Compu$erve's Internal Statement to its Forum Sysops
Matthew Gaylor
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 11:00:41 PST
From: [a Compu$erve forum sysop, it withheld upon request]
I just logged on and went to the Sysop Forum. Here's an official statement:
Access to some newsgroups has been suspended indefinitely.
CompuServe has been notified that some newsgroups may violate
applicable laws or regulations.
This matter is under further review.
CompuServe was ordered by the German government to either ban the
access from their list, or to discontinue service to Germany. We have
over 500,000 German users and currently cannot block just one country.
There will be an official announcement later, but CompuServe WILL
fight this manuever and ways around it are being worked on.
This statement has not been released publically. For what I hope are
obvious reasons, please withhold my name as your source for this statement.
But it would seem that Microsoft's idea of providing different content
based on the customer's country on MSN was remarkably prescient...
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
TANSTAAFL
Columbus, OH
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Terence B. Burnett
>Compu$erve's Internal Statement to its Forum Sysops
>
>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 11:00:41 PST
>From: [a Compu$erve forum sysop, it withheld upon request]
>
>I just logged on and went to the Sysop Forum. Here's an official statement:
>
> Access to some newsgroups has been suspended indefinitely.
>
> CompuServe has been notified that some newsgroups may violate
> applicable laws or regulations.
>
> This matter is under further review.
>
> CompuServe was ordered by the German government to either ban the
> access from their list, or to discontinue service to Germany. We have
> over 500,000 German users and currently cannot block just one country.
> There will be an official announcement later, but CompuServe WILL
> fight this manuever and ways around it are being worked on.
>
Germany. Germany has 1000's of sex stores where they sell smut that you cane even buy in the
United states, But it is all taxed. There just upset becuase they are not getting there share of
the smut business...
Mark D. McKean
schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
> And it's censorship, inflicted on Americans by an American company
> sucking up to the German government.
It's not censorship. It would be censorship if Compu$erve blocked the feed
of those groups through its node (since its node is a major feed for many
sites), but just restricting access to those groups by its own members is
not censorship. Compu$erve members who are unhappy with the action are
perfectly free to take their business elsewhere, to a company that is not
blocking access to those groups.
There are other resources Compu$erve does not offer access to; is that
censorship also? I can't access files in AOL's libraries through
Compu$erve; is that censorship? I can't access my university news server
if I'm logged on through Compu$erve's PPP node; is that censorship? My
local bookstore does not carry transcripts of alt.sex.stories; is that
censorship? In all four cases, the answer is no.
Compu$erve's action was not necessarily right. It was a business decision,
perhaps made in haste, but made to protect their interests. And business
decisions by a single non-monopolistic company that affect only what
services that company offers cannot, by any accurate definition, be
considered censorship.
--
Mark D. McKean - m...@ganet.net - ENTP
http://www.lookup.com/Homepages/51405/home.html
"The trick is to get rid of the normal circumstances."
--Lawrence M. Krauss, "The Physics of Star Trek"
Sara aka Perrrfect
<tbu...@apk.net> wrote:
> If anyone has been to Germany they would know that this is strictly
a financial issue for
> Germany. Germany has 1000's of sex stores where they sell smut that you
cane even buy in the
> United states, But it is all taxed. There just upset becuase they are
not getting there share of
> the smut business...
MOst of you folks are seriously missing the point.
It was NOT mostly "smut" or "porno" Usenet groups that were banned. There
were lesbian and gay support groups, joke groups, and much more.
Check out the list. It's a LOT more than alt.binaries.porno
And it's censorship, inflicted on Americans by an American company
sucking up to the German government.
Let me point this out one more time:
Holocaust Denial is a CRIME in Germany. Why did they not ask to have
alt.revisionism, or alt.white-power removed as well?
Sara
--
"Who CARES if Hitler killed six million jews, or sixty million? He
identified the problem facing post-WWI Germany, and took decisive action to protect HIS people."
The Wit and Wisdom [sic] of Les Griswold
Larry W. Virden
According to R. Beavers <rbea...@infinet.com>:
:
: My 2 cents, if compuserve can't identify a user in germany, from one
: somewere else they have a bigger problem than internet news groups.
They never said they could not identify a user in germany. They said they
were not able to block users on the basis of country. That software is
being written at this time.
