Preserved Topic: considering the existance of the net as a medium...

i started this as a reply, but figured it would clog up that conversation too much, so i let it free....
just a comment on gotta ask. Is the net "over"? ....

a few people were talking about the internet as a medium of communication, and others are talking about 'the net' and the way it currently functions as a viable business model of sorts.

as far as the first definition goes, all i can say is that it is here to stay. it may evolve, but it will stay.
just look at history.
- record players can bee seen as the medium of recorded sound. its still here, but it has evolved to tape, then cd, then maybe to minidisc, and mp3....
- the wireless was said to be killed (video killed the radio star), but it is still around and popular. went from AM to FM, and its still kicking. maybe it will evolve into part of the net (this has already started)
- tv. well, that's gonna stay for quite a while, now, wont it! evolved from b/w to color to hdtv... now you can get a gazillion channels on cable, and a net connection too....
- do i even need to bother commenting about written media?

can anyone see a pattern here? the net provides the widest range of multimedia. all my previous examples, whilst retaining many of their earlier forms, are evolving into a format that is easily transported onto the net.
so the net is evolving to handle increasing forms of media.... or the different forms of media are Metamorphosing into the net...

maybe ive been stating the obvious here, but i still think that its amazing.
when record discs were made, no one wouldve thought that instead of a physical needle running along a groove, one would have a 'laser' reflecting light of an intricately detailed surface...
so where is the internet going?
well, the simple answer is "bigger better faster more".
we're seeing that, for sure! crappy little modems to cablemodems, optic cable connections... but what else? will all mediums eventually become a conglomerate? will the tv, radio, and information network all be streamed into our houses at some unthinkable rate through the same cable? how will information be managed? will there be more of a governing body of the "new internet"? or is the current one too well established for any major restucturing?
...communication - what about that? will email, teleconferencing, postal mail, phone calls all be melded into the one.. uh... thing? through the one account, all interrelated, the one 'number' or 'address' or 'id' or whatever? think about it, right now people can have:
- residential address
- postal address
- email address(es)
- home phone number
- work phone number
- mobile phone number
- pager number
- ICQ number

...could all this be replaced with the one ID?
...and where the hell does one's URL fit into all this? can you see people being restricted by "www" and "dot coms"?
what will the new information structure be?

Buncha, your qustions are right on.
I think that as time passes you'll see that the radio, the tele, magazine and newspaper subscriptions, etc--basically all of the ways that 'outside' information gets to our homes--will converge on into one medium. You already see this with newspapers and magazines. I presently get my New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Times (London), and on-line right now. I never see it in print. Radios are already playing across the 'net. I think that soon even books will be sold across the internet...and not like you see now w/ Amazon, etc. There was an interview the other day on NPR about the future of book publishing. Guy said that he thinks that soon you will be able to browse through books on-line, decide to buy, and pay w/credit card. At that point your 'book' would be sent to the nearest Kinkos to be printed. You could go pick it up in an hour. I think that the guys got a decent point.
Of course the scary part of all this (an it's not just limited to the internet) is the question 'Who owns information.' Presently about 9 companies are responsible for producing over 85% of all information material--books, newspapers, radio and TV broadcasts, magazines, etc. This is, essentially, a monopoy. The media doesn't control what we think...but it does control what we think ABOUT. The key is, that those 9 companies get to frame virtually every single topic of public discourse however they fell. If they want to leave a part of the discussion out, they can. And the result is that everybody else will. It takes a lot of time and a lot of energy--much more than most people have--to learn something that isn't in the popular press....

Is it becomming popular to be a computer junkie?

I'm right with you there buncha.

As it is, almost every piece of electronic equipment I own is connected to my computer. My radio, my keyboard/guitar, my tv/vcr, my dvd player.

Hell, as soon as I can figure out how to patch together a digital neural interface, well.......

Yes, buzzword time, CONVERGENCE! Heh. Felt I had to say that, buzzwords can become true sometimes.

I found it interesting about those 9 firms producing 85% of the content. That's not totally accurate though, what about all this other content online that is *not* produced by them? The free content, created by people because they love doing it? I'd say that they control 85% of the content that PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR. Search for anything that interests you on the net, I'll bet that the best resources are not from one of those big 9, but produced by a small, independent fanatic. Worth thinking about.

