[11627] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Fwd: Invasions and Other Passtimes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Frezza (via RadioMail))
Tue Apr 12 00:04:51 1994
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 14:59:39 PDT
From: Bill Frezza (via RadioMail) <frezza@radiomail.net>
Cc: kgs@panix.com, gbolles@nwc.com, opfer@radiomail.net,
farber@central.cis.upenn.edu, gnu@toad.com, brandon@ling.lsa.umich.edu,
jswatz@well.sf.ca.us, stahlman@radiomail.net, brodsky@radiomail.net
To: com-priv@psi.com, rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu, pagre@weber.ucsd.edu
Themes and variations from "Ode to a Librarian signing praises of NII for the poor".
----- Forwarded Message
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 14:44:16 PDT
>From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <stahlman@radiomail.net>
Subject: Invasions and Other Passtimes
To: frezza@radiomail.net
Cc: barlow@eff.org, ggilder@mcimail.com
Bill;
Of course you're absolutely correct about the wholesale invasion of
technology business by the "poverty program"! After official Washington
had left new technology more-or-less alone since the microprocessor was
invented, the first digital administration -- Clinton's -- is hellbent on
planting it's boot on the neck of every new technology driven industry.
And to justify and motivate this massive assault, Field Marshall Al Gore
has invented the totally fabricated notion of an "Information
Superhighway." Not only is the metaphor wrong -- there simply is no such
thing. There will be no merger of the cable and telephone industries.
There will be no fiber optic, switched broadband network deployed during
this century -- or, more importantly, during this administration. As you
may know, I have dealt with some of the issues involved in my Wired piece
"The Infobahn is a Big Fat Joke", as well as on CNN and in various other
public forums.
Unfortunately, John Barlow's Wired article, "Jackboots on the Infobahn", is
only half right. The jackboots are real -- the infobahn is not. And,
since John focussed on the Clipper and FBI II privacy issues, he didn't
tell us that there's far more yarn in that sweater -- and it's all of the
same cloth. Ed Andrews piece today in the NYTimes is simply wrong. The
administration/congress isn't confused and contradicting themselves --
Clinton and crew is invading, plain and simple.
All the trips to Silicon Valley, the olive branch of export controls
(sweeping out old cobwebs) and the invitations to "Summit Conferences" are
just the velvet hand that holds the club. The budget bill's spectrum
auction (and outlawing of lotteries), the wiretap bill, Clipper, the
buildup of the Anti-Trust division and every piece of legistlation that
attempts to rewrite the Comm Act of 1934 are all the same -- they're the
club. These are attempts to control markets and assume power over these
new technologies. In the process a new "poverty-program" will be born and
massive opportunities to build the economy will be lost.
EFF is a witting accomplice. No matter how much they really do want to
defend cyberspace "rights", they are being used by official Washington to
manufacture ammunition for the invasion. Why did EFF drop it's campaign
for ISDN? Why did EFF buy into the absurdity of the Info-Hypeway? I was
told by them that it was for "politics." I was told that they knew Gore
was full of it but they had to play along to achieve EFF's goals. OP 2.0
and the efforts to supply Markey and others with "language" for their bills
all play directly into the invaders hands. EFF supplies both the velvet
(with the appearance of "progressive" ideals) and the club (with specific
plans to write a new "social compact"). No wonder Washington loves them.
The Cablecos and Telcos are complicit and, ultimately, probably foolish.
While they aren't spending a nickle on the "Infobahn" except for market
trials (the billions being spent on fiber are the normal plant upgrades
aimed at cost reduction and service inprovements), they are all too happy
to use the "Info-Hypeway" as a convenient excuse for failed mergers and
other foibles. They may believe that the rise of a fictional "InfoBahn"
can be used as a forceful arguement for deregulation but they will lose
that debate. As events demonstrate, they probably already have.
I'm telling you that the game is much larger and more dangerous for the
continued development of entreprenuer-driven technology-based markets than
your missive explicitly addresses. Don't let anyone tell you that this
will all turn out OK or that you are jumping to conclusions. Feel free to
distribute this wherever you think it may help.
Mark Stahlman
Stahlman@radiomail.net
(212)349-2700
