94 22:04 EST
Received: (from hwh6k@localhost) by fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id WAA57037 for avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:04:37 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:04:37 -0500
From: Henry Huang <hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu>
Message-Id: <199411160304.WAA57037@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU>
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.3 5/22/91)
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:1] NTIA Virtual Conference KeyNote Address

Sorry if much of this stuff has been covered already ... I've been
busy/sick as of late and haven't had othe chance to wade through
all the messages from the various lists ...

On Nov 14,  9:08, NTIA Virtual Conference wrote:
> Through the NII, the Administration is focusing on the ability of
> computer mediated communications to enhance the life and work of
> every American.  The NII is a harbinger of change, both economic
> and political, and holds great promise for the future of America. 

The NII is NOT a harbringer of change ... the Internet WAS -- hence
this conference (run using list server software on a UNIX box, and
sent mostly over Internet links).  This is further reflected in your
next statement:

> Some benefits of the NII include telecommuting, distance learning
> and active life-long education, remote consultations with expert
> medical professionals, as well as new forms of art, entertainment
> and culture.

All of this has been kicked around in one form or another on the
Internet; the idea of videoconferencing (i.e. remote consultations)
dates back at LEAST 20 years to some of the early demos at Xerox
PARC (just saw a fascinating video on this in one of my classes
today).  All of these things CAN already be done in one form or
another; if the NII turns out to be just a higher-bandwidth Internet,
that's fine -- but that doesn't make it a "harbringer of change" in
and of itself.

I think the best way to think about the NII is to frame it in the
scenario of past technologies, in both their successes and failures.
We're sitting here talking about wiring up people's houses for the
Net when an awful lot of people don't even have PHONE service.
Also, merely providing access barely scratches the surface of what's
required -- it's easy for us to fall into the trap of thinking that
ALL people who have this will be instantly fascinated by it, and
somehow have both the skill and motivation required to MASTER the new
techology.

Bringing technology that's both powerful and unusable does no one
any good -- think of VCR programming (or setting the clock on a VCR,
for that matter!  =)  2 *BIG* problems with the Internet right now
are the lack of a consistent, usable interface, and the TOTAL lack
of people at individual sites who are willing to train and educate
new users.  Also, resources for newbies tend to be few, far between,
and hard to find (i.e. you have to KNOW how/where to find the answer
in order to get it -- thus totally defeating the purpose).  USENET
newsgroups such as news.announce.newusers attempt to alleviate the
problem, but they're not the right answer -- the responsibility for
this has to be assumed by the administrators at each site.  Failing
that, the responsibility rests on the rest of us who know to help
educate others, in whatever way we can.

The availability of such user training/education is crucial, because
the consequences of NOT getting it right are insidious, serious --
and inevitable.  Not making technology accessible -- both physically
and mentally -- to those who have not experienced it ultimately affects
societal attitudes toward technology.  When people can't use E-mail,
or can't figure out FTP, or Windows, or even their word processor,
they don't think "oh, I can't use this because the interface SUCKS",
it's usually more like "gee, everybody else is getting this; I must
NOT BE GOOD WITH COMPUTERS or something".  This is really more of a
psychological consequence than anything else, but it's still valid.

We already live in a world of technical "haves" and "have nots" --
both in technology AND in knowledge ("knows" and "knows nots"?)
Understanding why the gap exists and the consequences of such a
societal split is the FIRST step to understanding what needs to be
addressed with the NII.  Ultimately, it may even predict whether
the NII succeeds or fails miserably (remember: a lot of people don't
have PHONES, much less network service.  The question is WHY?)

> This conference is an experiment in a new form of dialog among
> citizens and with their government.  The conference is not a one-
> way, top down approach, it is a conversation.  It holds the
> promise of reworking the compact between citizens and their
> government.

This is true only if both sides are listening to what the other has
to say -- and are ultimately willing to ACT on it.  If not, then
whatever's said here will be for naught.  Although I heartily support
the idea of this conference, my gut suspicion tells me that an awful
lot of this will be for naught, primarily because some of the key
points under examination may ultimately be determined by other factors
than what us users (and voters) think -- be it political, market-
driven, social, whatever.  In particular, although I support the ideal
of free (or cheap -- like a newspaper) public access, I'm somewhat
doubtful as to whether it's practical; hopefully when I have more time
I'll be able to read some of these replies and find out.

-H
From marym@Finesse.COM  Tue Nov 15 22:30:20 1994
Received: from thyme.finesse.com (thyme.finesse.com [140.174.171.1]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA18196 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 22:30:18 -0800
Received: by thyme.finesse.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA01799; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:19:26 +0800
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:19:26 +0800
From: marym@Finesse.COM (Mary Morris)
Message-Id: <9411160319.AA01799@thyme.finesse.com>
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: [AVAIL:34] Re: Testing
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
content-length: 811

Two things to be aware of here. Some listservs don't send a copy
back to you. Secondarily, and relating to availability of service,
someone has done a serious email spam today to aproximatly 950
Bitnet email lists. Since this type of traffic is about 3 times
the email that the Internet handles in a day, many email things are very 
slow.

I am still receiving email so I may not be caught up at this 
point, but here's my discussion/question. 

How do you manage availability when one person can destroy the 
infrastructure so easily? NII may be a vast resource, but it isn't
unlimited.


Mary
 
> I am really confused about how this thing is working.  I thought my post 
> to avail@virtconf.ntia.doc would be send back to me, and I would see it 
> show up in my email box, so how did it get to Bill McDonald?
From silke001@maroon.tc.umn.edu  Tue Nov 15 23:39:50 1994
Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu (root@maroon.tc.umn.edu [128.101.118.21]) by virtconf.digex.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA20697 for <avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov>; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:39:50 -0800
Received: from dialup-4-30.gw.umn.edu by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Tue, 15 Nov 94 22:29:52 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 22:35:14 CST
From: "Chris Silker" <silke001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Message-Id: <90695.silke001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_16
Reply-To: <silke001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
X-POPMail-Charset: English
To: avail@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Info for Don Evans; Privacy conference query

You can't read your own posts unless you send a command to the listserv to 
do so (assuming that this list is set up to do such things at all).  If 
it can, you would send a message to "listserv@virtconf.ntia.doc.gov" 
(without the quotes) - body of the message reads "set avail repro".  
Nothing goes in the subject line.

Is anyone signed onto the Privacy conferences, and if so, have you received 
anything from it yet?

Forgive me if this is a simplistic question, but what are the possibilities 
of providing e-mail accounts to the interested who do not have the 
opportunity for access elsewhere (such as people who don't have phone 
service or can't spring for a private carrier) through the public library 
system?  I have seen messages that indicate they are being sent from public 
libraries.  Is this widespread?  My branch librarian was just exclaiming 
that they recently got on the Net.

C. Silker