From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 11:23:37 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from jamie.essential.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFD321B0D for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:23:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (IDENT:jl@jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by jamie.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21292 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:35:44 -0500 Sender: jl@jamie.essential.org Message-ID: <385E5AE0.37F0071C@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:35:44 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Random-bits] West Competitor Wins Fees in Suit Over Copyright This is a nice victory for Alan Sugarman, the owner of Hyperlaw, the small NY CD publisher that won a huge case against West Publishing, regarding ownership of legal opinions. Jamie http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A11907-1999Dec17.html West Competitor Wins Fees in Suit Over Copyright Mark Hamblett New York Law Journal December 20, 1999 Saying West Publishing Co.'s conduct in defending itself on a copyright case brought by competitor Hyperlaw Inc. was "frivolous," a Southern District judge has ordered the legal publisher to pay its competitor $813,724 in attorneys' fees. Judge John S. Martin Jr., sharply criticized West for "asserting a copyright in a work consisting predominantly of the work of government agencies": the federal courts. He said in Hyperlaw Inc. v. West Publishing Co., 94 Civ. 589, that Hyperlaw earned the fees because their lawsuit "vindicated the public interest in the wide dissemination of federal judicial opinions." [snip] The controversy effectively ended in November 1998, when the Second Circuit, by a 2-1 vote margin, upheld a verdict in Hyperlaw's favor. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the only issue that remained was Hyperlaw's request for attorneys' fees. West argued it was inappropriate to award fees, in part, because Judge Robert W. Sweet's dissent on the Second Circuit's opinion showed there was a non-frivolous basis for their claims. Judge Martin disagreed. "The court would be sympathetic to West's argument had West forthrightly recognized that there was an open question concerning its right to assert copyright protection in court opinions and cooperated with Hyperlaw's efforts to obtain judicial resolution of that question," he said. "The record in this case demonstrates, however, that West used every effort to avoid an adjudication of its rights and to make it difficult for Hyperlaw to determine what portions of the reported opinions were in the public domain and could be freely copied." GOVERNMENT WORK Judge Martin noted that §403 of the Copyright Act prohibits the assertion of copyright in a work consisting predominantly of federal government works unless the copyright notice identifies the portions that are not subject to copyright. "West's conduct in this regard was the exact type of conduct which Section 403 was designed to prohibit," he said. "West's copyright notices failed to delineate that portion of the work as to which copyright protection was claimed and thereby discouraged dissemination of the work." This behavior, he said, was "exacerbated by the fact that every time Hyperlaw attempted to engage in a dialogue with West to determine which elements in a judicial opinion West considered protectable, West rejected the effort and responded with platitudes that gave Hyperlaw no guidance as to where West claimed its copyright protection began or ended." And when Hyperlaw and Matthew Bender were forced to sue to discover which parts of the judicial opinions were in the public domain, he said, "West again strove mightily to prevent a judicial resolution of the question by arguing that the controversy was not justiciable." "Thus, while the specific arguments that West ultimately advanced may not have been asserted in bad faith, i.e., were not known to be frivolous, its conduct of the litigation was." COUNSEL'S TIME Judge Martin also turned aside West's argument that it should not be forced to pay the attorneys' fees to Hyperlaw's general counsel, Alan Sugarman. Saying Mr. Sugarman did "a significant amount" of work on the litigation, Judge Martin said "there is no reason to punish Hyperlaw for choosing to have its general counsel do some of the work on this case." "Mr. Sugarman's time was an asset the company could have used in other ways had he not been involved in this litigation," he said. "Mr. Sugarman maintained an active legal practice during the course of this litigation and charged his other clients $250 per hour. They apparently found this a reasonable rate for an attorney of his skill and experience, and so do I." Mr. Sugarman, Paul J. Ruskin and Carl Hartmann represented Hyperlaw. James F. Rittinger, of Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, represented West, which is headquartered in Eagan, Minn., and is now part of The Thompson Corporation. -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 20 13:44:11 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A65721B97; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:44:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18927; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:44:13 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <385E7BD3.93CEE37B@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:56:19 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecommerce , Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] White Memorandum on Electronic Government THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release December 17, 1999 December 17, 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT: Electronic Government My Administration has put a wealth of information online. However, when it comes to most Federal services, it can still take a paper form and weeks of processing for something as simple as a change of address. While Government agencies have created "one-stop-shopping" access to information on their agency web sites, these efforts have not uniformally been as helpful as they could be to the average citizen, who first has to know which agency provides the service he or she needs. There has not been sufficient effort to provide Government information by category of information and service -- rather than by agency -- in a way that meets people's needs. Moreover, as public awareness and Internet usage increase, the demand for online Government interaction and simplified, standardized ways to access Government information and services becomes increasingly important. At the same time, the public must have confidence that their online communications with the Government are secure and their privacy protected. Therefore, to help our citizens gain one-stop access to existing Government information and services, and to provide better, more efficient, Government services and increased Government accountability to its citizens, I hereby direct the officials in this memorandum, in conjunction with the private sector as appropriate, to take the following actions: 1. The Administrator of General Services, in coordination with the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, the Chief Information Officers' Council, the Government Information Technology Services Board, and other appropriate agencies shall promote access to Government information organized not by agency, but by the type of service or information that people may be seeking; the data should be identified and organized in a way that makes it easier for the public to find the information it seeks. 2. The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the maximum extent possible, make available online, by December 2000, the forms needed for the top 500 Government services used by the public. Under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, where appropriate, by October 2003, transactions with the Federal Government should be available online for online processing of services. To achieve this goal, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall oversee agency development of responsible strategies to make transactions available online. 3. The heads of agencies shall promote the use of electronic commerce, where appropriate, for faster, cheaper ordering on Federal procurements that will result in savings to the taxpayer. 4. The heads of agencies shall continue to build good privacy practices into their web sites by posting privacy policies as directed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and by adopting and implementing information policies to protect children's information on web sites that are directed at children. 5. The head of each agency shall permit greater access to its officials by creating a public electronic mail address through which citizens can contact the agency with questions, comments, or concerns. The heads of each agency shall also provide disability access on Federal web sites. 6. The Director of the National Science Foundation, working with appropriate Federal agencies, shall conduct a 1-year study examining the feasibility of online voting. 7. The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture, the Commissioner of Social Security, and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, working closely with other Federal agencies that provide benefit assistance to citizens, shall make a broad range of benefits and services available though private and secure electronic use of the Internet. 8. The Administrator of General Services, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Government Information Technology Services Board, the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, and other appropriate agencies and organizations, shall assist agencies in the development of private, secure, and effective communication across agencies and with the public, through the use of public key technology. In light of this goal, agencies are encouraged to issue, in coordination with the General Services Administration, a Government-wide minimum of 100,000 digital signature certificates by December 2000. 9. The heads of agencies shall develop a strategy for upgrading their respective agency's capacity for using the Internet to become more open, efficient, and responsive, and to more effectively carry out the agency's mission. At a minimum, this strategy should involve: (a) expanded training of Federal employees, including employees with policy and senior management responsibility; (b) identification and adoption of "best practices" implemented by leading public and private sector organizations; (c) recognition for Federal employees who suggest new and innovative agency applications of the Internet; (d) partnerships with the research community for experimentation with advanced applications; and (e) mechanisms for collecting input from the agency's stakeholders regarding agency use of the Internet. 