Your pal, -doc-

I don't worry about big media giants influencing the mass consciousness. I mean, all this information and commercialization has just led to people becoming more and more skeptical of everything they see and read. Take a television commercial from the 50s and try to use it to sell something today, the concept is laughable.

All this global communication has made it impossible for information to be suppressed (at least as much as it used to be). And despite the fact that much mainstream media is controlled by a relatively small number of corporate entities, there will ALWAYS be reporters asking the tough questions, and casting doubt on all the carefully manipulated press releases. Even when self-interest causes the media to put a certain spin on things, or withhold information entirely, there are always forums where this sort of thing is exposed. For example, listen to "On the media" on public radio. Even if this doesn't reach most people, the people who DO hear it are the first to speak up in political conversations. The truth only comes out when you hear ALL the viewpoints, and global communication has made that easier than ever.

ok, just fueling the fire here...
if all forms of media were in some way shape or form converge into an entity that we will call the 'net', that would be a hell of a lot of information - a hell of a lot more information that there is even on the net now, and there already is a lot up there.
in case you guys havent noticed, this information is organised pretty poorly.
we all have pages of links, we're all disenchanted with search engines to some degree, we all have this niggling feeling deep down when we're searching for something that the laws of probability insist that there is a better site for what we are looking for, but we never find it.
...to tell you the truth, you asylumnites are the best search engine around! never needed it myself, but ive seen you guys come thru with the links time after time... but i digress...
anyway, what im saying is that all this data does not become information until it is sctructured properly. and for a less chaotic structure, we need some sort of 'centre'. and someone to own/modify/govern this centre, and organise the way data is stored, referenced, cross referenced, and prevent its misuse...
which essentially means a governing body over the information. which gives opportunity for content control, and censorship, and propaganda, and denial of free speech, and privacy concerns.... it would mean that 99% of the content people access is controlled by the ONE body, and that aint good.
so where do you people think we are heading in this regard? to prevent any world domination, will the convergence of information be restricted to the inhibiting internet structure that currently exists, or how do you feel it will evolve, and how will problems such as content control be addressed?

Isn't it illegal to create radio waves on the AM/FM radio without registering, paying high fees, and the like?

Couldn't this happen to the net as well. I can see the net closing down. The new modern invention (an upgraded TV) that only allows certain domains in. Say a .AM or .FM domain name. And those who do not pay a grusome fee would not be allowed.

The media mongols can do anything. It may be incredibly lucrative to them, but painful to us, who like to work with the fringe, the up and comers.

I can see this happening. The new "Veiws Box" which has 10,000 channels, which are actually XHTML/XML pages that use high speed Microwave or Cable technology to instantly bring you any of the content that you want (plug in slots for the mouse, keyboard, printer, scanner, extraspeakers, joystick, dvd player all there). Be it shoping, interactive commercials, video games, interactive music listening. And they can bring it into your home for the small cost of $10 per month, see that they are charging upwords $20,000 per month for a listing/channel on their service, and the people who are listed can then get real advirtisement, not banners. They can run full fledged commercials. They will make money, but everyone else will get pushed out the door.

Noone but the big boys will be able to support the huge stalights that provide the high speed connections that the populus demand. And they will not allow other access. The world wide web will die, free and easy discussion will die, monitored by the system at all times to pick up on current trends and gain the needed advirtising information they need.

All that in more awaits the net, and its death.

But I doubt it will happen that way. But it can, if micropayments turn out not to work. If people can not get money back out of the net they can not afford to keep their services running. Yes their may be places to get free services for a while, but people will not know about these sites because the search engines have all gone under. The only way for information to be spread is through word of mouth. The sites that do exist will be like the underground publications that we all love, and somehow remain free.

But the net will change(for the worse), unless we can work on something that will lead to it becoming profitable for the people who provide content. This may seem like a daunting task but it must be done. And it must be worked on soon. If people do not wish to pay for the services that they recieve, they better be prepared to not have the service offered.

...you just got me thinking again, warmage...
these micropayments that doc speaks of, they make sense in a theoretical sense... no problem there, but the internet as we know it is far too primitive for such a device... well, maybe not primitive, jsut not suited - it evolved in an entirely different manner.
so, for these micropayments to work, we WOULD need some newer form of net....
and when this is made, who says that the existing internet would 'die'?
what if its just becomes the "undernet" (wow! underground + internet!), which is like free to air TV, whilst there is the introduction of the "ultranet" (intranet with marketing jargon), more like cable tv.
so, all those loonies who believe in sharing free, uncensored, uncontrolled information would thrive on the undernet, whilst the nikes and macdonalds and packers and murdochs and CBS's and NBC's of the world woudl unite in taking utter control of the ultranet, and providing content which the users want to see because they tell them that it is what they want to see....

