I am going to respond to Marilyn with some personal comments, not
speaking as moderator.
Between Marilyn and Richard we have a really big challenge. There are
so many issues (technical, financial, political) caught up in the
question of how to charge for Internet use that I cringe from even the
attempt to list them here. But with all of your help, I think we
can--and should--discuss these issues.
I can say right now that usage-based charging (.0001 penny per byte or
whatever) goes against a very deeply-held tradition on the Internet.
Most people are very attached to the current bandwidth-based pricing.
CPSR has come out in the past as being committed to bandwidth-based
pricing. We have to be careful if we propose something else. We have
to look at the many implications.
Of course, lots of people on this list dial up and are charged for
access time, so the tradition is eroding. And a lot of trustworthy
observers say that bandwidth-based pricing is an anachronism, since so
many people download huge graphics and binaries, with audio and video
emerging to overload the network. (I think Richard would point out
here that the telecom companies can lay fiber and make bandwidth
problems an anachronism.) This may be the historical moment to
propose a new system.
I haven't got the slightest idea how we'll push for the implementation
of a new system. If we can get the heads of all the Baby Bells and
cable TV companies on this list, we have a fighting chance. But it's
always good to know what you want, and state it clearly.
Finally, I don't believe we'll reach consensus on this list. There
are too many variables in the issue, and too many points of view. But
nothing prevents different people from writing different position
papers. Let's do it!
Andy
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sender: •••@••.••• (Allen L Marshall)
Bart Preecs wrote:
>I suggest * FAXing* the press release to various news outlets, and very
>definitely have human beings standing by ready to drop everything they're
>doing to explain to reporters completely untrained in the technology or
>economics of the Internet why we oppose ISP charges.
At the risk of sounding like a compleat neo-Luddite, perhaps snail mailing
is a better way to do it.
I have to admit that I'm partial to email. I would rather deal with a
keyboard and 7-bit ASCII than speak on the phone. I do have to much faith
in email. I'll even write letters to magazines demanding they get an email
address (provided it's not on CI$).
I'm not sure FAX is the right way to go when sending a press
release/official statement. Quite a few politicians are doing it these
days, but I'd prefer to see either express-mailed copies land on an
editor's desk rather than wait for the mail clerk to trudge on up to the
office with a ream of faxes all saying the same thing.
We need a representative. If someone has not already done so, is a hard
copy press release going to be sent to major publications decrying the
"modem tax"?
<mailto:•••@••.•••>
<http://www.netaxs.com/people/cratagus/homepage.html>
<snailto:Allen Marshall, PO Box 14, Beverly, NJ 08010 USA>
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
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.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