--
:s Larry W. Virden INET: lvi...@cas.org
:s <URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*>
:s Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
:s be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
R. Beavers
My 2 cents, if compuserve can't identify a user in germany, from one
somewere else they have a bigger problem than internet news groups.
Terence B. Burnett (tbu...@apk.net) wrote:
: free...@bronze.coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) wrote:
: >Compu$erve's Internal Statement to its Forum Sysops
: >
: >Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 11:00:41 PST
: >From: [a Compu$erve forum sysop, it withheld upon request]
: >
: >I just logged on and went to the Sysop Forum. Here's an official statement:
: >
: > Access to some newsgroups has been suspended indefinitely.
: >
: > CompuServe has been notified that some newsgroups may violate
: > applicable laws or regulations.
: >
: > This matter is under further review.
: >
: > CompuServe was ordered by the German government to either ban the
: > access from their list, or to discontinue service to Germany. We have
: > over 500,000 German users and currently cannot block just one country.
: > There will be an official announcement later, but CompuServe WILL
: > fight this manuever and ways around it are being worked on.
: >
: If anyone has been to Germany they would know that this is strictly a financial issue for
: Germany. Germany has 1000's of sex stores where they sell smut that you cane even buy in the
: United states, But it is all taxed. There just upset becuase they are not getting there share of
: the smut business...
--
| Randy Beavers | If you Love, read |
| rbea...@infinet.com | Men are from Mars, |
| 75000...@compuserve.com | Women are from Venus |
| rbea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us | By |
| www.infinet.com/~rbeavers | John Gray |
Charles Tucker
: It's not censorship. It would be censorship if Compu$erve blocked the feed
: of those groups through its node (since its node is a major feed for many
: sites), but just restricting access to those groups by its own members is
: not censorship. Compu$erve members who are unhappy with the action are
: perfectly free to take their business elsewhere, to a company that is not
: blocking access to those groups.
One day, a user can access the newsgroup, the next day, for reason other
than maintenance of the board, they can not. If not censorship, then what
is it?
: There are other resources Compu$erve does not offer access to; is that
: censorship also? I can't access files in AOL's libraries through
: Compu$erve; is that censorship? I can't access my university news server
: if I'm logged on through Compu$erve's PPP node; is that censorship? My
: local bookstore does not carry transcripts of alt.sex.stories; is that
: censorship? In all four cases, the answer is no.
Now you are just being stupid. Are you really that big of an idiot? Okay,
for your drooling amusement, let's pick this apart for the moron.
You can't access AOL libraries because thoes are property of AOL, not
Compuserve. DUH.
You can't access your university news server? Not even through telnet? Or
haven't you tried, cretin?
Your local bookstore doesn't carry transcipts of a LOT of things. They
aren't in the transcript business. Another DUH for the bumble boy.
The point is they DID offer access to the Internet. They proclaim it
loudly. Not the CENSORED Internet. By dropping active newsgroups they
have in action censored them from Celf$serve users.
Matthew Gaylor
Tucker) wrote:
> The point is they DID offer access to the Internet. They proclaim it
> loudly. Not the CENSORED Internet. By dropping active newsgroups they
> have in action censored them from Celf$serve users.
Now that's a good point. By dropping certain newsgroups that are
offensive to the German Government, CompuServe has changed what they
offer, which was uncensored access of the usenet to censored access of
the usenet. This isn't censorship since gov't force is not involved, it's
just a bad business decision on the part of CompuServe (IMHO). It's sad
that they were willing to cave into the demands of the Germans to limit
what their American customers have been paying for.
Charles Tucker
: Now that's a good point. By dropping certain newsgroups that are
: offensive to the German Government, CompuServe has changed what they
: offer, which was uncensored access of the usenet to censored access of
: the usenet. This isn't censorship since gov't force is not involved, it's
: just a bad business decision on the part of CompuServe (IMHO). It's sad
: that they were willing to cave into the demands of the Germans to limit
: what their American customers have been paying for.
Bad business? To cut access to newsgroups before any law is enacted?
Based solely upon one prosecutor in Munich?
Let's take a look at what they were asked to cut. The list of newsgroups
includes at least two MODERATED newsgroups which do not allow binaries.
They do, however, discuss gay issues.
I think we see a hint of where this is leading. It isn't pedophiles that
the Munich prosecutor is objecting to, but gays.
It stops being a defense of free speech on principle for many people,
when you take this issue down to its real, core values.