10. Items 1-8 of this memorandum and my July 1, 1997, and November 30, 1998, memoranda shall be conducted subject to the availability of appropriations and consistent with agencies' priorities and my budget, and to the extent permitted by law. 11. The Vice President shall continue his leadership in coordinating the United States Government's electronic commerce strategy. Further, I direct that the heads of executive departments and agencies report to the Vice President and to me on their progress in meeting the terms of this memorandum, through the Electronic Commerce Working Group in its annual report. WILLIAM J. CLINTON # # # -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 12:01:58 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C3221B83 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:01:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA32280 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:02:00 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <385FC043.48EE2D2C@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:00:35 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] GOP gets .gov I guess the Republican Party has merged with the federal government. It now has http://www.gop.gov Jamie -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 18:37:59 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456CB21D67 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:37:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05796 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:38:04 -0500 Sender: jl@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <38601D17.539C4BA0@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:36:39 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Ralph Nader on Consumer Harm in Microsoft Case This is part of a talk that Ralph Nader gave to a recent Open Source event in NYC. Jamie Love (http://www.cptech.org/ms/harm.html) Consumer Harm in the Microsoft Case by Ralph Nader Address to The Bazaar - An Open Source Software Event New York, New York December 15, 1999 Every time the Microsoft antitrust case moves forward, one observes a new wave of "where is the harm?" opinion articles in daily newspapers, presenting Microsoft's anticompetitive practices as harmful to competitors but not consumers. Judge Jackson's 206 page findings of fact addressed the issue of consumer harm in ways that resonated with many computer experts. While Judge Jackson mentioned that Microsoft had considerable leeway in terms of pricing Microsoft Windows, citing an internal Microsoft memorandum comparing the benefits of a $49 or $89 price for an upgrade price for Windows 98, the findings of fact devoted considerable attention to the non-price issues, such as those relating to innovation, choice and software quality, that are key to the Microsoft case. However, Judge Jackson's findings of fact are limited by the scope of the government lawsuit against Microsoft, both in terms of the types of anticompetitive conduct and the harm to consumers, and therefore understates the harm of Microsoft's monopoly to consumers. The US Department of Justice and State Attorney Generals have decided to prosecute a relatively narrow case against Microsoft, largely ignoring a plethora of issues relating to Microsoft's huge power in the desktop applications area, including the components of Microsoft Office, or the impact of its anticompetitive enterprise licensing strategies. We often hear from consumers who say they are harmed by Microsoft's monopoly abuses. Here are some of the complaints. Because this is a meeting about Linux, a free operating system, I will begin with the pricing issues. Pricing Issues Windows is too expensive. The price for Microsoft Windows depends upon how you buy it. A license for Windows is often bundled with a new PC. That doesn't mean it is free -- only that the OEM has paid for the license. When people talk about software prices, they sometimes forget that typically new technologies begin with high prices. Television sets, compact disk recorders and personal computers are only a few examples of this. Automobiles were very expensive when they were first introduced, costing around $10,000, or nearly $200,000 in today's dollars. More efficient mass production was followed by much lower prices. The Ford Model T, which was produced from 1908 to 1927, at one point sold for less than $260. As prices for personal computers, scanners, printers and other computing devices have fallen, Microsoft has been able to charge high prices for many of its products. For example, the OEM prices for Windows licenses have increased, making this license an ever larger share of the cost of a new computer. Microsoft charges consumers a list price of $109 for an upgrade of Windows 98, which is discounted by retailers to $89 -- but to get this price you must already own Windows 95, so it is like a maintenance fee. The list price for a new version of Windows 98 is $209. Yahoo.com sells Windows 98 at a discount for $181.92, nearly half the price of buying a new low end PC, and more than three times the $49.99 price for the well reviewed BeOS. BeOS is a technologically superior operating system that suffers from a paucity of third party applications, illustrating the significance of the consumer lock-in with Windows. In addition, Microsoft is steadily tightening the conditions on licenses. Many OEM licenses for Windows are tied to a single machine, and cannot be sold or transferred to another machine, even by the original owner. Business users are facing restrictions on the use of concurrent licenses, requiring them to purchase more copies than before. And for most models of PCs that consumers buy, the OEM has to purchase the license, even if the end user doesn't want the software. The "required to buy" Windows problem is a particular galling issue for Linux users who are often actively trying to avoid using Microsoft products. After our own efforts in 1998 to push the major OEMs to give consumers the chance to buy PCs without a Windows license, we have seem some modest improvement, as Dell and other PC manufacturers offer a limited number of PC models with Linux pre- installed. But it is still the case that nearly all of the PC models sold by major OEMs, including Dell, require purchase of a Windows license. A consumer who has been using computers since 1995 may have already purchased a half dozen or more Windows licenses. You might have begun with Windows 95a, but bought Windows 95b so you could better use the large hard drives. And then purchased one or more upgrade computers, with new Windows licenses. Then one has to consider the number of computers that need licenses. Often a person may have separate PCs for work and home, plus a laptop for travel. So it isn't simply the price of Windows, it's the number of licenses for Windows that you end up buying, and how often you have to pay upgrade fees. Microsoft forces upgrades of the operating system by introducing, even between official revisions, significant changes in the OS, including the important support for third party device drivers. Indeed, Windows 98 is already on its "second edition." To get what are essentially bug fixes, Microsoft charges Windows 98 users $19.95, plus shipping and handling, for the second edition of the same product. (Creating yet another opportunity to charge consumers more money so its products will function properly). Any given version of Windows becomes obsolete within a few years, because it will no longer support the latest innovations in hardware. This is intentional, because Microsoft's biggest "competitor" in the OS market is its installed base of users who have already purchased Windows. Microsoft forces consumers to buy what is essentially the same product again and again. In 1997, analysts said that Microsoft had a ninety-five percent share of global revenues for sales of office suites. Microsoft Office has become the global standard for word processing, spreadsheets and other desktop productivity applications. The pricing for MS Office is high. Microsoft's Office 2000 "standard" edition lists for $499, with a "street" price of $399. Even an upgrade to Office 2000 Standard has a list price of $249, and a discounted price of $195 - and this assumes you have already purchased the Microsoft Office before. The "premium" version of MS Office is now priced at $799, or $449 for an upgrade version. These prices are much higher than the prices for Corel's Office 200 suite, which features WordPerfect. For example, the list price for an upgrade of Corel's Standard Office 2000 suite lists for $99, about 40 percent of the Microsoft list price. (And discounts for about $79, about 40 percent of the Microsoft discounted price). Microsoft can command hefty prices for its Office Suite because consumers are often forced to upgrade - simply to read documents they receive from others. Microsoft is constantly changing document formats so that owners of older versions of Microsoft Office cannot read the newer documents. Again, Microsoft's main competitor is its own base of installed users. And, here too Microsoft is a tough adversary, using interoperability and compatibility as weapons, to force upgrades and generate more earnings for Microsoft. Millions of computer users who have perfectly functional copies of Microsoft Office 95 found it impossible to read documents prepared in Office 97, and one anticipates a new round of compatibility issues with Office 2000. Microsoft knows that most consumers have little use for the endless expansion of word processor features, particularly as the world has come to rely upon the much simpler formats for information used in electronic mail. Moreover, the newer versions nearly always contain new bugs, and necessitate more learning, and spark new predatory attacks on non-Microsoft products. Plus, as MS Office and Windows become ever larger, they require huge increases in computing resources. For consumers this often means a costly and time consuming hardware upgrade -- an event highly correlated with losses of user data. But for Microsoft, a hardware upgrade is usually just another source of revenue -- as nearly every new PC ships with a new license for Windows and other Microsoft software. One feature of Microsoft's pricing is the huge difference between its list prices and the prices paid by large buyers, including OEMs, big corporations, governments or universities. Microsoft knows that these large buyers need licenses to Microsoft products, and that they don't want to pay the high list prices. All of these large buyers get Microsoft products at significant discounts. However, for many big users, Microsoft insists on "enterprise" type licenses, which effectively force big organizations to buy licenses for many products for all employees (or students). When Microsoft gives an organization a blanket license for Windows and Office, they make it next to impossible for rivals to compete, since the organization has already paid Microsoft a license fee for all the computer users. Microsoft's pricing strategies are designed to give organizations no realistic options, if they want to avoid sky high list prices for Microsoft Office and Windows. This is also an issue for the OEMs, since the