Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 290
Netizens-Digest Friday, March 19 1999 Volume 01 : Number 290
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Of Spindoctors & Fairytale Tellers & Gore for President - Tu
[netz] eRate as a club
[netz] At Least Protect Your Right to Sue
[netz] FCC
[netz] ?.orgs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:31:49 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Re: Of Spindoctors & Fairytale Tellers & Gore for President - Tu
Pardon to Netizens on Upforgrabs
================================
Subject: Re: Of Spindoctors & Fairytale Tellers & Gore for President
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:09:39 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@ICX.NET>
Reply-To: The Up for Grabs Discussion List <UPFORGRABS-L@CDINET.COM>
Organization: Electronic Media Design and Support
To: UPFORGRABS-L@CDINET.COM
References: 1
Here is the problem that all this credit taking has
opened up. So perhaps this is a good time to address
it. With or without one person or even a small group
the conversation and use of the Net by the people
who actually paid the bill needs to be addressed.
I am *still* seeking the answer...
how much access for how long?
Will the bottomline be as it is now...
$15.95 connection via whatever tel/cable/satellite
and no more than approx. $19.95 unlimited connection
to see that universal access is assured to all
Americans.
Give us a figure. We are waiting...
The Net is all the people who now use it and
the people to come. The conversation amongst
citizen-to-citizen paramount to protect.
It is bigger than any cloister'd elitist
of either party, credit takers raising their
hands to get elected to whatever office.
The middle class is taxed to the max,
we simply *cannot* afford anymore. We see
precious little of our 3/4s of total taxes
being sent off to D.C. returning to us
with little or no benefits to our daily living.
We baby boomers know that
despite the fake cooing that we simply
by sheer numbers will not get SS or what
we will receive will be totally unlivable.
So we are helping our children as best we
can get their education, pay our mortgages,
have a vehicle to get to work, and put
food on the table.
We are tired of the elitism of all D.C.
politicians both parties who promise
much but deliver little. Tired of working
until May every year to support a bloated
unresponsive fed. that is full of career
politicians worrying about buying enough
votes to perpetuate their D.C. careers.
We think that this is like throwing our
money and work into a bottomless pit of
corruption with no return on our labors.
Both parties need to understand this.
You cannot stop the conversation. The people
speaking person to person, country to country
to get the message to the unresponsive
central gov'ts. of this world.
So do *not* make the Net a CHASM between
the elitism that those who can afford the
connection to information and oversight.
Control of information and its countries' peoples.
The credit takers fail to realize the sheer
power of the Net. The people will *not* be
amused if they are once again priced out
of the power that this new information age
has created.
The Net is all the people not
one person, not some small elitist group,
not some monopoly/corp./conglomerate but
the innovation and creative use of this fine
new media that goes unfiltered from the spin
doctors and the credit takers.
Stuffing the genie back the bottle will cause
the CHASM of D.C./rich elitism and the people
who now have an unfiltered voice. Oversight.
Think very carefully before overcharging
a perceived group that clearly does not have
the money to pay the bill. Better yet put
the dollars into schools, parents, students,
and community hands. DEcentralize by realigning
the power back to the people that paid for
this new *exciting* media.
Do not stop this conversation. It is bigger
than any one entity it is indeed the entity
of people to people reaching out to one
another.
I am *not* new to the Net. Know its history
full well. I understand its power very
much. It is the positive power to do good
by increasing the *listening* and global
representation of all the people.
I am pleased to see the people embracing the
Net one person at a time, a delight
versus what the Net was first established for
many, many years ago when Al and I were in college.
Something *positive* coming out of the contention
of the Cold War.
So rather than be worried about election or reelection let's
put the emphasis on community, the larger concerns of
all the individuals everywhere. The people grew
the Net. No one person has the right to claim otherwise.
> <<
> It is *very* apparent your partisan support is showing... namely
> Gore for President. I am non-partisan, but a full advocate for
> reasonable,affordable access. I am against whole heartedly anyone
> wishing to kill the global conversation and control information to
> citizens of all countries.
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:38:00 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] eRate as a club
Pardon once again and my last I hope
for the day... this is for those
Netizens not on ed lists...
====================================
Subject: Re: eRate, smeRate- Let's investigate the history, need and
concerns
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:41:23 -0500
From:
"P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Organization: Electronic Media Design and Support
To: ednet@lists.umass.edu
References: 1
The point is biz lead by tech/telcos/cable
monopolies *can* afford to support education...
straight on without the delays of promised tech.
that suffers delay after delay. Pitting locals schools one
against another. The class warfare mentality.
Using education as a club, hostage, and furthering
of short term greed is inexcusable. The simple truth
is corps. can and indeed should donate, extend,
develop tech. and get it to parents, students,
and educators now.
No more backroom deals and hostage taking.
Support technology in the open, think for the
long run. Technology is only as good as the humans'
ability to use it. Invest in people first to use
technology school to school, home to home regardless
of the perceived income level.
