Caught in |
 |
by Al Massey |
"Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction — from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work."
My mailbox, both snail and electronic, is getting so cluttered with Press junk and disinformation that I have a continuous headache these days.
The wars are being fought between the public relations flacks more than developers and programmers. Who or what to believe is the question. High-tech Silicon valley/alley startups are more intent on offering flash and dash in the hopes of selling stock rather than product.
Exciting times these. We have the browser battle with the Netscape Nippers in one corner and the Microsoft Redmond Raiders in another.
Who will win, Java or ActiveX? Neither wants to cooperate with the other and both want full control over your desktop.
Then we have the press its own self buying into the hype, particularly where the Internet is concerned. I have a stack of journals a good two feet high all proudly proclaiming the death of small independent ISPs (Internet Service Providers). The small ISP dying? Hardly!
Ziff Davis leads off by stating that from a high of 1,310 in 1996 the ISP population will steadily decline until the year 2000 when only 60 will be alive. WOW! What insight. I venture a guess that NO ONE can tell me right now today how many ISPs are in operation let alone how many there will be in the year 2000. I do know, however, that my friend Jack Rickard of Boardwatch Magazine has confirmed over 3,200 in their database and he adds at least one each and every day. As Rickard points out, "if ZD does such a poor job of reporting the current number of ISPs, how can they so confidently predict the number in the future?"
In typical fashion these articles predict doom and gloom on the horizon for ISPs, particularly the smaller ones, and quote "knowledgeable sources in the industry" that say the smaller ones will be gobbled up by the giants in due course. I recently attended a conference of these "knowledgeable sources," and I must say that with only ONE exception, I had never heard of any of them. Moreover, most of those attending seemed to have spent a great deal of their working lives in the real estate and automotive businesses. Somewhere, somebody is breeding "knowledgeable sources" at an astonishing rate.
These so-called "knowledgeable sources" are being force-fed by PR flacks from some very large ISPs that want the small ones to just go gently into that good night. "If we tell them they are dying, maybe they will go away and die." Not going to happen, my friends, and you can quote me as a "knowledgeable source."
"Young couple next door have been spending so much time on the `Net they named their twins Mozilla and DotCom."
To continue this thread of Public Relations disinformation let us now visit the rumors and scams. These come to us courtesy of the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) and are disguised as Internet access fees.
First a bit of history. At the dawn of time, around 1983, or so AT&T reached a settlement with the Department of Justice having to do with a long standing series of anti-trust cases. This is commonly referred to as the "consent decree," and addresses the way long distance carriers pay local (RBOC) telephone companies access fees to originate and terminate a long distance call. Originally these fees were to be paid by so called "enhanced service providers," mainly data services like BBS providers, and became known as a modem tax. Well, sir, it didn't take long before the BBS community took up arms and stormed the FCC. The net result was that the commission dropped the project like a hot byte.
Following hot on the heels of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the RBOCs started sending their Pit Bulls, in the form of PR folks, out to the hinterlands to explain that since the local ISP is terminating long distance communications to the local subscriber they should, in theory at least, be paying about 3.5 cents per minute local access fee to the local telephone company under the provisions of the original consent decree. It appears they are hell-bent on trotting this old dog out every few years.
This makes me want to barf, particularly in light of the fact that the FCC is trying to implement the Telecommunications Act of '96 and do away with access fees of all types in the process. The reason the BellHeads are pulling this is quite simple. They want in the ISP 'bidness and can't make any money selling access at $19.95 a month. I have seen business and marketing plans that call for anywhere from $39.95/month to $79.95/month with "painless" billing on your monthly phone statement. So if they can get the locals ISP to raise their rates by charging "access fees" then they would all be "better off." Everyone, that is, except you and me.
This is just another attempt to make the local ISP go away. Oh well, once a monopoly always a monopoly I guess. On a brighter note the FCC has received over 350,000 comments on this proposal and virtually all of them are against levying access fees on the ISPs.
"What's a Telephone? Why that thing you plug into your modem of course."
Where is George Orwell when you need him? As we go running down the info highway and approach the digital crossroads where our freewheeling pop culture starts to collide with the information revolution we find a never-ending source of fine folks whose moral duty it seems is to curb it. Either curb it or ban it.
The word censorship has been used so often and in such contrasting purposes that its true meaning has ceased to exist. There is no consensus these days as to what censorship is, or who the censors are, or even how we as individuals feel about the issue.
We always talk about censors as someone else. Censors are an institution or some third party entity. But, in truth we are all censors of a sort. We all go tilting at windmills of one sort or another but we resist any degree of "formalized" censorship. Just as we get comfortable with one form of censorship, in our library, on TV and in the movies, along comes another new-media technology of some sort and our emotions get involved again.
Parents, politicians and other moral guardians who find it intolerable to put young people in contact with sexually explicit material or urge boycotts of advertisers that sponsor offending TV programs are all practicing censorship of one form or another. Certainly most of us find these activities laudable. But there is inherent danger in any form of censorship. In different ways and for different reasons, all these people are practicing different kinds of censorship. The issue isn't whether censorship ought to exist, but how much, where, and when.
The digital world is a hotbed of debate on this issue thanks in large part to the Communications Decency Act. The unofficial motto of the 'Net, "Information has to be free," constantly raises issues regarding control of ideas and information, particularly in the areas of pornography and hate materials.
The word "censor" comes from Rome and referred to a magistrate whose duties included the overseeing of morals and conduct. Apply that to a modern day WebHead and you will find out fast just how free his information wants to be.
Al Massey is a HAL-PC member.
E-mail me at webmaster@hal-pc.org with any comments you have and tell me what you want to see here.
Back to the Magazine Home Page