price of software is a significant component of cost in the highly competitive PC market. Microsoft can use the threat of higher prices for OEM licenses -- for Windows or Office -- to discipline OEMs, and reduce opportunities for Microsoft competitors. Non-Pricing Issues While the pricing issues are an important measure of the cost of the Microsoft monopoly, we hear more often from consumers about non- price issues, including many of the non-price issues raised by Judge Jackson. The most common complaint is that Microsoft crashes. "At least once a day," according to many Microsoft Windows users. We also hear countless complaints that Microsoft attacks non-Microsoft products, so they don't work. For example, when Microsoft released its Windows Media player, as a competitor against the RealAudio player, consumers wrote to say it disabled dozens of third party multimedia software programs. Little wonder that people call Microsoft's Internet Explorer, the "Internet Exploder," because it attacks and disables an unpredictable number of non-Microsoft applications. The documents in the Microsoft trial shed new light on the seemingly endless compatibility and interoperability problems with Windows and Microsoft Office. When Microsoft executives proposed making "running any other browser . . . a jolting experience," they were simply adding yet another example of the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run," corporate legacy. Microsoft could never have succeeded as a software company if its intentions to sabotage third party products were known earlier, before consumers and third party developers invested billions of dollars and countless hours around the Windows platform. Even before you consider issues surrounding deliberate hostility to users, you have the typical problem of a monopoly that can get away with poor products. Because it is so costly and difficult to migrate to a new platform, Microsoft can succeed even when its core products suffer hugely from poor stability, limited interoperabilty, and endless security problems. The fact that millions of users tolerate daily crashes of Windows says volumes about the costs of migration away from Windows. But, as Judge Jackson points out, and as most computer experts know, not all of the quality problems are innocent. In its internal emails and by countless examples, Microsoft has demonstrated that it believes it benefits when consumers cannot make competitor's products work correctly. Microsoft has a range of methods to undermine its competitor's products. When it does not use deliberate sabotage, it can withhold important technical information or refuse to license technology to its competitors, such as when it refused to permit Netscape to distribute a utility to log-on to Internet Service Providers, or when it withholds or unexpectedly changes applications programming interfaces and data file formats. Microsoft can also destroy the quality of rival software by using predatory business practices, such as the enterprise licensing of Windows and MS Office, exclusionary OEM and ISP licensing, or bundling of products with "must have" Windows and Office products. When Netscape cannot effectively distribute its browser through ISP or OEM channels, and when Microsoft's Internet Explorer product is bundled in with Windows and MS Office, Netscape can no longer justify continued R&D in the product. This harms consumers who prefer Netscape. When Microsoft bundles Outlook Express, its personal information manager and email client, into Windows, millions of users who relied upon rival products, like ECCO Pro, were stranded when their products were abandoned by publishers who could not compete with a bundled product having a zero marginal cost to consumers. And there are countless other examples of this in the software market. Despite the colossal sums of money being invested in ecommerce ventures, there is very little investment for desktop productivity software. And while the stock market seems crazy about some Linux stocks, and with all due respect to this gathering, and in light on the fact that we are using Linux extensively in our offices, Linux is still primarily a server technology, without significant penetration in the PC "client" space. For this to change, there will have to be considerable improvements in Linux documentation and in Linux desktop applications. For most PC users, there is a steadily shrinking number of choices for a growing number of important applications. Microsoft is squeezing the life out of markets for word processors, spreadsheets, desktop database software, presentation graphics, personal information managers, email clients and Internet browsers -- the applications that most computer users need. Some observers, such as Robert J. Samuelson, seem to think that Microsoft has provided a public service. By eliminating competitors, Microsoft gives everyone a common standard, and making life simpler has benefits, Samuelson says. I think most people here see the poverty of this analysis. There are, of course, alternative methods of setting standards than relying upon a private monopoly. The Internet is a powerful and relevant example of how a non-monopolistic standard can facilitate enormous innovation. And, as pointed out in Judge Jackson's findings of fact, Microsoft has sought to crush third party technologies, such as Java, that create cross platform standards that Microsoft does not control. The free software movement actively embraces a more open approach to software development. A distribution of Linux isn't the creation of a single firm. It is a collection of hundreds of programs developed by different individuals and groups, that work together. The disclosure of the source code is designed to make it easier to design software programs that work together, to solve user problems. There is competition among distributions of Linux, and users can choose alternative graphical user interfaces, programming tools, utilities and applications. As described in the so called Halloween memorandums, Microsoft's response to the popularity of Linux is to seek ways to cripple interoperability, by deploying proprietary and patented software interfaces. And so far, Microsoft has resisted efforts by OEMs to ship computers ready to dual boot Windows and Linux or Windows and BeOS. There are, of course, huge costs associated with forcing everyone into a software monoculture. Some of the issues concern security. Microsoft's security breach of the week wouldn't be such a huge problem if its software wasn't so ubiquitous. But this is only one of many issues. There are also large costs associated with the disappearance of the products that Microsoft crushes. In the beginning, Microsoft had a tiny presence in desktop applications, and businesses and individuals invested money and time around non-Microsoft products. The forced migration to Microsoft's Johnny-come-lately imitations is costly. Consumers value choice, about a wide range of software characteristics. WordPerfect and Microsoft Word have different approaches to document management. Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Explorer and Opera appeal to differ users. Every software product has its own fans and its own critics. Robert Samuelson seems to think of this as an inefficiency, but the contrary is true. A "one size fits all" world harms consumers, and lowers productivity. Competition among software products leads to innovation and improvements in software quality. This competition moves the industry to solve the problems consumers face, and leads to more productive and reliable products. Indeed, perhaps the most important consideration is that Microsoft is not a leader in product development -- it is an imitator, and this is the most significant harm to consumers -- the stifling of innovations that we never see. As pointed out by Judge Jackson, even Intel, the other half of Wintel, was forced by Microsoft to stop development of a promising new multimedia technology. We recognize that in software markets, there may be cases where the market coalesces around a single product with a large market share. But it is one thing for that decision to be made on the basis of competition for consumer satisfaction, based upon product quality and price, and something else when consumers are forced to pick Microsoft, by an endless array of underhanded, coercive and non- meritorious tactics. Consumers are harmed when there is no real choice, except to succumb to the Microsoft Borg. Thank you. For more information, see http://www.cptech.org/ms Contact Ralph Nader at ralph@essential.org -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 22:32:13 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD29221C59 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03541 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:32:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:32:20 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Random-bits] Hector Santos on Microsoft's "version spoofing" and Win2000 Interesting note from Hector Santos, concerning "version spoofing" of their product with Windows 2000. Jamie ----------- From hector.santos@santronics.com Tue Dec 21 22:27:38 1999 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 19:53:51 -0500 From: hector.santos@santronics.com To: love@cptech.org Subject: [IPN] Ralph Nader: Consumer Harm in the Microsoft Case *cc: LOVE@CPTECH.ORG Hello Mr. Nadar, I don't know if anyone has been paying attention to Microsoft's Windows 2000 efforts but no doubt, this one is directed at the LINUS "server" market. Microsoft has already said they will not renew the "CISCO" Terminal Server licenses. Microsoft has broken even more "client/server" software by changing the behavior of RPC based communications systems. So while everyone is complaining about the current "monopoly" with Windows 95/98/NT, they are quietly making sure Windows 2000 will finish the task of a "complete take over of the "internet world" with even more changes to "Win32 API Standards". I have been reconsidering the "contract" I signed with Microsoft when they contacted us to ask permission to "Version Spoof" our software so that it will install on Windows 2000. We agreed thinking it would be no harm. However, after our programmers were able to get a copy of Windows 2000 and test out our current products, we found out it will not work. So even if Microsoft "Version Spoofing" of our product succeeds in the installation process, our product will not operate in normal fashion. It seems Microsoft was more concern, in the words of Microsoft exec "having less installation support issues with customers", so they can move the support issue to the vendor of the product at the operational level. This strategy has already worked as customers who have the public gamma version of Windows 2000 have told us our product will install but will not work thereafter. The issue is they have CALLED US for support - not Microsoft. Mr. Nadar, what Microsoft is deathly afraid of, which hasn't happen yet, is a NATION-WIDE Class Action Lawsuit on Software Quality (Bugs). Approach this just