[12174] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Arizona Lawyers Form Company..."
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Raisch, The Internet Company)
Sun May 8 18:10:24 1994
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 13:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Rob Raisch, The Internet Company" <raisch@internet.com>
Reply-To: "Rob Raisch, The Internet Company" <raisch@internet.com>
To: Larry Walker <walkerl@iscmed.med.ge.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, internauts@mr.med.ge.com
In-Reply-To: <9405081407.AA12603@iscmed.med.ge.com>
On Sun, 8 May 1994, Larry Walker wrote:
> I didn't see anyone else posting about this, so here goes:
>
> Sort of buried in the middle of the Business section of Saturday's (5/7/94)
> New York Times was an article by Peter Lewis titled "Arizona Lawyers Form
> Company for Internet Advertising" (!)
Not really a bad article as these things go. But then again, I am
hardly objective in this instance. <smile>
> Not to advocate
> anything, but I for one will be watching with great fascination as this
> saga unfolds. Canter & Seigel have upped the ante, and I suspect they have
> not a clue what they might be in for at the hands of some
> less-than-self-restrained Netizens...
I would also like to categorically state that neither I or my
company, for which I do indeed speak, advocate any form of "net
terrorism."
Having said that, I would imagine that since C&S have their own
host on the network now (pericles.com), simply turning off SMTP is
probably their next step. All the complaints bounce and they continue
their merry caper.
This would suggest to me that the next most visible target for
mail bombing would be their service provider, and this I think is the tact
that will prove an efficient strategy against C&S' particular brand of
socially unacceptable behavior. I would imagine that Marty Schoffstall
will have something to say about C&S' behavior when PSI's livelihood is
threatened.
I would imagine as this plays out, more and more providers will
include language in their service agreements stating that the signer is
responsible for the costs they incur by their on-line antics or simply
restricting this kind of behavior.
In the end game, C&S will find that --having been barred from all
the available service providers-- they have no other options in purchasing
Internet connectivity.
While there are no clear and easy complete solutions to the
problems that C&S are causing, I'd like to think that 'market.*' will at
least provide an acceptable alternative for those informed and responsible
marketers who understand the cultural requirements of doing business in
any community.
If I were in C&S' position, and interested in continuing to act so
grossly irresponsibly, I would be looking into the costs of peering with
the major network providers -- but then again, that just presents other
targets, doesn't it?
-- </rr> Rob Raisch, The Internet Company
