We can let this proceed, and then refuse to pay 'protection fees' to a would-be
RICO defendant. But this might not bode well for our commercial enterprises as
no doubt many of us/our employers have customers who are also SBC customers
that may then not be unable to do business with us.
This may hurt those of us who wish to abide by the social contract under which
the internet now operates.
If those of us doing web-business with SBC's customers decide to fork over the
money, then its going to come from somewhere, but where? a tithe on all
commerce from SBC customers seems the most progressive tax/surcharge
implementable.
I think a decent plan is to do our best to inform SBC's broadband stakeholders
what is on the line. They may not even all know who they are or that some of
them they may have to pay extra taxes to buy/use things on the internet. Even
google might require a subscription fee. Will SBC customers see twice as many
ads?
Being a bit of a network engineer (both professional and amateur) I am imaging
a captive portal setup only in reverse; not behind our WAPs but in-front of our
webservers. A captive portal that requires SBC customers (identified by IP
address) be presented with a page of who SBC is (how to reach them and key
stock holders), what 'rights' are at stake. Such a page might go on to provide
links to alternate broadband providers that have declared that they will not
charge sites for access by their customers. Then we shall let them vote
East-German style -- with their feet.
Sooner or later someone was bound to try this scheme. No doubt others have
mulled it over, and are eagerly awaiting the outcome. The only way to ensure
that it doesnt become a permanent way of internet live for all of us to make
sure that whomever tries to implement such a scheme looses far more money than
they make. Let us make sure it fails definitively the first time, while the war
is only on one front.
--
Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
Linux: Where do you want to go today?
BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?
Robin-David Hammond KB3IEN
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Rosenstrauch, David wrote:
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:45:14 -0500
From: "Rosenstrauch, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: SBC's CEO: This Man Must Be Stopped
The Biggest Threat to the Internet
By David Coursey
November 3, 2005
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1881338,00.asp
an excerpt:
No, Mr. Whitacre, Google, Yahoo, MSN, Vonage, and the whole rest of
the Internet isn't nuts, you are. Worse, you're the nut who is
running our country's largest telecom provider.
A truly great, great piece!!
------------------------> Joe
I agree that Whitacre is off his rocker to think up a plan
like this. But that aside, I'm not sure I see what the fuss
is actually about. I mean, all this sounds like to me is an
incredibly stupid plan by SBC whose net result will be to
hand all of its broadband customers over to their competitors!
Sounds like John Dvorak agrees.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20051107/tc_zd/164655
DR
==============================================================================
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer:
http://www.csfb.com/legal_terms/disclaimer_external_email.shtml
==============================================================================
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
