[12729] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [same old stuff]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanton McCandlish)
Fri May 27 09:10:50 1994
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: bruce@phantom.com (Bruce Fancher)
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 18:19:20 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: frezza@radiomail.net, djw@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com,
alt-politics-datahighway@cs.utexas.edu
In-Reply-To: <9405261706.AA16828@mailhost.phantom.com> from "Bruce Fancher" at May 26, 94 01:06:37 pm
> Whether or not a "fantasy-land" completely free of Government meddling is
> achievable is not the point. Even if you can't eliminate Government
> entirely, it's always better to reduce it than expand it.
This is an extreme generalization. I also believe it to be unsupportable.
I can falsify it easily. Let's take away the power of the supreme court
to rule that a law is unconstitutional. Let's also remove the power of
Congress to impeach. Do you think we'd have a better government then?
Further more, as already said more times that I can count, the current
telco/cable/infotainment market is riddled with monopoly-generating
regulation. Failing to perform corrective surgery, as it were, on such
regulations, some of which are 60 years old, will not improve anything,
only make them worse. I won't go into this again in detail, you've all
seen it, and most of you sending me mail on this have ignored it several
times. So be it. I don't have time to tell you again.
> The OP2.0 calls for a continous redefinition of what "Universal Access"
> it. It also calls for the Government to interfere with private industry
> to ensure thatt the NII is built "based on specific, enforceable
> commitments that the electronic superhighways will meet public goals and
> realize the potential of digital technology."
>
> The only way this can happen is with a permanent bureaucracy (what other
> kind is there?) to make these kinds of decisions.
Your point being? That bureaucracy already exists, and has since around
1934 or so. It's not going away any time soon.
> "The emerging information infrastructure will affect our civilization as
> deeply as did Gutenberg's printing press."
> -OP2.0
>
> It seems to me that the printing press did just fine without a bunch of
> hand-wringers forming a committee to explore its democratic potential.
Just because a technology is as important as another does not mean they
are the same, or can be handled the same way.
When are you going to get it thorough your head that the NII *will* be
regulated, no matter what? EFF didn't invent the idea of regulating the
networking world. We've simply seen it coming, and are trying to have it
regulated our way, and our members' way - a way that yields the broadest
and most open infrastructure, rather than, say, the cableco's way, or the
Moral Majority's way, or whatever. Just accept it. Regualation is
coming. You can see it from miles away. Given that, please show me
anyone advocating that the inevitable regulation be shaped in a way that
is better, and actually getting any kind of results.
> | Secondly, and charitably presuming you can actually do this, why aren't
> | you doing it? Put your money where your mouth is. Start an organization,
> | or better yet for the libertarian/objectivist camp, a corporation, to pull
> | this off. You can't honestly believe that flaming away on usenet and
> | mailing lists will actually change anything whatsoever or make any
> | progress toward your goals. This is all a waste of time, and you know it.
> |
>
> Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. <GRIN>
I'm dead serious. Don't yak at me all day, go DO something. Hell, I'd
probably send your organization 10 bucks or so. I wouldn't have much
faith in your success, but better to have tried and failed, that just shot
the bull on com-priv.
--
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
- Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994