The German prosecutor wanted to cut off discussions about homesexuality.
Not pedophilia.
So, who wants to flame me for supporting the rights of gays to talk to
one another? C'mon. I know there are at least a few miserable homophobes
out there.
The inclusion of moderated groups points out that the prosecutor a)didn't
really know anything about the list of groups or b)knew, and was trying
to cut out discussions by adults on homosexuality. If it is a, he has no
business trying to block ANYTHING he doesn't understand. If b, then it
shows as a fact that it was a malevolent attempt to stiffle communication
between consenting adults of WORDS alone.
Donald Miller
responsibility begin?
Donald Miller
Mastercat
: > Where does the right to free speech end and personal
: responsibility begin?
I believe the current interpretation from the supreme court is that the
right to free speech ends when it impinges on the constitutional rights
of another person.
Do you have a point or are you just asking questions of a constitutional
nature?
--
Those who dream dare exceed the limits of what has gone before.
Those who dare dream of changing what always was.
Mastercat mas...@infinet.com
Mark D. McKean
> Mark D. McKean (m...@ganet.net) wrote:
> : It's not censorship. It would be censorship if Compu$erve blocked the feed
> : of those groups through its node (since its node is a major feed for many
> : sites), but just restricting access to those groups by its own members is
> : not censorship. Compu$erve members who are unhappy with the action are
> : perfectly free to take their business elsewhere, to a company that is not
> : blocking access to those groups.
>
> One day, a user can access the newsgroup, the next day, for reason other
> than maintenance of the board, they can not. If not censorship, then what
> is it?
If you had read what I wrote instead of what you want to see, you'd know
the answer to this question.
Apparently some people are misunderstanding my intent here. I'm not
defending Compu$erve's decsion; I think it was a stupid move that could
have been handled in other ways. But calling this censorship trivializes
the real censorship that goes on in places where free speech is not
protected.
The only thing that prevents Compu$erve users from accessing those
newsgroups is that they are using Compu$erve for their access. There are
other providers whose access is not similarly restricted.
>
>
> : There are other resources Compu$erve does not offer access to; is that
> : censorship also? I can't access files in AOL's libraries through
> : Compu$erve; is that censorship? I can't access my university news server
> : if I'm logged on through Compu$erve's PPP node; is that censorship? My
> : local bookstore does not carry transcripts of alt.sex.stories; is that
> : censorship? In all four cases, the answer is no.
>
>
> Now you are just being stupid. Are you really that big of an idiot?
No, but apparently you are, since you can't pick up on rhetorical devices
commonly used in debate. I'd name and define the one I used here, but you
wouldn't understand it anyways.
> Okay,
> for your drooling amusement, let's pick this apart for the moron.
For yourself, you mean. Same thing.
>
> You can't access AOL libraries because thoes are property of AOL, not
> Compuserve. DUH.
And those Internet newsgroups being blocked are not the property of
Compu$erve either. Double duh.
>
> You can't access your university news server? Not even through telnet? Or
> haven't you tried, cretin?
If you'd stop to think for a minute instead of using your head as a
paperweight, you'd realize that the reference is to using an outside news
server through Compu$erve's access directly, not indirectly through a
telnet connection.
And only a total imbecile insults people irrelevantly. Or do you simply
enjoy the taste of your feet that much?
>
> Your local bookstore doesn't carry transcipts of a LOT of things. They
> aren't in the transcript business. Another DUH for the bumble boy.
And Compu$erve isn't necessarily in the business of providing unrestricted
newsfeeds. You're simply proving my points here.
>
> The point is they DID offer access to the Internet. They proclaim it
> loudly. Not the CENSORED Internet. By dropping active newsgroups they
> have in action censored them from Celf$serve users.
There is no such thing as an uncensored Internet. No matter where you are,
there will always be sites you cannot access, resources you cannot
download (unless your name is Mitnik). Compu$erve has never promoted its
Internet access as being complete and unrestricted.
BTW, you really ought to have those feet checked out. I think they may be
magnetized to attract to your tonsils.
Mastercat
: the answer to this question.
: Apparently some people are misunderstanding my intent here. I'm not
: defending Compu$erve's decsion; I think it was a stupid move that could
: have been handled in other ways. But calling this censorship trivializes
: the real censorship that goes on in places where free speech is not
: protected.
