Author Archives: James A Jacobs

An article by Mike Wash, chief technical officer for the Government Printing Office, has two interesting implications for the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).

• ANOTHER VIEW: Government IT is becoming content-centric, by Mike Wash, Government Computer News, May 1, 2006

First, every time Wash mentions the FDLP he uses the past tense (e.g., "GPO’s partners in the Depository Library Program then assumed the responsibility for preserving the printed publications and providing permanent public access to these publications."). Second, every mention of FDLP ties it to print. Wash does not mention that there are digital libraries. He does not mention that there are libraries that have and manage and preserve and provide service for digital content. He essentially provides a vision in which libraries are apparently unaware of the digital age and are completely irrelevant to it. Wash articulates the GPO vision of the FDLP as well as anyone has in the last decade. The GPO vision of the future is one where, because printing is no longer a priority, so "distributing publications is no longer the primary mode." It is a vision where digital content is "managed" and made "available" online, and for "managed" we can read "controlled." FDLP libraries in this vision will have no collections to manage. While the Future Digital System and its monolithic, comprehensive collection is a laudable goal, it is simply bad policy to rely on it and nothing else. To do so puts all public access to all government information at risk of a single-system run by a single government. Any technical problems, or human error, or policy changes, or budgetary constraints, or political decisions could mean the withdrawal, alteration or loss of "availability" of information in an instant. In this vision it is the responsibility of GPO -- to the exclusion of FDLP libraries -- to preserve digital content in perpetuity and make it permanently accessible. Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Congress targets social network sites, By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com, May 10, 2006. A proposed federal law ("Deleting Online Predators Act, or DOPA") would effectively require most schools and libraries to limit access to Web sites that let users create public "Web pages or profiles" and also offer a discussion board, chat room, or e-mail service. The measure would affect Blogger.com, AOL and Yahoo's instant-messaging features. According to an email sent by McCullagh, the legislation would also affect Slashdot.org and blog sites that permit comments. Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

More on Network Neutrality If the big telcom companies get their way and we lose network neutrality, that could affect libraries, library users, and users of digital government information. Two interesting pieces provide some interesting facts and perspective on the issues:

• Net Neutrality, the Kojo Nnamdi Show, WAMU FM (audio) May 9, 2006

Guests include two proponents of network neutrality, Edward W. Felten, a professor at Princeton University, and Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge.

• What the Misguided Have Missed Regarding Network Neutrality, by Craig Fields is Director of Internet Operations for Gun Owners of America, The Conservative Voice, May 09, 2006

Fields says:

The concept of Network Neutrality has unfortunately been misunderstood by many conservatives, libertarians, and other champions of the free market. That's too bad, because the free market essence of the Internet is exactly what would be lost without Network Neutrality.

Continue reading →

Continue Reading →

Another interesting and informative article on the issue of network neutrality says that "Colleges worry that research and distance education could be left behind if broadband companies are allowed to favor certain content." The same can be said for citizen access to government information.

• The Fight for a Toll-Free Internet, By Andrea L. Foster, The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 5, 2006.

The online version requires a subscription, but the ACM has this useful summary:

The hot-button "network neutrality" issue is of critical concern to academic institutions, who fear that broadband providers' preferential treatment of certain types of content could hurt their efforts to deliver education and collaborate on research over the Internet. Colleges are lobbying Congress to require telecom companies to allow any kind of Web content or network applications, including those that rival their own offerings, to pass through their broadband pipes, and not to practice discrimination against certain types of network traffic. Meanwhile, telecom firms have been pushing lawmakers to reject net neutrality provisions, arguing that the profits they stand to reap by exacting a toll from users who want their online content to be prioritized and delivered expeditiously would recoup their costs for upgrading network infrastructure for consumers. There is consensus among academic leaders, consumer groups, and technology companies that splitting the Internet into faster and slower service tiers betrays the underlying principles of openness upon which the Web was founded, and could therefore threaten innovations and consumers' unrestricted access to critical information. At a Senate commerce committee hearing in February, Gary Bachula with the Internet2 consortium cited the high-speed Abilene network and the sophisticated applications it supports as an example of innovations that are being crafted by end users rather than phone or cable companies. "That requires an open-standards-based nondiscriminatory Internet," he argued. An anonymous college lobbyist reports that many college presidents are torn between two camps: Broadband carriers in whose good graces the presidents wish to remain because they often supply campuses with communications services; and distance-learning and research programs that could be seriously degraded by a tiered Internet. (ACM TechNews, May 05, 2006)

Continue reading →

Continue Reading →