as you did with the defective "Pinto", and you will change Microsoft (and society) forever. They seems to be a growing mentality in the computer industry that "some bugs are ok", that it is "natural" to have software bugs. This direction or mentality must be stopped before it is too late. Sincerely, Hector Santos, President Santronics Software, Inc. From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 21 22:49:52 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E6D21B3A; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:49:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-6.essential.org [216.0.125.6]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA03750; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:49:57 -0500 Sender: jamie@milan.essential.org Message-ID: <386049D2.EEBBBD3D@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:47:30 -0500 From: James Love X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecommerce , Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Cc: creuss@bluewin.ch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Microsoft: defrag utility and Scientology firm This is from a pointer provided by Christoph Reuss . Apparently Microsoft is in a controversy in Germany over potential security risks from a defrag utility created by a firm with close Scientology links. Jamie ---------------------------------- http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/25/058/ Windows 2000 in Danger of beeing Banned Scientology participation Critizised by Church Representatives An integrated component of Windows 2000 is made by a Scientology company. The connection between the psycho sect and the software giant is annoying representatives of the major churches in Germany. Microsoft risks a boycott of its flagship product by churches and government agencies. Windows 2000, the successor of Windows NT shipping in February, contains a defragmentation program called Diskeeper. The manufacturer is the company Executive Software Inc. (http://www.execsoft.com/) of the professed scientologist Craig Jensen. Founded in 1981 the enterprise offers defragmentation and data storage tools to "enhance the speed and performance of Microsoft Windows NT". Executive chief Jensen himself shares his biography on his homepage. According to that he has been a member of the organization calling itself church since 1974 and supposedly transformed his company from a "one-man show to a flourishing multi-million Dollar corporation" with the help of the scripts of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Jensen also climbed the corporate ladder at Scientology: He is an operating Thetan at level VIII (OT VIII), the highest level scientologists can achieve currently. In 1992 the Californian company opened an office in Hamburg. Staff was hired according to the following criteria: "Fully trained scientologists, computer skills desirable but not a prerequisite". By integrating the Executive product into Windows 2000 Microsoft created a situation that at least a few large potential customers see as a serious problem. A employee of the German catholic church who did not want his name mentioned told c't that the origin of the software is "highly disturbing". It is "a genius move" of the Scientology organization if soon such a program that has direct and active access to all data is working principally on every company desk and in government and church institutions as an integrated part of a widely used operating system. Espionage suspected The underlying reason for these kinds of worries is the philosophy of the Scientology umbrella organization WISE, Executive being a member of the latter. WISE stands for World Institute of Scientology Enterprises and forms the "most important money-generating apparatus of the psycho sect" according to the German news magazine Focus. Up to 15 percent of the revenues are paid to Scientology. The participating companies are "exclusively managed with LRH technology" describes WISE itself; LRH are the initials of Hubbard. [snip] -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Wed Dec 22 23:36:27 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D51121B20 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA29592 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:36:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:36:34 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Random-bits] My apologies for list problems As people probably know, a few days ago we switched to a new mailing program for random-bits. Tonite for some reason there was a flood of older messages set to the list. I'm not sure why, and we are trying to figure out what has happened. I think I have stopped the flood, and will do everything I can to try to stop this from happening again. Jamie ------------------------------- James Love Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Mon Dec 27 17:45:11 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE3421C34; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10216; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:45:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:45:17 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: ecommerce@venice.essential.org, random-bits@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Random-bits] Slashdot on Google Patent This is a discussion on slashdot.org about the google searching patent. Jamie http://slashdot.org/articles/99/12/26/2121203.shtml ------------------------------- James Love Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Tue Dec 28 13:58:00 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F86121B0C; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:58:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23042; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:58:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:58:03 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: random-bits@venice.essential.org, ecommerce@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Random-bits] IP: Web Tracking and Data Matching Hit the Campaign Trail (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:56:46 -0500 From: Dave Farber To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Web Tracking and Data Matching Hit the Campaign Trail Date: Thu, 23 Dec 99 20:40 PST From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) Subject: Web Tracking and Data Matching Hit the Campaign Trail Greetings. In yet another example of the "if it's legal, someone will do it" school of data matching and web tracking, it has been revealed that the two leading Republican presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, have contracted with Aristotle Publishing (http://www.aristotle.org) to target web users by matching web browsing habits and web site signup data with actual voter registration records. Apparently these are the only two presidential candidates currently making use of this service, as announced by an Aristotle spokesman. Aristotle, which describes itself as a "thriving, growing, profitable firm," provides "tools" to political campaigns to "influence public opinion" and "win votes." Their web site apparently can only be viewed if you have javascript enabled--without it you could simply see a blank page. You may have already been justifiably concerned about DoubleClick, Inc.'s tracking of your behavior over the web, but Aristotle takes consolidation of personal data to a whole new level, by actually combining the information that has been provided by web users (e.g. for various "freebie" web giveaways), with specific and detailed political data such as voter location and party affiliation information, obtained from voter registration roles. Maybe you wondered why you seemed to be getting something for nothing at those web sites, and what would really happen to that information you provided to them? Well, now you know. Welcome to the big time. Once you've been targeted by this system, you'll be presented with the designated candidates' political banner ads on at least 1500 web sites, including some major portal and news sites. Some of these ads, once clicked, entice the user to enter various additional personal information (some of which Aristotle says they don't record). Of course, to the average web user, there's no clue that they've been the subject of this sort of intensive data matching and rifling through their voter registrations. Most users would probably just assume that the ads popped up at random. Random? Surely you jest! And golly gee whiz Mr. Wizard, you guessed it, this *is* all entirely legal. Proponents claim that there've been no significant complaints about the privacy aspects of the operation (perhaps that will change?), and they also suggest that they're no more privacy-invasive than direct mail (wow, now there's a "high" ethical bar to be shooting for if ever I've seen one...) And in fact, Aristotle is obviously proud of the service, since they've posted at least one outside press account on their own web site. (Will this issue of the PRIVACY Forum Digest show up on there? They hereby have my permission...) Keep in mind that this is just the barest shadow of the sorts of "services" likely to evolve in the near future, given the "wild west" attitude which still prevails regarding personal information. It was bad enough when this *only* involved search engines and ads for offshore gambling or mailorder sales pitches. But the introduction of the political element directly into the mix should give everyone cause for some serious concern. I dare say that this calls into sharp focus the abysmal lack of regulations to control the handling and abuse of personal information, regardless of its various sources. The power of web data collection, tracking, ad presentation, and similar technologies, combined with other traditionally public record data sources (and voter registration roles are just the tip of the iceberg) creates a scenario that might cause Darth Vader to be jealous. But of course, it's also possible to hold opposing points of view. Maybe none of this actually matters? Perhaps some persons reading this might feel that there really are no significant privacy problems with these sorts of data collection and matching activities. Perhaps you're not all that concerned about who gets your data or how it's used? Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I'd be interested in hearing your views (please remember to send submissions for possible inclusion in the Digest to privacy@vortex.com). It does seem bizarre, however, that it appears to be impossible to register to vote in this country without subjecting yourself to these sorts of information manipulations, with apparently no real opt-out available. Given these developments, perhaps it's no wonder that whenever I see the glowing descriptions of plans for voting over the Internet (already a reality for one state's primary and high on the wish list for many states) I get a cold chill down the back of my spine... Until next time, all the best for the holidays! --Lauren-- lauren@vortex.com Lauren Weinstein Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Co-Founder, PFIR: People for Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy ****************** A Happy Holiday and a safe New Year from Dave and GG Farber ****************** From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 30 20:51:14 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8BE21B08 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21220 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:51:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:51:31 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Random-bits] Brett Glass on NIST Y2K issue Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:39:00 -0500 From: Dave Farber To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Two possibly unaddressed Y2K problems > >Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:52:36 -0700 >To: Dave Farber > >Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:52:36 -0700 >To: Dave Farber >From: Brett Glass >Subject: Two possibly unaddressed Y2K problems > >While performing a Y2K check of a client's computers, I discovered a small >program, written in BASIC, which suggests an entire class of potential Y2K >glitches which has not been publicized and may plague us on or after >January 1, 2000. > >In the client's back office was an older PC attached to a modem. Each time >the computer was booted, it ran a simple program which instructed the >internal modem to make a brief telephone call to a telephone number >somewhere in Colorado. Upon connecting, the computer received the date and >time, set its clock accordingly, and then hung up. > >Inspection of the program revealed that it received and used only two >digits for the year. > >What number was the computer calling? After a bit of snooping on the >Internet, I discovered that the number was that of the Automated Computer >Time Service (ACTS), provided by NIST (the National Institute of Science >and Technology, previously known as the National Bureau of Standards). The >time message received by the program, derived from an atomic clock, looks >like this: > >JJJJJ YRMODA HH:MM:SS TT L DUT1 msADV UTC(NIST) OTM > >Where > >JJJJJ is the Modified Julian Date (MJD); >YRMODA is the date (two digits each for year, month, and day); and >HH:MM:SS is the time in hours, minutes, and seconds. >(The remaining fields are documented online at >http://www.bldrdoc.gov/timefreq/service/acts.htm.) > >What is interesting is that the BASIC program provided by the NIST itself >(the same agency, ironically, which distributes the Malcolm Baldridge >quality awards and offers Y2K help to small businesses) ignored the Julian >date and used only the two-digit year to set the computer's clock. This >software was posted on the Internet by the NIST until approximately last >October. > >While ACTS can be used in a Y2K-compliant manner, the way to do this is >somewhat arcane (few programmers understand the concept of a Julian date, >and conversion is tedious). Perhaps this is why the NIST's own software -- >which was doubtless used verbatim or as the basis for other programs -- >cut corners, as most programmers were likely to do, and used only the two >digit "YR" code for the year. > >According to the NIST's ACTS Web page >(http://www.bldrdoc.gov/timefreq/service/acts.htm), more than 10,000 >computers call the NIST's number each day. How many are running that old >BASIC program, or similar ones published on computer bulletin boards, in >magazines, or on the Internet, which have the same flaw? > >But wait.... It gets worse. Apparently, the time code transmitted by ACTS >is similar to that used by the NIST's radio stations --WWV, WWVH, and WWVB >-- to transmit time and date information the entire world. WWV's binary >coded decimal format, described on the Web at >http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/pubs/sp432/s_appb.htm, also uses only >two digits for the year. Worse still, the Julian date is not present, so >there is no way, using this code, to distinguish between the years 1900 >and 2000. > >Alas, some digital logic circuits which interpret the codes from WWV, >WWVH, and WWVB are literally hard-wired to the existing format. (According >to some quick research I've done on the Net, these range from an old >Heathkit called "The Most Accurate Clock" to laboratory instruments to >traffic signal controllers.) So, the NIST does not have the option of >changing the format to include a 4-digit year for fear of breaking this >equipment. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether owners of this equipment >are aware of the potential problems in these embedded systems -- some of >which, again, use hardwired digital logic rather than microprocessors. >Will traffic signals in Los Angeles and Orange County, which are said to >use WWV as a time standard >(http://www.odetics-its.com/showcase/TASK2-2/la.html), fail? Or will they >become confused about the day of the week and snarl traffic by using >"weekend" timings on a weekday, or vice versa? What other municipal, >scientific, or military embedded systems will go awry because they rely on >the NIST's 2-digit time codes? > >Ironically, while the NIST Web site contains an article >(http://www.nist.gov/y2k/embeddedarticle.htm) warning users to evaluate >embedded systems for Y2K compliance, I have been unable to find any >article in which the NIST mentions the format of its own time signals as a >potential source of Y2K problems. Today, when I used the "Advanced Search" >facility on the NIST's Web site to search for the call sign "WWV" together >with the term "Y2K" or "2000," it failed to turn up any hits whatsoever. >The NIST's Y2K compliance page, at http://www.nist.gov/y2k/nistcomp.htm, >lists both ACTS and the agency's "time synchronization" services as Y2K >compliant. > >Conclusions are left as an exercise for the reader. > >--Brett Glass > From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 31 16:45:07 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BE421C33; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 16:45:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-2.essential.org [216.0.125.2]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30255; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 16:45:06 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <386D3223.A15080C4@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:45:55 -0500 From: James Love X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Link Controversy Page People who are interested in linking disputes, will find this page useful. Jamie -------------------- The Link Controversy Page is intended to provide an overview of the legal problems of using hyperlinks, inline images and frames in the WWW. http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1/lcp.html -- James Love, Consumer Project on Technology v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176 love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Mon Jan 10 11:52:21 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@lists.essential.org Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC8221B05; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:52:21 -0500 (EST) Sender: jamie@venice.essential.org Message-ID: <387A0E0F.B7C6E88E@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:51:27 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Quick notes why the AOL acquisition of Time-Warner should be stopped: Quick notes why the AOL acquisition of Time-Warner should be stopped: 1. AOL is the single most important force today in advocatingfor open access to the cable broad band platform. If this merger is approved, AOL s interests will be fundamentally changed. 2. AOL is a direct competitor to Time-Warner as an Internetcontent provider on broad band services. 3. One relevant market for AOL and Time-Warner as contentproviders is for providing navigation and interface services to Internet users - such as menus for electronic commerce. 4. If AOL can buy Time-Warner, will a Microsoft/AT&T merger befar behind? 5. AT&T and Time-Warner are both trying to set up broad bandinternet services that can discriminate among content providers, and effectively degrade services offered by competitors. People who know about this include: Andy Schwartzman, Media Access Project Jeff Chester, Media Access Project Gene Kimmelman, Consumers Union Mark Cooper, CFA -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Mon Jan 10 14:35:24 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E53421AFF; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:35:24 -0500 (EST) Sender: jamie@venice.essential.org Message-ID: <387A3447.862E4A2D@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:34:31 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Meeks, Brock" Cc: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Subject: Re: [Random-bits] Quick notes why the AOL acquisition of Time-Warner should be stopped: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Meeks, Brock" wrote: > > But Steve Case, just now on the conference call, said that he knew the cable > open access issue would be a potential hurdle, so "we took it off the table > right away" but saying that the new company would be in FAVOR of open access > cable and provide for customer choice for ISPs. > When AOL purchaed Netscape, the company said it would continue to support the Mozilla project. We asked AOL to make specific legally binding commitments to this effect, and AOL refused. Since then, there have been some notabnle departures from the Mozilla project staff. Here is a link to Steve Case's letter to Jamie Zawinski when the Netscape merger was announced. http://www.mozilla.org/stevecase.html "Hopefully by now the AOL positon on mozilla.org is clear to all, but I did want to let you know personally that we're very supportive of mozilla.org;" When the merger was pending, Jamie Zawinski was quite hopeful. But later he resigned. http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html In general, we expect AOL to flip an issues when it suits AOL -- just as it did when it dropped Netscape as its browser in return for Microsoft giving AOL a good position for its ICON on Windows. Jamie Quick notes why the AOL acquisition of Time-Warner should be stopped: 1. AOL is the single most important force today in advocating for open access to the cable broad band platform. If this merger is approved, AOL s interests will be fundamentally changed. 2. AOL is a direct competitor to Time-Warner as an Internet content provider on broad band services. 3. One relevant market for AOL and Time-Warner as contentproviders is for providing navigation and interface services to Internet users - such as menus for electronic commerce. 4. If AOL can buy Time-Warner, will a Microsoft/AT&T merger be far behind? 5. AT&T and Time-Warner are both trying to set up broad bandinternet services that can discriminate among content providers, and effectively degrade services offered by competitors. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Mon Jan 10 15:47:43 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@lists.essential.org Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6368021AFF for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:47:43 -0500 (EST) Sender: jamie@venice.essential.org Message-ID: <387A453B.2FF8E7A5@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:46:51 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Random-bits] America Online and OpenTV This is AOL's earlier announcement that it was developing a DBS type serivce. Jamie ------------------------------------- 10/25/99 8:42 AM America Online and OpenTV Announce Plans to Develop Applications for OpenTV Platform Agreement Part of 'AOL Anywhere' Strategy America Online and OpenTV Announce Plans to Develop Applications for OpenTV Platform Agreement Part of 'AOL Anywhere' Strategy Dulles, VA and Mountain View, CA -- October XX, 1999 - America Online, Inc., the world's leading interactive services company, and OpenTV, the worldwide leader in interactive television software, today announced an agreement to collaborate on the development of AOL applications to be delivered over OpenTV interactive television software. AOL has also made an investment in OpenTV. Under the terms of the agreement, AOL and OpenTV will work to bring some of AOL's most popular communications features to the OpenTV platform., including e-mail and instant messaging. "Our AOL Anywhere strategy is based on bringing our most popular services and features to different devices and platforms," said Barry Schuler, President of AOL Interactive Services. "We're pleased to work with OpenTV to explore bringing some of our communications features to their platform, enabling interactive services over digital broadcast video systems." "With almost 99 percent of American households having one or more televisions, it makes the most sense to deliver the promise of convergence through the television," said Jan Steenkamp, OpenTV CEO. "What convergence means to most consumers is interactive information combined with everything they like about their favorite TV programming, and we think the agreement between AOL and OpenTV will enable us to deliver key AOL communications applications along with your favorite TV programs." About America Online Founded in 1985, America Online, Inc., based in Dulles, Virginia, is the world's leader in interactive services, Web brands, Internet technologies, and e-commerce services. America Online, Inc. operates: two worldwide Internet services, America Online, with more than 18 million members, and CompuServe, with over 2 million members; several leading Internet brands including ICQ and Digital City, Inc.; the Netscape Netcenter and AOL.COM portals; and the Netscape Navigator and Communicator browsers. Through its strategic alliance with Sun Microsystems, the Company develops and offers easy-to-deploy, end-to-end e-commerce and enterprise solutions for companies operating in the Net Economy About OpenTV OpenTV is the worldwide leader in interactive television software for the digital set-top box providing a complete end-to-end solution for the development and delivery of interactive services via digital satellite, cable and terrestrial broadcast. OpenTV set-top box software has been shipped with or installed in more than 3.5 million digital set-top boxes worldwide. To date, OpenTV software solutions have been deployed by 13 television networks worldwide, including British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) in the United Kingdom and TPS in France. EchoStar's DISH Networkä is scheduled to launch interactive services utilizing OpenTV software in the U.S. later this year. Worldwide headquarters for OpenTV is located in Mountain View, California, with European operations in Paris, France, and offices in Seoul, South Korea and Beijing, China. Information on OpenTV is available at www.opentv.com. # # # OpenTV is a registered trademark of OpenTV, Inc. All rights reserved. Java and all Java-based trademarks and logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 10/25/99 8:42 AM -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Mon Jan 10 17:03:45 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@lists.essential.org Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F6021AFF for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:03:44 -0500 (EST) Sender: jamie@venice.essential.org Message-ID: <387A570D.E16F6A95@cptech.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:02:53 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Institute for Public Accuracy on the AOL merger Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ Monday, January 10, 2000 AOL-Time Warner Merger In the largest corporate merger in history, America Online and Time Warner announced a $350 billion deal today. The following analysts are available for interviews: ROBERT McCHESNEY, (608) 238-0763, rwmcches@uiuc.edu Professor at the Institute of Communications Research at the University of Illinois and author of "Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times," McChesney, who participated in a CNN discussion on the future of media with Time Warner head Gerald Levin a week ago, said today: "This deal culminates five years of frantic deal-making that have seen our media culture come to be dominated by less than 10 transnational media firms operating in largely non-competitive markets.... It hammers the last nail in the coffin of those utopians who regarded the Internet as providing the mechanism to radically change our media culture for the better. The Internet was established by massive public subsidies and now, without a shred of public debate, the system has become the plaything of a handful of billionaire investors who use their power to commercially carpet bomb every possible moment of our lives." JILL NELSON, (212) 662-0884, JillieJams@aol.com Author of "Volunteer Slavery: My Authentic Negro Experience" and a columnist for MSNBC, Nelson said: "This may be good for business, but it's bad for people and the free flow of information. In our lust for profits, we have forgotten democratic principles. This can only increase the public's deep skepticism of the quality of the news." BEN H. BAGDIKIAN, (510) 848-2226, benmar@uclink4.berkeley.edu Author of "The Media Monopoly" and professor emeritus and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, Bagdikian said: "This acquisition is standard in the strategy of media corporations that no significant media company in the country will remain independent." JEFF CHESTER, (202) 331-7833, jeff@cme.org, http://www.cme.org Executive director of the Center for Media Education, Chester said: "[AOL head] Steve Case is the Benedict Arnold of the digital age. Now that he has bought himself a piece of broadband cable access, he is no longer advocating for public policy to ensure open access to the Internet." FRANK BEACHAM, (212) 873-9349, frank@beacham.com, http://www.beacham.com A writer specializing in technology criticism, Beacham said: "AOL has focused on making the Internet into a shopping mall. It also has a miserable track record of keeping people's information private. In the hands of Time Warner, that could be more dangerous. This merger demonstrates the failure of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to provide competition.... AOL was concerned that it didn't have access to broadband cable lines; now they have bought that access." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020 or (202) 332-5055; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Tue Jan 11 21:47:12 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF42121B02 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:47:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-9.essential.org [216.0.125.9]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12564 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:47:11 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387BF2D0.3A6DD8F7@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:19:44 -0500 From: James Love X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Howard Rheingold: the stupider web and AOL, etc Here are a few comments from Howard Rheingold and me on the AOL merger -- jamie http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/01/11/aol_reaction/index.html Howard Rheingold, Net pioneer and author of "Virtual Community" The more the Net becomes like TV, the stupider we are going to become; the more TV becomes like the Net, the more intelligent we'll become. It's the mass media-fication/dumbing down of the Net; the bigger these enterprises get and the broader their reach, the less intelligent their content. The Net used to be a grand alternative to television, and it still is. But with the expectations of the mass market, the big center of the curve, clearly AOL's ambition is to be more and more like television. Jamie Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology The current system -- you get a pipe from your ISP and you do what you want with content -- is that going to be history? The architecture that's being proposed by the big cable operators would allow them to discriminate in terms of performance ... They could design highly discriminatory platforms, so that [your content] will play differently if you have a business relationship with the owner of the last mile. Whether or not the operators go the common courier route or the common cable route -- "We own the pipe and decide what goes on it" -- is a big deal. AOL has been a big advocate of open access -- we need to have companies like AOL beating up on the regulators at state and federal level to change things. This merger is partly evidence that AOL thinks it's losing the battle to protect the competitors. AOL was the biggest proponent of making it a level playing field. They say they still are, but it depends how much you trust Steve Case. We don't; historically he does what benefits him at the time. -- James Love, Consumer Project on Technology v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176 love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Wed Jan 12 09:31:40 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE3721AFF; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17940; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:31:39 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387C902A.DB83813C@cptech.org> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:31:06 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Alex Kuczynski: On CBS News, Some of What You See Isn't There ----Original Message----- From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" Subject: more "new media": ...What You See Isn't There Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 3:33 AM http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/cbs-digital.html On CBS News, Some of What You See Isn't There By ALEX KUCZYNSKI The New York Times If you were watching the "CBS Evening News" broadcast live from Times Square on New Year's Eve, you might have seen a billboard advertising CBS News out in the square behind Dan Rather. You might have looked at the well-placed billboard and wondered just exactly how it was that CBS was able to place its ad so fortuitously. The truth is, it didn't. The billboard and the advertisement for CBS did not exist. The image was digitally imported onto the live CBS broadcast and used to obliterate real objects, the NBC jumbotron underneath the New Year's ball and a Budweiser ad. Inserting digital images has become increasingly common in sports and entertainment programming -- usually to insert advertising and corporate logos and first-down markers in football -- but has generally been considered out of line on news shows, a type of programming in which the assumption of reality is considered sacrosanct and not informing viewers is considered a breach of journalistic guidelines. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 13 15:26:07 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00BF21AFF; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13393; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:26:06 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387E34CA.588F5AC6@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:25:46 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] FTC action on eBay Interesting article about recent FTC action on eBay and its efforts to enforce the eBay user agreement, to stop a firm from spaming its users. ACLU and CDT criticized the FTC actions. http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/practice/techlaw/news/A13317-2000Jan12.html FTC's eBay Move Gets Mixed Reactions By Lisa I. Fried New York Law Journal January 13, 2000 The Federal Trade Commission's move last week to help the Internet auction site eBay enforce its user agreement and privacy policy is generating mixed reactions from Internet lawyers and consumer rights advocates. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 13 17:19:17 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4163321B06 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15703 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:19:17 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387E4F51.7A438F47@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:18:57 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] comment on Bill Gates as ex CEO The following is a quick comment on today's announcement... --------------- "The biggest issue facing Microsoft today is whether or not to accept an AT&T type settlement that involves breaking the company up -- or to continue the present litigation. "Many people think that the barrier to a break up is more personal than financial. One interpretation of today's announcement is that Bill Gates is further disengaging from the business, making it easier to consider a break up of the company. But that may be reading too much into today's news. Jamie -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 13 18:11:24 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B066221C13; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:11:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16824; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:11:22 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387E5B87.21852A4B@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:11:03 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecommerce , Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , IP-Health list , pharm-policy , upd-discuss Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Random-bits] National Academies: IPRs, who far should they be extended? This is part of a pretty important National Academies program on intellectual property. Jamie --------------------------- Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy The National Academies Intellectual Property Rights: How Far Should They Be Extended? Wednesday, February 2 & Thursday, February 3, 2000 Lecture Room National Academy of Sciences 2100 C Street, NW Washington, DC This conference will bring together Federal judges, executive branch officials, practitioners, corporate executives, legal scholars, and economists to discuss the effects on innovation and economic performance of extending intellectual property rights. Confirmed speakers include Hon. Randall Rader, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Hon. Todd Dickinson, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Hon. Fern Smith, Federal Judicial Center and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Hon. Roderick McKelvie, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Richard Levin, President, Yale University Mark Myers, Senior Vice President, Xerox F.M. Scherer, Harvard Kennedy School of Government John Barton, Stanford University Law School Robert Merges, Boalt Hall Law School, University of California at Berkeley Sessions will examine recent IP developments and strategies in key sectors. Panel discussions will consider several cross-cutting issues: Wednesday, February 2 · IPRs in semiconductors · Technology development, competition and antitrust policy · IPRs in software and business methods · Patent standards, quality and scope · IP protection and knowledge transfers Thursday, February 3 · IPRs in biotechnology: pharmaceutical and agricultural applications · IP right to tools and results of fundamental research · Patent administration and litigation · Summary A current agenda may be found attached or on the STEP Board's website (www.nationalacademies.org/ipr). Registration is complimentary by (1) return email, (2) fax to 202-334-1505, or (3) completing the form on the website. For more information call Craig Schultz at 202-334-2200 or email to . We encourage you to refer this announcement to others who may be interested in joining us. (See attached file: 01-11agenda.doc) -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Thu Jan 13 19:10:09 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C1B21B0C for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:10:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17817 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:10:09 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387E694D.5BB7A976@cptech.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:09:49 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] ICANN Travel reimbursements I have been asking ICANN for details of travel reimbursements given to its board members. I asked for reimbursements broken down by TRIP, and for each trip, by expense categories. I was sent this today. I don't consider this response to be complete or as detailed as I had asked. For example, an "other meeting" might be a cab ride down town and a lunch, or a trip to another country, so the totals for Esther, H. Kraaijenbrink, G. Capdeboscq and Mr. Roberts are not informative at all. One issue I was looking at was the level of style that ICANN board members were expecting to be reimbursed for, given the fact that the money comes, indirectly, from domain holders like me. I can see from G. Conrade and Linda Wilson's reimbursements that quite a bit of money is involved (particularly when compared to E. Triana), but I was given enough of a breakdown to even see how that was spent. I'll be writing the board to renew my request for more detailed reports, and I will also ask that they be made available more than one a year. I will also be asking Congress what it thinks of this limited disclosoure. Jamie ICANN Travel reimbursements Name Reimbursement Description Amount G. Capdeboscq $ 2,891 Berlin & 3 other meetings G. Conrades $ 12,043 Singapore & Berlin G. Crew $ 5,007 Four Board meetings E. Dyson $ 42,664 Four Board & 19 other meetings H. Kraaijenbrink $ 28,172 Four Board & 5 other meetings M. Roberts $ 54,671 Four Board & 36 other meetings E. Triana $ 1,674 Two Board meetings L. Wilson $ 5,378 Berlin ------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:12:01 -0800 To: James Love From: Mike Roberts Subject: Re: ICANN Payments to Directors Report CC: edyson@edventure.com Jamie - Here is a copy of the Payments to Directors report that will be posted on our web site later today. The Board discussed the report yesterday and believes that the level of detail is consistent with the related Bylaws provision. - Mike ------------ Report of Expense Reimbursement and Other Payments to ICANN Directors - Fiscal Period ending 6/30/99 This report is provided annually in accordance with Article XI, section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws, which provides, in part, that "The Board shall publish, at least annually.... a description of any payments made by the Corporation to Directors (including reimbursements of expenses)." The report covers payments for the eight month startup period of the corporation, during which four face to face Board meetings were held, in New York City (10/25/98), Cambridge, Massachusetts (11/14/98), Singapore (3/4/99), and Berlin (5/27/99). Not all Directors submitted travel and meeting expense reports for every meeting, and Directors Fitzsimmons and Murai received no reimbursements. A number of Directors also volunteered time to represent ICANN at other meetings, for which their travel and meeting expenses were reimbursed. Director Dyson was the elected Interim Chairman of the Board and Director Roberts was the elected Interim President and CEO during this period and in their respective capacities attended a substantially greater number of meetings. Director Roberts is compensated as President/CEO through a professional services contract with ICANN. Payments under this agreement totaled $144,000 for the eight months. No other Director received any payment except for the reimbursed expenses listed below. Name Reimbursement Description Amount G. Capdeboscq $ 2,891 Berlin & 3 other meetings G. Conrades $ 12,043 Singapore & Berlin G. Crew $ 5,007 Four Board meetings E. Dyson $ 42,664 Four Board & 19 other meetings H. Kraaijenbrink $ 28,172 Four Board & 5 other meetings M. Roberts $ 54,671 Four Board & 36 other meetings E. Triana $ 1,674 Two Board meetings L. Wilson $ 5,378 Berlin -- -- -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Fri Jan 14 11:33:50 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D156121B12 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27683 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:33:50 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387F4FE3.A7E5D063@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:33:39 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Canadian government asked to review AOL/Time Warner deal Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:27:30 -0500 From: Pippa Lawson Here's a copy of our letter referred to in the news release that I just sent out on the ecommerce listserv: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- January 13, 2000 Honourable John Manley Minister of Industry 235 Queen Street 11th floor, East Tower Ottawa, ON K1A 0H5 Dear Minister Manley: Re: AOL Time Warner Merger The AOL acquisition of Time Warner presents serious implications for Canadian consumers of broadcasting and new media services, as well as potential problems of access for Canadian content providers. These problems are not confined to Canada. Significant and reputable consumer