What IS real censorship? Do we have to wait for that level to start
protesting the actions that lead up to it? Ever heard of the arab parable
of the camel and the tent?
How can protesting these early steps detract from what you call "real
censorship"?
: The only thing that prevents Compu$erve users from accessing those
: newsgroups is that they are using Compu$erve for their access. There are
: other providers whose access is not similarly restricted.
They advertise access to "THE INTERNET". At one time, that was
unrestricted by topic, now it isn't, with no comensurate decrease in
price.
It is similar in priciniple to a food manufacturer decreasing the amount
of food in a package, but still labeling it as the same size package.
Offering less product for fees. In a food manufacturer's case, that is
usually due to higher costs for making the product. In Cserve's case, it
is motivated by a supposed threat from a prosecutor in Munich, not their
own real costs.
: No, but apparently you are, since you can't pick up on rhetorical devices
: commonly used in debate. I'd name and define the one I used here, but you
: wouldn't understand it anyways.
And you fell for his ad hominem attack by getting all unnerved and
clogged your own argument with personal insults. Aren't you calling the
kettle black by stooping to the same level, or are you going to pretend
intellectual superiority motivates you?
Wow, so intelligent you are to be suckered into the oldest debating
strategy created by humanity!
: And those Internet newsgroups being blocked are not the property of
: Compu$erve either. Double duh.
Whether their property or not, they advertise access to the Internet.
They don't advertise that they now censor its acess. They are selling
their candy bar in the same size wrapper, but have reduced the size of
the product in the wrapper.
: If you'd stop to think for a minute instead of using your head as a
: paperweight, you'd realize that the reference is to using an outside news
: server through Compu$erve's access directly, not indirectly through a
: telnet connection.
Did they promise, at any point, to using an outside news server? I don't
think so.
They did promise to offer Internet access to users.
: And only a total imbecile insults people irrelevantly. Or do you simply
: enjoy the taste of your feet that much?
Is that athlete's tongue you are displaying? You responded to him with a
batch of your own insults. Are you trying to play a game of "top this"?
Or prove a point? So far, the only point to be seen is not in your
arguement.
: And Compu$erve isn't necessarily in the business of providing unrestricted
: newsfeeds. You're simply proving my points here.
Then let them advertise the truth of their net access. They did not
announce the move before it happened, and have not altered their
advertising published after the fact.
They did provide access to those groups at one price, now they have
reduced the number of newsgroups and are selling that access at the same
price, under the same advertising.
They did sell unrestricted access, now they don't. But the pricing and
advertising remain the same.
: There is no such thing as an uncensored Internet. No matter where you are,
: there will always be sites you cannot access, resources you cannot
: download (unless your name is Mitnik). Compu$erve has never promoted its
: Internet access as being complete and unrestricted.
Nor is the access they offer today the same as what they offered before
the dropping of 200 newsgroups.
The Internet, by design, is unrestricted, to the point that the various
contributors offer it. Sure, there are sites you can telnet to that you
don't have access to unless provided by the site you are going to. But
Usenet is not a site, it is a fire hose of information sent everywhere at
once.
Cserve offered 200 of those newsgroups that they now don't offer. The
decision to drop them had nothing to do with disk space, relevancy to
their audience, or any other real cost factor. Only a threat by one
prosecutor in Munich.
Even the rationale given doesn't hold up in light of the groups affected.
Supposedly, this was to reduce kiddie porn. If so, then why were
moderated newsgroups included? Moderated newsgroups don't post any
information not approved by the moderator. As these were support forums
for gay and lesbian people, binary images would not have been available
in them.
Despite your protestations, this smells like censorship and
discrimination to me. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation
between consenting adults. Something the UN has tried to eliminate.
Or are you in support of people who would harass gays and lesbians?
Cutting off a flow of information is certainly discrimination against
something.
Mark D. McKean
> IMHO it is censorship. The force being evident as a demand to remove
> your internet service or comply to German Govt. demands.
It may be censorship on the part of the German government, but not on the
part of Compu$erve. If the German goverment did so order Compu$erve, then
we should be railing aginst German censorship, not Compu$erve's. And if
the German government did not so order, then it was not censorship, simply
a very poor business decision.
But you can't have it both ways. Either way, Compu$erve is *not* guilty of
censorship. Of being weak or wimpy or stupid perhaps, but not of
censorship.
