[9039] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Dern's post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel P Dern)
Wed Dec 15 00:42:23 1993
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 00:41:19 -0500
From: ddern@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern)
To: com-priv@psi.com, joseph@path.net
>All I can say about your who cares remark is... Spoken like a true
>supermarket writer. You stand on the center of the fence. You are
>friends with all and no one really knows where you stand.
>... My smart -ass tone here is because you answer is so stupid. And
>frankly I don't care if you write - you don't really do ! Were you a
>prof. in a former life.
>
>Darn, I stepped down low for that one.
Joe,
My apologies for taking so long to respond to your cheap shot
ad hominem message. In the words of Ambrose Bierce, "Your letter
is so insolent, indecent, blasphemous and even ungrammatical that
we have sent it back to you unopened."
(The Ambrose Bierce Satanic Reader, Doubleday, 1968, page 81 --
taken slightly out of context, admittedly)
When com-priv was started up several years ago (by Marty Schoffstal
of PSI, as I recall, but it's been a while), the purpose was to
discuss the issues surrounding commercialization and privitization
of the Internet. While the issues have changed over time, the
overall purpose of the dialogue has for the most part stayed true.
It's been a remarkably well-mannered list, all in all, given the
content and the wide range of the participants.
I shot from the hip on my previous message and in retrospect recant
to some extent: the matter of 100Ks or megaKSs is non-trivial. My
apologies and retractions. The salaries as indicated are lower
than many I've seen reported in the press of top execs at companies
losing far more money than ANS is reported to have in previous messages.
And that's at companies laying off Ks and 10Ks of employees. There
ain't no justice. (Or simply TANJ, for fellow Larry Niven readers.)
But I still feel the larger issue stands. The TCP/IP piece -- market --
is already a multi-billion $ scene. The "information highway pie"
will be much much bigger. You have to wonder WHY any organization
tied to Fortune 100s like AT&T, IBM, etc would bother with such
alleged petty change activities. (I'm not saying ANS did or didn't;
that's outside of the scope of this message. I don't know the answer
to this, assuming any truth in the various claims; it's a big time
mystery to me why it would go down this way...)
As for where I stand, "I'm on the side of the Internet." My goal
(includes) reporting about and representing it fairly, positively
and clearly to an increasingly interested, but still often
pre-clue or mis-clued audience. I've got a fair number of opinions,
but it isn't always necessarily appropriate for me to air them.
And out of curiousity, where do you find a "supermarket writer" that
'stands on the center of the fence'? They're usually waay at the
extreme bleeding edge of things. Often of reality, although, as
the late Theodore Sturgeon once noted, often the first/only ones
to tackle some really dangerous or unlikely issues.
DPD, Editor, The Global Network Enquirer :-)
( ... not. Note the smiley after this last one folks...)
~e
