[12733] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF's view of cyberspace
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanton McCandlish)
Fri May 27 11:28:50 1994
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: don.wills@swc.com (Don Wills)
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:15:07 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, djw@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199405270057.UAA29970@eff.org> from "Don Wills" at May 26, 94 07:57:42 pm
Yes you are wrong. I'm not sure why I even bother, since this has already be
said over and over and over:
EFF is interested in having the regulated monopoly common carriers deal
with the universal access issues. It simply doesn't apply to things like
NetCom or DigEx or World or Delphi or Joe's BBS. Just read the docs
you've already been pointed to a dozen times. One of the main focuses of
OP is ensuring a competitive market, for once. One where *anyone* can
provide content, including Karl, BBSs, your grandmother, whoever, however
they like. Nothing in our aims has anything to do with adding any kind of
regulatory burden to those that aren't govt-propped monopolists, though
we'd like to see the common carriage principle of access/conduit-provider-not-
liable-for-content extended to all.
An NII run by no one by monopolists is the last thing EFF would want, and
is the precise opposite of what we are working for.
>
> Karl Denninger writes:
>
> > Does the EFF, now or in the future, support, lobby, act
> > towards legislation or advise legislators in any fashion
> > that the following should occur:
>
> > 1) Internet providers should, in any way, shape or form, perform
> > cost-shifting under government mandate to provide a subsidy
> > to libraries.
> >
> > [deleted]
>
> Stanton replies:
>
> > I don't do yes or no questions, and I'm not obligated to reply to
> > everything that passes thru my mbox.
>
> Light bulb on!
>
> I've figured out what our (EFF and the rest of us) problem is:
I don't think so.
> WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.
That part is right at least ^^^
> EFF seems to be talking about the NII of the future as if it isn't
> connected to the Internet of the present. I think EFF is talking about a
> switched ATM-like network that has no need for folks like MCSNET, DELPHI,
> NETCOM, etc. Karl, I don't think you even exist in EFF's cyberspace of the
> future. The common carriers would provide everything one needs including
> data storage (email reception, USENET and the video rental library) - AND
> IT WOULD ALL BE REGULATED LIKE THE TELCOS ARE REGULATED TODAY. (Except that
> long distance would have to be re-regulated).
>
> Stanton, please tell me I'm wrong and if so, where do you see today's
> TCP/IP providers fitting into your (and presumably Al Gore's) NII.
See above. I can't speak for Gore.
--
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