--
Mark D. McKean - m...@ganet.net - ENTP
http://www.lookup.com/Homepages/51405/home.html
"How many thieves you know got day jobs?"
--Roz (Sandra Bullock), "Two If By Sea"
Mark D. McKean
wrote:
> What IS real censorship? Do we have to wait for that level to start
> protesting the actions that lead up to it? Ever heard of the arab parable
> of the camel and the tent?
I didn't say we should not protest the action. But since the action we are
protesting is a business action and *not* a governmental oppression,
appealing to freedom of speech doesn't mean a damn. If you want to protest
Compu$erve's action, do it with your wallet.
> How can protesting these early steps detract from what you call "real
> censorship"?
By trivializing the term. By focusing attention on what is really
unimportant compared to the actions of many third-world dictators who
would prevent their people from having any free information access
available at all.
Once again I will tell you, Compu$erve's action was a BUSINESS DECISION.
No one in this country who could get access through Compu$erve is unable
to get it through some other provider. Therefore, their action may
inconvenience someone, but it does not prevent you from getting to those
newsgroups some other way.
> They advertise access to "THE INTERNET". At one time, that was
> unrestricted by topic, now it isn't, with no comensurate decrease in
> price.
And they give access to "the Internet." First of all, they have never
advertised that they give access to the ENTIRE UNCENSORED Internet.
Secondly, newsgroups are not technically part of the Internet; Usenet is a
UUCP network that currently is transferred over some Internet
networks...but it is not properly a part of the Internet.
> It is similar in priciniple to a food manufacturer decreasing the amount
> of food in a package, but still labeling it as the same size package.
> Offering less product for fees. In a food manufacturer's case, that is
> usually due to higher costs for making the product. In Cserve's case, it
> is motivated by a supposed threat from a prosecutor in Munich, not their
> own real costs.
I never said it was a smart decision. You don't see me using Compu$erve
for my newsgroup access, do you? I don't care to read a censored newsfeed
any more than you do. As I said, vote with your wallets. If Compu$erve
loses enough members from this, they will be forced to do something about
it.
> : No, but apparently you are, since you can't pick up on rhetorical devices
> : commonly used in debate. I'd name and define the one I used here, but you
> : wouldn't understand it anyways.
>
> And you fell for his ad hominem attack by getting all unnerved and
> clogged your own argument with personal insults. Aren't you calling the
> kettle black by stooping to the same level, or are you going to pretend
> intellectual superiority motivates you?
>
> Wow, so intelligent you are to be suckered into the oldest debating
> strategy created by humanity!
I never said any intellectual superiority motivated me. And where I come
from, sarcasm is indeed a recognized rhetorical device. So back off.
Before I turn your own pot-kettle argument back on you.
And I seriously doubt that my prior antagonist had any strategy in mind
while making ad hominem attacks. He simply wanted to insult me. Not that I
care, but I can give as good as I get.
> Whether their property or not, they advertise access to the Internet.
> They don't advertise that they now censor its acess. They are selling
> their candy bar in the same size wrapper, but have reduced the size of
> the product in the wrapper.
They never advertised that they did not censor it, either. And they are
not required to change their prices because of it. If you don't like the
fact that the same size wrapper contains less candy, don't buy it. And if
everybody did that, they'd either change it back or go out of business. Or
keep selling to those who don't mind getting less for their money.
> : And Compu$erve isn't necessarily in the business of providing unrestricted
> : newsfeeds. You're simply proving my points here.
>
> Then let them advertise the truth of their net access. They did not
> announce the move before it happened, and have not altered their
> advertising published after the fact.
>
> They did provide access to those groups at one price, now they have
> reduced the number of newsgroups and are selling that access at the same
> price, under the same advertising.
>
> They did sell unrestricted access, now they don't. But the pricing and
> advertising remain the same.
One more time. THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR PRICES OR THEIR
ADVERTISING. They aren't lying; they do not advertise access to any
uncensored Internet. If you don't like it, don't use their service. That
is the only form of protest they have to acknowledge; if it cuts their
profits, they will notice. But they have no obligation to respond to
drivel about "free speech" or "censorship."
> Despite your protestations, this smells like censorship and
> discrimination to me. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation
> between consenting adults. Something the UN has tried to eliminate.
