cr> pr & consensus (3/29/96)


Sender: •••@••.•••


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

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
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!



 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.