Communication itself has been evolving as fast if not faster than the internet. How many new forms of communication have been developed in the last 100 years? If we include computer "sub dialects" such as c, vb, perl, unix, linux, html, ubb, ascii etc and calculate the number of new forms of information transfer, e-mail, instant messages, forums, web sites, tv, cb, phones (portable and stationary), radio, and endless others, we come to grips with the stark realization that we stand on the precipice of a quantum leap in the genre of communication.
Now we all stand dumbfounded as to what we wanted so badly to communicate. Duh. . .

who cares 'what' we want to communicate, its 'how damn fast' we can communicate it, and 'how many' flaming logos we an cram into the communique.

Jeezz what warmage wrote is true. and ther thought of that scares the shits outa me. can you imagine a net like that ?

*shivers* jeez someone gimmie more meds

http://mokushi.net/catgirl
-----'--,-@

Heavy stuff. I can definitely see the *desire* of the big 9 (or whatever) to control the media, how could they *not* want to? The problem from the start with the net has been too much information and not enough organization. I'm dealing with a few new folks lately who have lots of thoughts about this subject, and they may end up having more influence than even they believe. The folks could be the newest media rock stars, these folks are LIBRARIANS. How many "maps" to the world of knowledge can exist, how many can overlap? Literally, there are an *infinite* number of views into any body of information this large, and that's what people will be searching for.

I truly hope we can twist things around so that some of these big bucks get distributed to the folks who create content, otherwise we're doomed. I'm an optimist, I can't see us as doomed, therefore this thing will happen. I'm fascinated by the concept BP raised about the ultranet, internet and undernet. (I'm afriad there already is a thing called an undernet, some kind of IRC thing? Let's pick the killer name and spread this concept like a MEME, heh.) This is the first step towards change, what we're doing right here, the most dangerous thing of all. We're *talking* about the future, making decisions and starting meme-virii. If we can all talk loudly and publically enough, eventually politicians will start parroting our words, you wait and see. (But keep talking! =)

Your pal, -doc-



[This message has been edited by DocOzone (edited 01-31-2001).]

Doc - lets start working to create some imaginary new technology that will hit the press... say... april 1?
"The ULTRANET - it crashes up to 10 times quicker than any other system!"

i'm putting together a great new medium : the unternet. it sucks in every way. misleading buttons, lots of white/on/white text, and hidden buttons that do the real navigation.

just thought i'd put this in this area because it doesn't make sense to be here--much like the unternet.

Hmm, ultranet.com and .org are both taken! I could be up for a nice spoof with some cool media hype, maybe we could get investors in our new technology! Since ULTRANET is taken, we need a bigger better cool name for this imaginary new technical revolution. Any thoughts?

Your pal, -doc-

hmmm... it needs to sound intelligent, yet not actually mean ANYTHING.
(kinda like the "be sharps", but i digress).
starnet, supernet, wondernet, push-upnet, maternitynet... um...
maybe we need a different word to net....
maybe a 'giga-' something.
hmmm... maybe, for this new product, we can promise the intranet, but it genuine 3-D!

...all you have to do is download your own pair of blue and red cardboard glasses...

i know, let's just make it "CORPNET", where we unashamedly admit the fact that the content is dictated by a monoploy.
And, as soon as we get the corporate dollars, we can call it "McCORPNET!"

How about "CORPSeNET", where you can upload your entire psyche every week or so, and if anything happens to you, your virtual self will live on on the net? You'd have to submit yourself to the [very expensive] upload process quite frequently, otherwise we'd get "personality drift" as your new self developed on it's own, away from your mundane existence. (I figure it remian a bit disoriented for the first few weeks, and wouldn't fight so hard when the time came to over-write it with your newest imprint.) After you pass on, your psyche is released into the wonderful world of the CORPSeNET, with Gigabit connections to the more traditional Internet so you can still post to the Asylum or Usenet as you see fit. Could be a winner.

Your pal, -doc-

hmmmm... living on the net.
sorry doc, but we're after something NEW and INNOVATIVE.

...does a thread lose credibility when the topic has a typo?