Fund this new technology extension out in the open,
not with slimey backroom deals. Put the legislators
on notice to produce the understanding to make
human/tech. interface connection a reality. Make
them learn about technology. We are and have
have for many, many years pre- the joining of
LANs, MANs, WANs tech. literate and ready to
teach this skilling to the next generation.
We must increase our numbers quickly however.
This takes train-the-trainer bucks to educators,
community training non-certified etc.
Make legislators at the local, state, and federal
levels finally aware of this new tool for
good citizen participation.
Legislators must use their leadership and access
to big corps. to understand that technology in the hands of
more ultimately means more long term prosperity
for all. Not less tech. in the hands of far fewer people.
Rather than argue about short term smoke and mirrors
let us take this opportunity to get the message to
our leaders at every level.
I have many articles that show that the paperwork
and lack of expertise and the predictable delays of
getting the moneys back to the districts is fraught
with problems. If local leadership does not invest
in people schooled in the fine art of paperwork
and granting getting then that district suffers.
*The students suffer.*
It is totally ridiculous this predictable tangled
bureaucratic mess. Rather than waste money at the
Fed. level that rarely or timely trickles down.
Get the funding to locals with proper auditing oversight
that is easy to do with the least amount of accountability
and pain but showing standardization leadership.
Now that makes sense. This eRate, smRate is
just not getting it because their are far too many
people involved in the process and not enough people implementing
sustainable standards locally that think to the long term
and not short term greed or perverted motives of lawmakers
to use education, the Net, its citizens for election or
reelection.
Being against yet another bureaucratic tangle does not
mean that I do *not* support ed. tech. any less.
On the contrary.
I am often accused of having no plan but complaining.
This again is a misperception, look above for the focus.
The "plan" is there. Perhaps too simply stated but
action is simple. The will is the lack here of bureaucrats
and politicos of both sides putting their own self interest
ahead of cutting the mire and control freak mentality
and actually implementing without delay.
That is what I decry and continue to... do not
cut our access to universal tech. affordable
everywhere using class/elitest predictable weapons
and education as the club. This is failed policy
of the past and has no place in a changing growing
global understanding.
We are not buying this... not at all.
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:59:17 -0004
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] At Least Protect Your Right to Sue
Could WIPO have a few cohorts in the US legislature? Is a screwy
DNS any different from any other corporate software policy?
kerry
===========
http://www.goingware.com/y2k
Protect Your Right to Sue Over Y2K
> You are probably aware of the Year 2000 Problem, in which a simple
> but widespread software bug is threatening to disrupt computers
> around the world.
>
> You may not be aware that the Congress of the United States is
> working on laws to deprive you of your right to sue those companies
> who brought this problem on us and have refused to fix it. I want
> to tell you what you can do to protect your rights and stop this
> attempt at shielding irresponsible businesses from cleaning up the
> messes they made.
>
[...]
> -- Write or call your representatives and ask them to oppose:
>
> H.R.775 - Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act
> S.461 - Year 2000 Fairness and Responsibility Act
> H.R.192 - Year 2000 Consumer Protection Plan Act of 1999
>
> Tell them also to oppose any new bills that may restrict anyone's
> right to sue for computer failures as a result of poor quality program.
> You can email them too, but please understand they're more likely to
> pay attention to a letter. Take the time to write one!
>
[...]
> I don't expect I'll sue anyone over Y2K. But I am a programmer, and I take
> a great deal of pride in my work. I know that if a problem is found in
> software that I write, and that problem could cause someone real trouble,
> it is my responsibility to fix those problems.
>
> While the problem is an old one, it has been largely ignored by the
> businesses responsible for fixing it until recently. For example,
> when I was an engineer at Apple Computer in 1994, I raised the
> issue on an internal discussion forum, asking what Apple was
> doing to ensure its financial and inventory systems were "Y2K
> compliant", and also that the banks and brokerages that handled
> the companies money and the employees retirement accounts were compliant.
>
> The only response I got was that "all those Y2K people are a bunch of nuts".
>
> Even this year, a friend of mine who programs machine controllers
> said "all my code has the Year 2000 Bug. I'm not going to be working
> there next year."
>
> Just because a big business was too lazy or shortsighted to correct its
> faults doesn't mean it should be allowed to escape its responsibility.
>
[...]
============
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:56:56 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] FCC
Pardon the full forward and cross
posts in advance if you
are on the benton-compolicy list or
on both CYHIS & Netizens
=========================================
o Comments?
=========================================
Subject: A New FCC
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:51:28 -0500
From: Kevin Taglang <kevint@BENTON.ORG>
Reply-To: lists@BENTON.ORG
To: BENTON-COMPOLICY@CDINET.COM
Reorganizing the Federal Communications Commission
For The 21st Century
On March 17, the House Telecommunications Subcommittee held a hearing on
reauthorization of the Federal Communications Committee and the agency's
implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
During the hearing, Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) admitted that Congress
should have reformed the "outdated, out-of- touch" regulatory agency in
the
Telecom Act. Rep. Tauzin said that he intends to reform the agency
through
reauthorization legislation which he expects to be ready this summer. He
added that the FCC has been operating without statutory authorization
since
1991.
Rep Tauzin said he is considering the following changes:
* eliminating or restricting the FCC's authority to review mergers,
* restricting the FCC's ability to place conditions on
company's license and merger approvals,
* privatizing some agency functions and delegating others to
the states
* consolidating the agency's bureau structure,
* requiring elimination of outdated rules during mandatory biennial
regulatory reviews,
* establishing deadlines for review of license and merger
applications, and
* 'sunsetting' FCC rules which would require them to be
periodically reexamined to determine if they continue to
serve the public interest.
Representative John Dingell (D-MI), ranking Democrat on the full
Commerce
Committee, proposed significantly reducing the FCC's funding and
reauthorizing it for only one year in order to provide Congress an
opportunity to review the agency's progress next year. Rep Dingell also
castigated the agency for its delay in implementing the universal
service
program.
FCC Chairman Kennard presented his own idea for reorganizing the
Commission,
A New Federal Communications Commission for the 21st Century. The report
reads, in part:
The imperative to make the transition to fully competitive
communications markets to promote the widest deployment of
communications services is more important today than ever before.
In 1934, electronic communications for most Americans meant
AM radio and a telephone, and sending the occasional Western
Union telegram. Today, it means AM and FM radio, broadcast and
cable TV, wireline and wireless telephones, faxes, pagers,
satellite technology, and the Internet -- services and technologies
that are central to our daily lives. Communications technology is
increasingly defining how Americans individually, and collectively
as a nation, will be competitive into the next century. It is
increasingly defining the potential of every American child.
>>> So the
goal of bringing communications services quickly to all
Americans, without discrimination, at reasonable charges, continues
to be of paramount importance. Competition is the
best way to achieve this goal, while continuing to preserve and
protect universal service and consumer protection goals.<<<
Chairman Kennard presented a vision of a FCC focused on three core
functions: 1) Universal Service, Consumer Protection and Information, 2)
Enforcement and Promotion of Pro-Competition Communications Goals
Domestically and Worldwide, and 3) Spectrum Management. In his statement
before the subcommittee Kennard noted that, "In...a world where old
industry
boundaries are no longer and competition is king, we need a New
FCC....[T]he
traditional boundaries delineating the FCC's current operating bureaus
will
cease to be relevant. Simply, in five years time, the FCC will be
dramatically transformed." He said "Change is inevitable; it is
necessary.
But while we need change, we do not need chaos. We must re-organize the
FCC
in such a way that respects the integrity of our staff and protects the
interests of the American people. And we cannot use this process as a
back-door way to re-open the Telecom Act." Chairman Kennard also
defended
the agency's actions saying delays in universal service reform were due
to
the complexity of the issues and the requirement that state regulators
be
consulted.
The Chairman offered this implementation schedule:
FCC 1999 Proposed Restructuring and Streamlining Timetable
March '99: Submit Reauthorization Testimony/Initial Report to Congress
April/May: Conduct Meetings with Congress and other Stakeholders on
Strategic Plan
May: Transmit Current Restructuring Plan to Commissioners (Enforcement
Bureau and Public Information Bureau)
July: Transmit Current Restructuring Plan to Congress and National
Treasury
Employees Union
Transmit Draft Strategic Plan to Congress, OMB, and Stakeholders
Organize
2000 Biennial Review Team
September: Transmit Final Strategic Plan to Congress, OMB, and
Stakeholders
October: Establish Enforcement Bureau and Public Information Bureau
November: Begin Outreach on 2000 Biennial Review
FY 2000: Begin Implementing Five-Year Strategic Plan
Chairman Kennard concluded is testimony saying:
The changes that we propose are not trivial. The FCC,
in five years, will be unrecognizable to those of us who
know it today. It will be re-made for a new century and
for a rapidly changing industry. But no matter how much
it changes, the FCC will remain committed to promoting
competition, fostering the growth of new technology, and
bringing the opportunities in these wires and web pages to
all Americans.
For more on the Subcommittee hearing, see
The Committee on Commerce Action page.
Thanks to NECA for reporting on the Subcommittee hearing
Find this report at (www.benton.org/Updates)
(c)Benton Foundation, 1999. Redistribution of this email publication --
both
internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
To subscribe to the Benton Communications-Related Headlines,
send email to: listserv@cdinet.com
In the body of the message, type only:
subscribe benton-compolicy YourFirstName YourLastName
To unsubscribe, send email to:
listserv@cdinet.com
In the body of the message, type only:
signoff benton-compolicy
If you have any problems with the service, please direct them to
benton@benton.org
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:36:42 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] ?.orgs?
Question:
Is there any compulsion to "label" .orgs as
in truth in advertising <so to speak> to reveal
their funding source(s) before they are allowed
to qualify for .org domains or renewal of domain
names?
What is the distinction between:
.org, .com, .net
I am wondering especially in regards to PACs, lobbies, etc.
TIA
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
~~ Jargon ~~ Any sufficiently advanced terminology
is indistinguishable from magic words. ;^P ~~ Daily Whale
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #290
******************************