Smell all you want. But there is no law in the United States against what
Compu$erve has done. And, God willing, there never will be. If their
business practices upset you, don't use their services. And encourage
others to do the same. Not with weak drivel about "free speech" and
"censorship." Do it with the truth: that Compu$erve is lying about the
real reasons for the restrictions, that they offer less for the same
price, and that they care more about covering their asses than they do
about free information flow. Those are arguments with tangible referents;
those are arguments that mean something.
> Or are you in support of people who would harass gays and lesbians?
> Cutting off a flow of information is certainly discrimination against
> something.
I do not support anyone who harasses people for something that they did
not choose or for something that should not make a difference to the
general public. I do not support harassment on the basis of gender, race,
religion, ethnic origin, nationality, creed, color, disability, sexual
orientation, height, weight, shoe size, eye color, or whether or not you
can touch the tip of your nose with your tongue.
I am also willing to sign my real name to these messages, which apparently
you are not. Do you stand behind your words the way I stand behind mine?
Steven J. Sobol
: And they give access to "the Internet." First of all, they have never
: advertised that they give access to the ENTIRE UNCENSORED Internet.
: Secondly, newsgroups are not technically part of the Internet; Usenet is a
: UUCP network that currently is transferred over some Internet
: networks...but it is not properly a part of the Internet.
Usenet is not a strictly UUCP network.
That having been said, you're right that it's not technically part of the
Internet. Internet (TCP/IP) and UUCP are *transports* for Usenet news.
: One more time. THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR PRICES OR THEIR
: ADVERTISING. They aren't lying; they do not advertise access to any
: uncensored Internet. If you don't like it, don't use their service. That
: is the only form of protest they have to acknowledge; if it cuts their
: profits, they will notice. But they have no obligation to respond to
: drivel about "free speech" or "censorship."
Right. There are tons of local Internet providers as well as (yuck)
nationwide services.
--
North Shore Technologies Ask me about the Steve Sobol, Principal
1875 East 40th Street I-WAY series of WWW Consulting &
Cleveland, OH 44103-3552 Internet-ready Computer Sales
e-mail: in...@nstc.com personal computers sjs...@nstc.com
david b aaronson
>They most certainly can "tell" you what to do. Let us say that they
>give you service for $ 1.00 / wk (unlimited), your ISP just went out of
>business. As they are the bigest in scale, they can afford to name the
>competition. If you now contend that would be your decision to switch
>you are in error. All of the other members of your provider will have
>made that decision, and your service provider will be out of business.
This is some warped logic here I think. Let's say (following your lead)
I market a new brand of car for $10.00 It's made out of tinfoil, doesn't
have any amenities, but it runs, albeit very very slowly. Does this
mean Ford, Chrysler and GM just went out of business because I offered
a cheaper alternative? Am I 'telling' everyone what to do?
Do you really think if Compuserve made that offer everyone would switch?
If so, then when those lines became horribly crowded with 'everyone' trying
to call in, wouldn't most people switch back to a more expensive service,
if they get better service in return? Via your logic, companies like
BMW, Rolex, and Gucci shouldn't exist.
The situation you describe is a monopoly, something like Amtrak, which
is regulated by the government for that very reason.
Incidentally, is not offering the clari. newsgroups censorship too?
After all, if they were willing to pay for them CServe could offer those
to members too. And what about local domain-specific newsgroups that
aren't available outside a certain area?
-David Aaronson
pe...@mci.newscorp.com
aaro...@cis.ohio-state.edu (david b aaronson) wrote:
>In article <4e97q4$7...@klein.delphi.com> pe...@mci.newscorp.com writes:
>>They most certainly can "tell" you what to do. Let us say that they
>>give you service for $ 1.00 / wk (unlimited), your ISP just went out of
>>business. As compuseerve is the bigest in scale, they can afford to
>>name the competition. If you now contend that it would be your decision
>>to switch you are in error. All of the other members of your provider
>>will have made that decision, and your service provider will be out of
>>business.
>This is some warped logic here, I think. Let's say (following your lead)
>I market a new brand of car for $10.00 It's made out of tinfoil, doesn't
>have any amenities, but it runs, albeit very very slowly. Does this
>mean Ford, Chrysler and GM just went out of business because I offered
>a cheaper alternative?
Well, are we not talking of the "Japanese Invasion?" Being that you are
from a .edu perhaps you are not old enough to remember a $2800 Toyota? They
happened about the time that U.S. prices for a car were flying strait up.
