|
Grex > Coop7 > #130: Universal Access to E-Mail ( a report from Rand ) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
srw
|
|
Universal Access to E-Mail ( a report from Rand )
| 
Nov 23 23:05 UTC 1995 |
I received this info via the communet mailing list:
The Rand Corporation had just published a study recommending e-mail
for everybody. It's a hefty piece of work -- a quick scan however
reveals both a chapter on
"CIVIC NETWORKS: SOCIAL BENEFITS OF ON-LINE COMMUNITIES" and an appendix on
"INTERVIEW NOTES FROM CIVIC NETWORKS".
This is the final report of a two-year RAND study. It is designed as
a sourcebook on key social, technical, economic, and international
issues related to providing universal access to e-mail within the
United States.
It can be found on the web at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR650/
It looks interesting to me, and it is related to one of the functions of
Grex, so I am posting it here for your information.
|
| 20 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 1 of 20:
|
Nov 24 07:20 UTC 1995 |
and that report was characterized as being "written in particualrily and
unusually strong language" for a rand corp report.
iin a way it signals the begining of the separation - and the widening
of the gap - between the BFFI humans and the brainy humans. the bffis will
live underground and prey on the surface dwellers in about a hundred years,
a story line that (i think) h.g. wells explored rather chillingly.
|
gregc
|
|
response 2 of 20:
|
Nov 24 11:22 UTC 1995 |
BFFI?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 3 of 20:
|
Nov 24 12:54 UTC 1995 |
I am very glad you posted this, srw. I need to read the report itself before
I comment about the implications. I did hear an interview on NPR (RE: #1 by
tsty) - I think with a Rand spokewoman - that said this was, in fact, the
strongest suggestion ever made by Rand.
|
steve
|
|
response 4 of 20:
|
Nov 25 03:15 UTC 1995 |
I think it will only become increasingly possible for people to
get access to email in the future. Right here in Ann Arbor we'll
have another system, the HVCN before long, and I'm sure others will
follow. And, all the systems will expand their capabilities as time
goes on.
So I don't see the scenerio where there are 'haves' and 'have nots',
at least in terms of cyberspace access. Some people will be starving,
but they'll have email addresses (not that this makes me feel
particurlary good).
|
tsty
|
|
response 5 of 20:
|
Nov 25 13:53 UTC 1995 |
B rute F orce (and) F iretruck I gnorance ...
|
adbarr
|
|
response 6 of 20:
|
Nov 25 15:50 UTC 1995 |
Not another program subsidized by the feds, I hope.
|
steve
|
|
response 7 of 20:
|
Nov 25 19:08 UTC 1995 |
What are you saying in #5, TS?
|
srw
|
|
response 8 of 20:
|
Nov 25 22:49 UTC 1995 |
He is answering the question in #2.
|
steve
|
|
response 9 of 20:
|
Nov 26 00:11 UTC 1995 |
I read #2 once, and that went by. OK. Thanks.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 10 of 20:
|
Nov 27 05:25 UTC 1995 |
Although your question in #7 was not entirely uncalled-for; after all, if he
HAD said that just out of the blue, #7 would DEFINITELY have been in order.
|
ajax
|
|
response 11 of 20:
|
Nov 28 18:04 UTC 1995 |
I heard the NPR interview, and read the summary and technical sections
of the document. It was interesting, but I wasn't impressed with it.
The authors seemed to have an idealized view of e-mail, that it's a
great tool for marginalized groups in America to empower themselves.
While it can do that, I think electronic group discussions are better
handled by other means (conferences, for one!), and it underrates the
less noble uses that the bulk of e-mail would be used for (commercial
use, spams, mail bombs, file transfers).
I also didn't agree with some of their technical assertions. They
say "there are no fundamental technical barriers to providing universal
access to electronic mail services." While that's true in a sense,
there are a tremendous number of perhaps "less than fundamental"
technical barriers that would be encountered. They identify a few, and
suggest solutions to only a few of those. A look at AOL or even Grex
can illustrate a number of rather challenging problems. (Mailing lists
from hell, quotas, mail bombs, harrassment). Universal e-mail would
be like having 100 AOLs on the 'net. No fundamental problems?
