[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: <eyebeam><blast> Pedantry on numbers

2 responses were received to Tim Jordan’s “Pedantry on numbers” post
and 2 posts were received on the issue of access.

Stephen Linhart <Stephen123@aol.com> writes:

I don't believe that 21 to 33 million number.  I've seen a lot of
methodologies and numbers (some of them shallow fabrications by high
paid marketing firms).  My impression is that 100 million is high but 33
million is significantly low.  I do like the host count method, but the
phone surveys are suspect to me.  Consider the case of TV ratings which
were thought to be relatively sound, methodologically, until the Leno
show started supporting the Letterman show's assertion that the counts
were wrong because they don't include barracks or dormitories.

Also, although it seems right that growth in the number of *users*
slowed in the past 18 months (at least in the US), growth in *usage* has
been steady or accelerating.

Thu, 5 Feb 1998 Tim Jordan <tjordan@myriad.its.unimelb.EDU.AU> wrote:

> USA/Nafta and Europe have 87.5% of all Internet
> hosts. The next best is Japan and SE Asia which have 6.5%.

Lumping US, Canada, Mexico and all of Europe together seems strange to
me. The US has an obvious hegemony on the Internet.  But if you want to
extend that, I would think you should talk about the English speaking
countries (i.e. US, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand...) or else
the rich industrial countries (i.e. US, Canada, Britain, France Germany,
Italy, Japan).

In response to the thread in general, I don't think there's a political
issue to be found in the access of artists to the Internet.  Access of
schools is a political issue.  If artists don't have access it just
means they won't be exploring this particular fringe.  Not a big deal

It seems very obvious that there will be artistic schools on the Web and
that on the whole they won't be national schools.

- Stephen Linhart


Alan Myouka Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com> writes:

Yes, 101 million was and is from NUA. And I tend to believe this, having
watched the growth of the net over the past few years. In the first
place, it's hard to decide what "being on the net" refers to - is
someone who works at a firm and receives intranet email on the net? If
she receives internet email? If she has access to external ftp? And so
forth. But I can't believe that with the growth of ISPs, and the
changing demographics of the net (older people online etc.) that it is
as low a figure as you're stating. It makes no sense to me. I would
imagine around 40 million in the States online and the rest worldwide.
And don't forget that both the US and Canada (and elsewhere, but I have
practical experience here) are pushing to get the entire k12 population



In response to malgosia askanas <ma@panix.com>,

>This discussion of access proceeds as if it was just a question of the
>artist having access to the Net.  Isn't there also, and perhaps more
>importantly, a question of audience?

Giuseppe Iannicelli <liutpran@galactica.it> writes:

Hi everybody, I just entered the list so please excuse me if I write
things someone else already said...

To my point of view, ACCESS is one of the main problems to ANY net
activity, and first of all for artistic activities, because normally if
a commercial activity has a budget, an artist doesn't.

I know that in many countries things are different, but in Italy (not an
avant-garde country talking about the net, but I suppose not one of the
last all over the world) we PAY PER-MINUTE FARES AND DISTANCE FARES to
the telephone company (and an annual, affordable but not cheap,
subscription to a provider...) for accessing the net. This means my (for
example) contacts with the web MUST be contained (I live in the
countryside), I have to watch the clock... This is not a wonderful way
to get in touch with the net.

Web spece (the ground for any artistic activity on the net) is expensive
(you can ask for those geocities or similar, but they have
limitations... and any modification, any upgrade, that should be
continuous, means long FTP sessions... and if you are HOSTED for free
from far-away server where no one knows who you are, your site can be
suddenly cut-off without warning or explanation, as happened to me right
ten days ago...). The problem of telephone lines means you can't think
to develop a small server on your own (it's a paradox but hardware is
the cheaper aspect of such a project) as many people do in the States,
for example.

This all is a big limit.
Every time I discuss with some friend of mine the idea TO DO something
on the web (something wide, permanent, in progress: a project) we have
to face those problems and we give up.

So, I believe the acces IS a problem. A vital problem.

Ciao, best wishes


In response to Jouke Kleerebezem <jouke@xs4all.nl>,

>we should finally scale down our efforts, trim our
>communications, privilege our servers to just those few whose thoughts
>will make a difference to us, reconnect, open and close again, open and

>close, privilege, process, open and close, breathe some intelligence
>into our actions, and see what information looks like from then on.

Paul Rutkovsky <prutkov@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:

Ah yes, "privilege, process, open and close," is just a reflection of
how most major institutions now operate within a global marketplace.  My
fear is that the privilege to make stupid comments on the net will
shrivel up and continue to be further mediated by the intelligent
class.  Should we really be asking for more Gate Keepers?

a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org