Sender: •••@••.••• hi. i have to partialy agree with marilyn on the "leadership" idea. although certainly entitled and encouraged to voice your personal opinions, this mailing is open to everyone's rantings, not just where you rant too. to marilyn, it seems that craig either didn't understand exactly of what project you spoke, or he is nuts. i hope he just didn't understand to what you refered. and if anyone has any press release info, phone #s, press destinations, faxing and phone rep time, and any help to offer for snail mailings to volunteer, please email me. and now for my review of my mail. in "cr> Re: Online PR: consensus" #1, i agree with craig. we aren't expeling anyone unless they cause serious technical problems, like spamming the listserv to death, or jamming mailboxes with spam, or other serious spamming violations. the "Re: consensus | Regulatory CHALLENGE" mail brought out a festering thought. i was very bothered by the official statement written about the fcc/acta problem and again by the draft of a possible press release that was remailed in this letter. these both contain very weak and washed out, and even surrendering parts. i think they stink. they don't really think they voice enough objection to actions that it seems most of us don't like. the request that the fcc "take no action AT THIS TIME" definently make it look like our only objections are that this is a new industry, needing time alone, and that it would be hard to do anyway. although this is true, these are clearly not why we object. our objections stem from direct conflicts with our constitution and a deep resentment of actions which come only from fear of our New World tech. i saw something tonight, i think it was on the cbs or nbc nightly news, which was about von. one new argument is that we should stop ourselves from using this tech because it will put long distance companies out of business. this is nonsense. 1, those who use von (voice over net) are a minority in the net community. 2, von cannot currently be easily used to contact someone who doesn't have the same setup, as this would involve connecting the other net user with another phone line, and then coordinating the call with the non-net user. 3, the quality simply needs work. and 4, even if no one used long distance anymore, only using von, then how will long distance companies die if isps must converse with each other across the world, 24 hours every day each? no way, this is propaganda. i am confused by "So for starters -- and many of you will cringe at this -- any hope of net-culture surviving MUST be based on an effective regulatory role by government. The market-force incentives are simply not present, and in fact those forces push in entirely the wrong directions." i most definently dislike this. no one has yet really established that net-culture is threatened by its status as unregulated. the statements that market forces do not exist, and then that those forces push the wrong way, is unfathomable, and i'm not just picking imaginary nits here. besides, the forces are not clearly having any effect on our culture. true, congress and the pres aren't trying to interfere with net economics, but the fcc is. and as i said in a previous letter, our own "leadership" suggested interference by the fcc in economics. no, the net will not be scrapped for a circuit-based network. the net may be tweaked to allow circuits to be set in some way over the net, but the net works too well to worry about that. and look, ok, i don't know what exactly you're talking about, but not a fragging person is lobbying in dc to get congress to change the net protocals. our government has nothing to do with setting the standards or protocals. we have not been in a corner muttering about price increases, because once again our government has nothing to do with it. i think that all of the facist and control freak power grabs listed in "netizen's Lambda Bulletin 2.05" are unfortunate, and i will not be moving there anytime soon. i have to agree with mr. rosenberg about it being flawed, but for a different reason as well, as i have said before : to whom in the hell are these things supposed to be sent? as to glen's suggestion, look at the last paragraph, and at the following : i object VERY strongly to the usage of anything like "please stay away for now". i gives the impression that we don't feel *that* strongly about this, and that this will be ok later. this is illegal and will *never* be ok. this next letter seems to make alot of sense, so i'd say that i agree. heh heh heh. and finally, i say only this : it doesn't matter what really happened, it just made sense because it presented the opinion that we should try to affect public opinion. my problem with the public opinion idea is that we have no way to implement this. we are given no press, and running ads would be expensive. wait, that's almost it! if anyone who runs a tv or radio station agreed with us, we could get this stuff out as a public service announcement. and we could get into the newspapers by getting attention from a writer. but getting attention from a writer would require a PRESS RELEASE! so let's stop the personal attacks and unnecessary wandering and meandering and start giving some ideas to the mailing, and press release info, phone #s, press destinations, info on faxing and phone rep time, and volunteerings of help for snail mailings to me! bye dicedpupys :x ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
