Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!isishq!p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Doug.Thompson From: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: National Computer Net: Request for Information Message-ID: <2273.2457E2F9@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Date: 27 Apr 89 02:18:01 GMT Sender: ufgate@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.25) Organization: FidoNet node 1:221/162.101 - ISIS International , Waterloo ON Lines: 122 > From: scratch@cisunx.UUCP (Steven J Owens) > Date: 21 Apr 89 06:35:51 GMT > Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys > Message-ID: <17649@cisunx.UUCP> > Newsgroups: comp.society.futures > > > Hello out there in Netland. Your help with this subject would be > greatly appreciated. This is for a final paper in a mass communications > class. > > The subject of this paper is computer networks as a valid form of > mass media, and the possibility, practicality, and societal effects, of > a publicly available computer network at minimum costs. > > To get one thing clear, the idea in this paper is to have computer > terminals as prevalent in society as telephones. As an example of what > I am proposing, I'm using the French computer/phone network, Minitel. > Interesting idea, but I wonder if computer "terminal" (device to access remote computer) is what we'll see becoming as common as telephones. I think the tendency is for people to use computers, not terminals. The difference is freedom from dependence on slow and often awkward connection schemes and freedom from dependence on buying computing power from others, as well as availability of local mass storage and CPU power. All that changes the nature of the interaction from "user of big remote computer" to peer-to-peer communication. > Questions: > > 1. Awhile back, on news.admin (or news.sysadmin) somebody posted a > quick summary of how much it would cost of have a UUCP "leaf" in every > home in america (or something along those lines). Does anybody have a > copy of this post, or of the pertinent figures, or is anybody willing to > provide me with similar information? I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or not, and I don't have the numbers I worked out in front of me. But, it sure doesn't cost very much if you assume a computer in the living-room, instead of a terminal and if you assume not leaves, but fully participating systems that can pass on data to others. That distrubutes the load over many, many systems and allows each participant to "carry his weight" by providing an amount of service commensurate with the service consumed. This reduces the need for huge central systems that must be subsidized by all participants. There certainly *are* costs, on the order of 1 tenth of a cent per msg in a newsgroup for instance. But if those costs are spread fairly uniformly and the distinction between service provider and service consumer is blurred (as above) then we are talking very moderate sums. > > 2 The hypothetical computer network in this paper is more like Internet > than Usenet (although bulletin boards would be an important aspect), so > does anybody have any idea what the costs for that kind of network would > be? Look at fidonet. It's already there. It's not in *every* living room, but it is in 6,000 living rooms. The cost per installation is a function of the traffic and the sort of hardware deployed. The cost of the necessary minimum hardware is in the same order of magnitude as the cost of a colour TV. The phone bills incurred are often in the same league as cable TV. Costs are coming down as hardware gets cheaper and modems get faster. The cost today is within the range that most full time workers could afford more easily than an automobile. > > 3. What kind of effects would this network have on society? Some of > the effects can be extrapolated from Minitel, but what about others? > How would advertising be affected? How about the effect on other media? > Advertising would cease to exist. I don't think Minitel is even relevant. The main feature of internet/fidonet style communication is that it's interactive. Unlike TV, where the user is totally passive, conference mail as entertainment involves the user in a two-way process. Attention and participation are implicit in the technology. The effect is to destroy monopolies of communication (see Harold Adams Innis' book "The Bias of Communication", University of Toronto Press, 1952 for a thorough and mind-boggling analysis of the effect of new communications technologies on society. Also see his "Empire and Communication", University of Toronto Press, 1947). > 4. What kind of effect would this network have on the people who use > it? For example, a computer network would allow the user/recipients of > the mass media a GREAT deal more control over what he or she receives, > and would also allow two-way mass communication (since you would no > longer need a tv or radio station to become involved). > Control over what you receive is a funny way to put it, but does hit the nail on the head. If you want something, you go get it. If you don't then you don't. People will go after what they want. What they want is liable to have something to do with the sorts of things which interest them. I think we can expect to see a steady, if slow, increase in seekers of information and a commensurate decrease in consumers of entertainment. Power shifts down the ladder from the centres to the periphery. > 5. Other ideas? Any suggestions would be most welcome. I have most of > the rough structure and ideas I want to work with, but hard data is > welcome, as well as additional ideas. > Do check out Innis. He's got a methodology for attacking this kind of problem which remains state of the art. He was mostly concerned with tracking the impact of writing, papyrus, paper and printing. But the analytic tools developed to get a handle on those technological revolutions in communication media are applicable to some extent to any technological revolution in communication. At the very least you'll enjoy him *immensely*. He's asking exactly the same sort of questions you are, albeit of another age and a somewhat different technology. =Doug -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG