🚀 go-pugleaf

Matthew James Gering writes,

>In case you all are wondering whose interest Bob delegates to the
>"public", it is likely that of the spamming operation that employs him.

Wrong, pal. No such entity employs me and none ever has. Do not confuse a
willingness to argue the unpopular side of an issue with engaging in the
behavior being discussed. All you saw on Cyberia was a willingness on my
part to subject some ideas to the scrutiny of antispammers knowledgeable
about the law as it currently exists. And despite your filters, twas one of
my posts on Cyberia that was posted here by a member of that list (you,
perhaps? Gee, I'd better check MY filters <g>) -- mis-identifying me as an
attorney --- that drew me here in the first place. As to the possible
copyright violations involved in cross posting another's post from one list
to another, I won't fuss about it when you do it as long as you don't fuss
about it when I do it. 

And don't worry, I didn't come here to discuss bulk email. I've already
heard (over a year ago) all the opinions of the small ISPs over on the
small ISP list. From what I've seen here so far, I'd expect to find little
to add to the discussion of that topic on this list. I consider myself a
champion of the small ISP (and the small web developer), yet I am apalled
and disappointed at most ISPs' utter lack of understanding of regulatory
and public interest issues. I see too many ISPs who are against the
commercialism of the net except when it comes to their own ability to make
a buck through their commerical ISP business.

I am far more interested in what the law should be and less interested in
what the law is. I have broad interests that transcend any parochial view
point or vested interest. I call 'em like I see 'em and let the chips fall
where they may. I am a citizen of the realm and I am quick to candidly and
unapologetically declare my own point of view which is that of a seasoned
marketing and advertising professional -- both traditional and Internet.

I am interested in looking at the boundary lines between user's rights
issues (which I believe I am one of the few to see coming down the pike)
and the rights of commercial interests on the net. These are areas where
sparks fly and the discussion is at least heated if not always
illuminating. I try to shed some light while gleefully fanning the flames.

Some examples perhaps pertinent to this list: 

The user vs. the operating system manufacturer and software developer (e.g.
hidden, closed or obtuse persistent data warehousing on the user's pc of
installed software registries inaccessible to the typical user but
accessible by other software programs and possible online transmission of
same-- did I mention codifying unilateral shrink wrap in the UCC?). I see
big privacy issues at play here as well as the issue of promise vs.
performance with respect to the role of the computer (and now the Internet)
in empowering the user.

I see privacy issues affecting users when ISPs block wholesale the email
emanating from arbitrarily and capriciously selected domains with no
oversight, no right of appeal, and no recourse by innocent victims of email
blocking. But, again, I do not come here to argue in favor of bulk email or
the rights of marketers per se, merely to discuss the com/priv issues.


I see antitrust and interconnection issues when ISP's gang up to form info
cartels and agree to jointly block email.  (The lawyers on Cyberia had a
field day with that one. <g>)

I see online services like AOL/CIS acting like private online country clubs
with all the discrimination  a country club implies when they are willing
to send out to the net their members'  email but refuse to deliver all of
the incoming mail to their members. I see privacy issues here as well.

I see ISPs as hypocrites when they are willing to act as publishers gladly
blocking email but ready to conveniently hide behind the TCA and take
exemption from being a publisher when they refuse to block any type of
adult content or software piracy. And I see privacy issues aplenty therein
regardless of how the ISPs deal with these matters.

I see privacy issues in the failure to treat ISPs as common carriers. I
fail to see how the same bandwidth can be common carrier one minute and not
common carrier the next despite the fact that it is the exact same
bandwidth carried over the exact same telephone lines strung over the exact
same (public) right of way. I see an inherent inequity in the fact that a
beeper user has more rights to the use and privacy of beeper bandwidth
(like the Internet, another "enhanced telephone service") than an Internet
user has to the rights to Internet bandwidth.

I see due process issues when ISPs act as judge jury and executioner with
respect to punishing and blocking email. (The attorneys disagreed enormously.)

I see ISPs as confused and clueless when they claim that they own the
bandwidth because they buy it from their upstream provider but fail to
extend that same logic and privelege to their own customers (the ultimate
bandwidth consumer) for whom they are merely resellers/middlemen.

Again, I am not one whit interested in how great the Internet used to be,
only mildly interested in what the law is today and far more interested in
what the law should be. I'm look forward to discovering whether this is an
appropriate forum in which to discuss any of this.

Much obliged,



Bob Schmidt
www.provider.com
Author of The Geek's Guide to Internet Business Success
The Definitive Business Blueprint for Internet Designers, Developers,
Programmers, Marketers, Consultants and Service Providers
Published by John Wiley & Sons  ISBN: 0471288381
http://provider.com/geeksguide/