People criticize Usenet because it copies everything to thousands of
sites for everyone to read. The Rand vision of e-mail is that all
messages for a particular group are sent to all members, and that this
is how the groups of people will empower themselves. This could
potentially be a list of millions of users (say, the AARP) and every
reply (like "I know you are but what am I?") to the list could spawn
millions more messages to all the members.
Imagine the number of "junk e-mail" (ads etc.) you'd get if everyone
had e-mail. The study says current "smart agents" can sort through your
mailbox to sort/filter the thousands of messages you won't want to read.
Call me old-fashioned, but there's no AI doing this for me at present.
Granted, if I regularly received thousands of new messages, I would
write something to delete most of it, but not everyone will be able to
do that.
It's also a little hard to guess what time-frame they're discussing.
They say e-mail "might substitute for video-on-demand offered by a cable
television provider." I can see it now: "You have one message from
Blockbuster, 5 gigabytes. Download now?" Possible, but not on any
widespread basis for at least 20 years I'd think, and I don't know as
a store-and-forward protocol would make sense for it even then. And
competitive with going to the corner video store? Not for quite a
while, using e-mail.
|
steve
|
|
response 12 of 20:
|
Nov 28 18:32 UTC 1995 |
I'd like to read the report, if anyone knows where I could
obtain a copy.
I think Rob's concerns are right, mostly. This doesn't mean
that universal e-mail shouldn't be done, only that is isn't quite
the simple bump-free ride that the creators of that document seem
to think it is.
(Hey! This was RAND, right? The makers of mh and xmh. Thats
the problem, then: they assume everyone'll have the environment
to run that...)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 13 of 20:
|
Nov 29 03:13 UTC 1995 |
But, guys! Won't glass and better software solve a lot of these horribles?
There will always be a bigger tincan and a better string.
|
ajax
|
|
response 14 of 20:
|
Nov 29 04:44 UTC 1995 |
Bandwidth/disk space increases won't help if there are no
constraints to the user on their use. Rand recommends none.
The comment about sending full movies via e-mail is telling.
Software-wise, the current Internet e-mail model, where a
message sent to a million people is copied to a million places,
would be problem for their paradigm. There are a few problems
like these that won't be easily overcome.
I do like the idea of universal e-mail, much as I wish
everyone had fax machines, or even a roof over their head and
a meal in their stomach. But while I'd support a charitable
system like Grex, which provides some of what Rand is talking
about, I wouldn't support a full-fledged gov't e-mail
entitlement program. Too pricey, ill-defined, not enough
benefit, and a perpetual quagmire of technical and civil
rights problems for the gov't.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 15 of 20:
|
Nov 29 19:33 UTC 1995 |
National policy does not _have_ to be instituted by government. I think we
should think in terms of how this can be effected, and not dwell on the
problems and potential problems. Government can play a role of leadership
without dictating the methods of reaching the goals. It looks like to me that
a lot of traditional (post great society) programs are being turned back
to citizens and much smaller units of government. We asked for it, now what
do we do? Don't forget we are now in a world economy and other governments
will support and subsidize national communications infrastructures.
|
tsty
|
|
response 16 of 20:
|
Dec 8 05:30 UTC 1995 |
anyone think ofthe fly in this ointment?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 17 of 20:
|
Dec 8 11:47 UTC 1995 |
No, but I think I'll get the GrexSwatter out, just in case.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 20:
|
Dec 9 06:04 UTC 1995 |
Or the GrexPaper? Now, why didn't someone think of that name for the
newsletter....
|
remmers
|
|
response 19 of 20:
|
Dec 9 16:27 UTC 1995 |
Well, I can think of one good reason why they didn't. :)
|
gregc
|
|
response 20 of 20:
|
Dec 10 02:17 UTC 1995 |
"Awwwwrrk! Polly want more Grexpaper!" :-)
|