Karl, > There is much merit in having disjoint registries. Communities of > interest can admit only those who are willing to abide by certain > limitations -- a church might allow its registry system to include > only those who will promise not to allow porn sites. > > I can hear the false wailing of those who will say "this would split > the net". > As ATT moves from wires to content, and as the great american prudery movement (to make carriers and service providers liable for what a subscriber says or depicts) gets up steam, its very likely that this is exactly what will happen. A body will of course have a choice of connections, from ChurchFirst! and NewestWorldArdor to Disco_very_Chanel; communications among co-subscribers will rely on mutual (dis)trust to meet the contract conditions; comm across the lines to other "desmesnes" will naturally be transparent, but carry LD charges (for licensciousness detection): a 'boundary marker' will tag each message packet so that if it goes beyond the original client, it can be easily traced. Since all of this will go on within *corporate agreements, there is no need for messy First Amendment protections and the like. Thus there will be first and foremost .att and .mci -- and the rest, a ragtag and incoherent collection of stalwart .fsp (free-speech preachers, who will insist that no conditions attach to their traffic). But Jean and Jennie Public wont have to worry about whats 'out there' to impact their scruples, because by 2003 no one will know -- or even how to find out -- what all *is out there. By 2008, .fsp will have to find its own fibre or satellite or pay dearly for a few channels of POTS, and lo! domestic tranquility shall have come to cyberspace. (Hmmm, FS Cybertours -- how the outlaws lived! but thats another chapter... its time to go and make some more paper.) kerry
