cr> 7Feb96 Tidbits


Richard Moore

Date: Mon, 5 Feb
Sender: John Whiting <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Chronicle editorial

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

From:   Larry or Lynn Tunstall, INTERNET:•••@••.•••
TO:     John Whiting, 100707,731
DATE:   05/02/96 18:25

RE:     Chronicle editorial

In the 3 Feb 1996 San Francisco Chronicle, the lead editorial is
headlined "New Telecom Law Will Reshape Industry".  After a rather
wishy-washy summation of the positions of both sides, the editorial
concludes as follows:

  "Yet there remain so many unanswered questions about the ultimate
impact and unforeseen consequences of the law that congressional
leaders are already planning new bills to fine tune it, and perhaps
eliminate some of the more troubling and controversial elements.
  "One section of the new law certain to be challenged is a rule
providing prison sentences and fines for making indecent or porno-
graphic material available on-line.  The prospect of government
censorship of the free-wheeling global Internet looms as a potential
threat to free speech protections of the First Amendment, or at the
very least, an exercise in futility.
  "We hope a follow-up corrections bill will revisit the telcom law
to ensure that, in its revolutionary ardor, Congress does not violate
our most precious freedoms."


Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: cr> 5Feb96 Tidbits

>Sender: •••@••.••• (Patrick M Brennan)
>Subject: Abortion and the Internet
>I'm sorry to seem so dense, but if Rep. Hyde says that he doesn't mean
>to restrict discussion of abortion on-line, then why did he insert
>language into the telecomm bill which, on its face, restricts
>discussion of abortion on-line?  Common sense seems to indicate that
>the best way not to do some thing -- are you ready? -- is not to do
>that thing.  I'd really appreciate a good explanation of this.

Patrick, speaking as a former constituient of Mr <gag, choke> Hyde's, I'll
tell you firstly that he's famous for wanting to please everyone, while
actually pleasing no one but himself.

And, from what I've seen and read, Hyde intends to keep pro-life sites
online, siting religious rather than controversial reasons, and still plans
to kill the pro-choice ones.

I'm so glad I moved.....


Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996
Sender: Martin Janzen <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The Commercial Alternative

Off the Edge <•••@••.•••> writes:
>        A relative sent me a local ISP newspaper advertisement that uses a
>slant I had not seen before. The ad claims the company offers "uncensored"
>total internet access.
>        So will we see more of this form of advertising?

Most certainly.  I've also seen similar ads, both from ISPs offering
"FamilyNet" services (I think that was Prodigy's term), and from those
offering the whole Internet in all its raw, gritty, uncensored glory.

IMHO, this is _exactly_ the right way to deal with the possibility of
having one's children encounter undesirable information on the Internet;
not ill-informed and repressive laws.

>Can a provider
>charge me *more* if they think they can provide me access to anything?
>Should I be paying *less* if I don't care if I can't reach that web site?
>Exactly how much more a month is the uncensored part of the Net worth
>anyway? Please let me know so I can tell if I am being overcharged.

Huh?  You don't need someone else to tell you that!  It's worth exactly
what you're willing to pay for it; no more and no less.

In other words, the value of Internet access (or anything else) is not
some intrinsic, absolute quantity.  It's determined by _your_ evaluation
of how much the service will benefit _you_, relative to what you have to
give up in order to get it.

To me, a non-parent, a "censored" ISP is worth exactly $0.00.  To a
parent who's too busy (or lazy) to supervise their kids while on line,
and/or not technologically sophisticated enough to install, say, Net
Nanny or SurfWatch, it might be worth a premium.

Right-wing summary:  The free market comes through again!
Left-wing summary:   "Let a thousand flowers bloom."

Martin Janzen           •••@••.•••

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (Marty Tennant)
Subject: Telecommunications Industry as Defined by Bill

In light of the fact that the new Telecom Bill is discriminitory towards
small businesses, inasmuch as it does not require interconnection and equal
access to LEC network elements for anyone other than telecommunications
carriers, it does have an interesting Telecommunications Development Fund
for small businesses in the so called "Telecommunications Industry".

(a) PURPOSE OF SECTION- It is the purpose of this section--
(1) to promote access to capital for small businesses in
order to enhance competition in the telecommunications industry;
(2) to stimulate new technology development, and promote
employment and training; and
(3) to support universal service and promote delivery of
telecommunications services to underserved rural and urban areas.

'telecommunications industry' means communications businesses
using regulated or unregulated facilities or services and
includes broadcasting, telecommunications, cable, computer,
data transmission, software, programming, advanced messaging,
and electronics businesses.

It is my understanding this was the pet provision of a minority
representative from New York, and that the primary focus of his efforts was
for minority loans to assist in the purchasing of PCS licenses.  We will see
how this actually pans out.

Note how the "Telecommunications Industry", for purposes of disseminating
funds, includes more than just your garden variety of "Telecommunications

Interesting how a definition of who gets to play the game can be changed to
suit the needs of the moment.

Marty Tennant


 Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland
 Materials may be reposted in their entirety for non-commercial use.