[8802] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: VERY serious $ Business now done on Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Hughes)
Sun Dec 5 12:50:29 1993
From: dave@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes)
To: cman@caffeine.io.com (Douglas Barnes)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 10:46:36 -0700 (MST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com (compriv)
In-Reply-To: <199312051540.JAA11502@caffeine.caffeine.io.com> from "Douglas Barnes" at Dec 5, 93 09:40:43 am
Doug Barnes says:
>I think Mr. Cook and Mr. Farber are talking past each other; Mr. Cook's
>examples of commercial use are fairly non-intrusive, and where visible
>masquerade as a 'free service' (e.g., tech support over the net.)
>Mr. Farber is seeing a culture that is violently opposed to overt
>commercial activity on the services front (e.g., pay-per-ftp). It's
>a dying culture, centered in academia, but it is still a powerful
>presence on the net.
>Also, despite the fact that there are some quite serious business
>activites going on, as Mr. Cook points out, Mr. Farber seems to be
>accurately describing a great deal (if not still the majority) of net
>traffic and the communities around it, which are devoted to moving GIFs
>from hither to yon, telnetting to MUDs, playing netrek, doing irc, or
>just generally being silly in the medium of your choice.
Sure, but all this illustrates is that the term "Internet" is being used
differently by the reporter, Philip Elmer-Dewitt - who may not know any
better, by Dave Farber, who does, and by Cook, who is using it correctly in
the context of critiqing the TIME article, in the WIDEST sense of the term
- meaning all the activity which travels by packets over the 'net' between
all the 2 million or so hosts that have IP addresses, and for which
government subsidy, regulation, AUP, or other roles have an impact.
And that is what is wrong with the TIME, and many other contemporary press
references. It EQUATES the 'Internet' only with the academic, research, and
'silliness' you refer to which, and ought to be, SWIFTLY heading to be the
minority of packet activity on the 'net.' And with the vociferous attitudes
expressed by the socialist, anti-business, 'culture' on the net. (I am not
sure why Dave used the term Marxist - unless he very slyly is implying also
the authoritarian traits of the still dominant 'culture' of the OPEN and
PUBLIC activities on the net. The flaming that goes on, often reminds me,
not of Marxism, but of the Salem Witch Trials and Burnings at the Stake
aimed at those net witches - entrepeneur businesspersons.)
There are two problems with this kind of 'mainstream' press coverage.
First, the constant press harping on the silliness - which TIME seems to be
committed to cover now IS fixing a definition of the Internet as only
associated with these non-business activities. (Why do I keep seeing images
of TIME'S editorial offices previously filled with suits, putting on
California sandles, growing beards, and hanging out with the cyberpunks?
Maybe its the inevitable electronic adolescence that organizations have to
go through when they first plunge into the net, before they grow up).
When the movie "War Games" came out, it redefined and devalued for all time
the term 'hacker.' And I think the press is now doing the same thing for
the term "Internet." Which is really going to confuse public policy making
in Washington, Board rooms, and the minds of the American public when the
serious questions and budgets are addressed.
The second problem is that unless the productivity gains for traditional
businesses offered by Internet-type connectivity, the entirely new kinds of
businesses made possible by the net, and the ability of *individuals* to
earn an income via the net *without* having to work for someone else, or
try to start with evermore difficulty a traditional 'small business' - all
are accelerated by even more rapid 'commercialization' of the net, this
sick economy which will NEVER be the industrial-age same again, will
continue to flounder. Telecommunications with its Internet centerpiece is
damn near the only competitive (global) edge the US has got. Which lead
won't last forever. And which holds, in my view, more potential for
creating new wealth for this nation than any other sector. Past national
wealth which, incidently, was the only source of the dollars which has
permitted the non-profit (academic, government) Internet 'culture' to exist
in the first place. And which is NOT guaranteed in the future.
So when the 'mainstream press' dwells on the silliness of the Internet
and doesn't also educate the public on the ECONOMIC realities,
potentialities, trends, and significance of the Internet, the day when
prosperity returns to the US is simply retarded.
BTW, anyone want to argue with Mary Cronin, who, according to Cook's review
of her "Doing Business on the Internet" holds that "...no business - be it
a single self-employed writer or a mid-sized trading company, or a huge
industrial concern - can expect to operate competitively and successfully
without an Internet connection?" And uses the CURRENT business use of the
Internet and the trends they portray as her evidence?
THAT, to me, is *real* NEWS that America ought to know about.