The nice old Ford, American Motors, GM, ... just seem to have decided that
they were much more "dear" than most of the customers for such vehicles.
So as a Chevy Citation went for $ 6,000, a Toyota went for $ 2,800. Within
a year or two there were a lot of Toyotas on the streets! A lot of people
whining about "unfair competition," .... And shortly there after a bailout
of a nearly defunct Chrysler Corp. by them dim-bulb Jimmy Carter, ...
>Am I 'telling' everyone what to do?
You bet. If you start to successfully sell these things within a
very short period there will be a lot of slow aluminum cans lumbering
down the street. Some even with your lable. It is only a government
in my view that can impress such a bane, and not an industry however.
Just wait for the mandated enviro-car. Running down the socialized
(subsidized) highway.
>Do you really think if Compuserve made that offer everyone would switch?
Why, Yes I do. Even you, except perhaps if your using a subsidized .edu.
the subsidization removes any necessity for market dictates. The service
either degenerates to garbage, or takes an incred. $ load to huff and
puff. Then, as your ghastly .edu service is the only one that constitutes
competition, it can name the competition. It is infinitely richer than
Compuserve after all. I unwillingly pay for it in every transaction!
>If so, then when those lines became horribly crowded with 'everyone'
>trying to call in, wouldn't most people switch back to a more expensive
>service, if they get better service in return?
No, there are no longer any more such services. They went out of
business. The demand for bbs software fell to nada, as it did for
some of the associated hardware. The price of these items went through
the clouds, as happens when nobody produces them anymore and they become
specialty items. Start-ups just can't afford to enter the market. A few
will actually get going but it will be very incremental and with a
high failure rate. And, well, state of the art is still the big guy.
And the big guy probably will have built pit falls into getting
bbs hardware and such.
>Via your logic, companies like BMW, Rolex, and Gucci shouldn't exist.
Well, I don't know enough about Rolex or Gucci to be able to say.
But, well, if roads had not been subsidized you are probably correct
about BMW. The market would have probably replaced the automobile
with some other device by now. But, as road costs are subsidies to
Ford, Chrysler, GM, ... the future is put off for a while.
>The situation you describe is a monopoly, something like Amtrak, which
>is regulated by the government for that very reason.
Yes, trains are still with us, again the future delayed. I guess a
little more support for my arguments. It is in my view not a pure
monopoly, as it is too a monopsony. The two counter eachother except
when absolute control is exorcised. And a govt. is the only body capable
of such. I have been told that Amtrack would lose less money if they
issued plane tickets to every rider. The person who asserted such was
Milton Freidman (Sp.?).
>Incidentally, is not offering the clari. newsgroups censorship too?
Let me reword your question to look a little more like the Compuserve
censorship action. Would an order by the German police to not allow
your customers access to clari newsgroups amount to censorship, if the
order were followed?
>After all, if they were willing to pay for them CServe could offer those
>to members too. And what about local domain-specific newsgroups that
>aren't available outside a certain area?
In short, if the police, or a politician (the same really) decide for you,
even if they are not your police, and your actions are to capitulate, then
yes, it is censorship.
>-David Aaronson
-pente
pe...@mci.newscorp.com
>In article <4drp97$9...@klein.delphi.com>, pe...@mci.newscorp.com wrote:
>
>> IMHO it is censorship. The force being evident as a demand to remove
>> your internet service or comply to German Govt. demands.
>It may be censorship on the part of the German government, but not on >the part of Compu$erve. If the German goverment did so order=
Compu$erve, >then we should be railing aginst German censorship, not Compu$erve's. >And if the German government did not so order, =
then it was not >censorship, simply a very poor business decision.
In large measure we agree. We should be smacking the German Govt.
around a bit. The best tools can be found in your pocket and are
said to be legal tender. The trick is figure how to use these to
disadvantage of the German govt. and not the German people. We made
the mistake of populus disadvantage once before.
>But you can't have it both ways. Either way, Compu$erve is *not* guilty >of censorship. Of being weak or wimpy or stupid perhaps, b=
ut not of
>censorship.
Compuserve did restrict access under orders of the German police.
I don't know how this can not be said to be censorship? That the
police didn't pull the plug themselves just speaks of lazyness or
fear of public backlash.
>--
>Mark D. McKean - m...@ganet.net - ENTP
-pente