[8295] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: FCC regulation of Internet service providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Fri Nov 12 21:45:23 1993
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 02:44:43 GMT
In-Reply-To: Tony Rutkowski <amr@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
To: amr@cnri.reston.va.us
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Tony I think you are little to ready to interpret my statements as critical
of everyone and everything. The post you are responding to was not intended
to be critical of anyone.... let alone of Bob Pepper.
I was relating my recollection of how he explained the law to me. That
included the assertion that *before the law* access to a service provided
by an enhanced service provider was what counted and if *one* service were
to become difficult or too expensive to use, the *law* said that did not
consitutute a problem or violation because other services would still be
available and presumably affordable. A service was a service was a service
- ie prodigy and compuserve and internet were all services and hence equated
to the same thing in the eyes of the law.
I maintain that if the law equates the three as being somehow equivalent
that we have a rediculous situation. If someone told you there was the
functional equivalent between prodigy and the internet and that you should be satisfied with access to either, I think you would consider THAT assertion
to be ludicrous. Pepper was telling me that this was the position of the
LAW not his personal position. Ludicrous is directed at the law, NOT at
him, I had hoped that was clearer than it may have been.
