[ NNSquad ] Re: FCC Hearing tomorrow (Monday, 25-02-2008)

["Robb Topolski" <robb@funchords.com>]

I'll take that even further, Warren,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:warren@kumari.net]

> Now, seeing as you have explicitly denied your users the right to run
> servers in your TOS, it means that your users aren't allowed to grant
> it to Vuze -- this means that your users are violating your TOS (not
> Vuze), and you should be annoyed with your users, and not Vuze....

It also means that Lariat isn't offering full access to the Internet, but is
offering client-only access to some of the servers and technologies on it.
P2P (which is a server in Brett's definition) is not allowed.  

This reminds me of the "Information Services" companies like CompuServe and
the very early America Online which provided a rudimentary browser, ftp,
gopher, and email.  

Now I have no problem with Brett's packaging and offering that.  Let Brett
offer that set of services for the benefit of some of his customers (it's
probably as close to the whole set of Internet offerings that they can get
right now).  

Is that "the Internet" or is it something less?

I know Brett is very proud of it, and although he has accomplished a lot,
his customers have only as much access to the Internet as most corporate
workers get at their company-owned desks.  So is that "the Internet?"  

A quick apology: I keep talking about Brett as if he is unique.  Many
Wireless ISPs, Satellite Providers, and even Wired ISPs do similar things
for the same or different reasons.  Brett is not alone, he has a lot of
company.  My question remains, is that "the Internet?"  

I say no, Brett says yes.  We see each other as totally wrong-minded and
neither of us has budged an inch since this list started.  Now THAT'S the
Internet!  

Robb

   [ And this seems as good a time as any to close this thread.

        -- Lauren Weinstein
           NNSquad Moderator ]