groups in the United States, including the Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Consumers Project on Technology and the Media Access Project, have called for the AOL acquisition of Time Warner to be stopped. We believe that the analysis of the American consumer groups is compelling, and that a thorough review of the competitive and other implications of this deal is called for. As you are aware, the issue of the importance of carriage/content separation is not a new one for the federal government and your department. In 1995, the Information Highway Advisory Council report entitled "The Challenge of the Information Highway" had this to say on the issue: "The Broadcasting Act calls for programming that is varied and comprehensive, expressing a range of differing views on matters of public concern; indeed, the promotion of diversity has been a tradition in Canadian broadcasting policy and regulation. As companies merge to face global competition, maximize competitive advantage, and benefit from vertical integration, maintaining diversity will require structural measures that discourage preferential treatment based on ownership interests." Recommendation 7.7 of the aforesaid report provided as follows: "The principle of carriage/content separation should be maintained at a minimum through the requirement of structural separation between programming and distribution undertakings and with other reasonable safeguards." The legitimacy of these concerns was acknowledged by the federal government in its later report "Building the Information Society: Moving Canada Into the 21st Century". That report noted the dangers to Canadian content for new media services: "More important within the emerging information industry itself, there are signs of growing vertical integration between providers of broadcasting carriage and content services. This trend could ultimately leave providers of Canadian content vulnerable to discrimination. The present policy and regulatory framework may have to take this new reality into account." PIAC is of the opinion that the AOL Time Warner merger may have serious and sustaining implications for access and distribution of new Canadian media services. It not only blurs the line between the desirable carriage/content separation, it potentially lessens competition. In the words of our American counterparts the deal: "...raises the threat of discrimination among content providers effectively degrading the services offered by competitors." We believe that the implications for Canada and Canadian consumers are such that the government should make a formal request pursuant to Article V of the 1995 "Agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of Canada Regarding the Application of Their Competition and Deceptive Marketing Practices Laws" The Agreement provides that: "If a party believes that anti-competitive activities carried out in the territory of another party adversely affect its important interest, the first party may request that the other parties competition authorities initiate appropriate enforcement activities..." We believe that AOL's acquisition should be afforded a rigorous review by American competition authorities. It is also our preliminary view that the merger in its current form should be stopped. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with your office and your officials. We would be pleased to provide any further information that may be of assistance to the government in making this request. Thank you. Yours truly, Michael Janigan Executive Director/ General Counsel cc: Konrad von Finckenstein, Commissioner of Competition ------------------------ Philippa Lawson Counsel Public Interest Advocacy Centre 1204 - 1 Nicholas St. Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7 tel: (613) 562-4002 ext.24 fax: (613) 562-0007 e-mail: pippa@web.net PIAC webpage: http://www.piac.ca -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Fri Jan 14 15:28:19 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00CD21B17 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:28:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA32556 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:28:19 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387F86DA.5BB8DA75@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:28:10 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Aaron Pressman: Price of cable television rises at twice rate of inflation Subject: reuters on fcc cable report Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:00:56 -0500 From: Aaron Pressman Price of cable television rises at twice rate of inflation WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters) - The price of cable television service rose 3.8 percent last year, almost double the inflation rate but much less than rate hikes in prior years, the Federal Communications Commission said Friday. In its annual assessment of the subscription television market, the FCC said the rate rise between June, 1998 and June, 1999 came as cable operators increased spending 13.2 percent to upgrade their systems and programming costs jumped 16.3 percent. In March last year, the FCC's authority to regulate cable prices expired but the industry also faced increased competition from Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services such as Hughes Electronics Corp.'s DirecTV and EchoStar Communications Corp. According to the FCC, 10.1 million households subscribed to DBS in June, 1999, up from 7.2 million a year earlier. Cable subscribers grew to 66.7 million from 65.4 million over the same period. FCC Chairman William Kennard said satellite carriers would pose an even stronger competitive challenge in the future because of a law passed late last year allowing the companies to carry local TV stations. "The satellite industry currently offers the most meaningful competition to cable," Kennard said, adding that the FCC would move "aggressively" to implement the new local channel law. Overall cable industry revenue is expected to hit $35.3 billion for all of 1999, up 8 percent from $32.7 billion in 1998, the FCC said. Cable companies collected an average of $529, or $44 per month, from each subscriber during 1999, up from $499, or $41.62 per month, in 1998. ((Aaron Pressman, Washington newsroom, 202-898-8312)) Friday, 14 January 2000 14:59:15 RTRS [nN1456676] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Fri Jan 14 17:12:33 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5624521B06 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:12:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01870 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:12:33 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387F9F48.769E5536@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:12:24 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Paul Allen's Vulcon Ventures and cable access issues This is an interesting note from John Schwartz, regarding Paul Allen's various investments in cable, as it relates to the issue of control of content in cable based internet services. Jamie --------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Smoking Gun? Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:46:51 -0700 From: John Schwartz To: Multiple recipients of list Here's some info I ran across recently that I think is germane to the cable modem open access debate. High Speed Access Corp. provides turnkey high speed internet service to mid-sized and small cable systems. Paul Allen's Vulcon Ventures recently invested in HSA. At roughly the same time, HSA contracted with two Allen-owned cable companies, Charter and Marcus, to service a number of their systems. In the master Network Services Agreement between Charter, Marcus, and HSA, violation of a separate "content agreement" is listed as a cause for termination. Here, from an HSA SEC filing, is a desciption of the content agreement. "Under our programming content agreement with Vulcan Ventures, Vulcan has the right to require us to carry, on an exclusive basis in all cable systems we serve, content it designates. Vulcan content may include start-up and related web pages, electronic programming guides, other multimedia information and telephony services. We will not share in any revenues Vulcan may earn through the content or telephony services it provides. We must provide all equipment necessary for the delivery of Vulcan content, although Vulcan will reimburse us for any costs we incur in excess of $3,000 per cable headend. Vulcan cannot charge us for any Vulcan content through November 25, 2008; after that date we will be obligated to pay Vulcan for this content at the lowest fee charged to any Internet service provider who subscribes to Vulcan content. Vulcan has the right to prohibit us from providing content or telephony services that compete with Vulcan content and can require us to remove our competing content. Moreover, many industry analysts believe that Internet access will become increasingly reliant upon revenues from content due to competitive pressures to provide low cost or even free Internet access. If Vulcan were to require us to remove our content or substitute its telephony services for any we might provide, we could lose a source of additional revenues and might not recover all related costs of providing our content or telephony services. Vulcan's ability to prohibit us from providing content and telephony services means that Vulcan's interests are not necessarily aligned with those of our other stockholders" There are quite a number of HSA SEC filings. The document from which the above quotation is taken can be found online at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1075244/0000950123-99-002278.txt The Network Services Agreement between the Allen cable operators and HSA can be found at: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1075244/0001035704-99-000273.txt J. ___________________________________________________________________________ John B. Schwartz P.O. Box 6060 Telephone 303-442-2707 Boulder, CO 80306 FAX 303-442-6472 schwartz@usa.net ___________________________________________________________________________ From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Fri Jan 14 17:22:08 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6304021B06 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:22:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01996 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:22:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:22:08 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Random-bits] Ryan Tate: Ballmer Sticks it to Uncle Sam http://www.upside.com/Executive_Briefing/ Ballmer Sticks It To Uncle Sam By Ryan Tate January 14, 2000 Get-Rich Tip: When you're in a hole, stop digging. Even as the government was sharpening its carving knives and drooling over the image of fresh-fried Microsoft (MSFT) drumsticks in a bucket, newly appointed Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer -- never modest when it comes to describing how important a united Microsoft is to This Great Land Of Ours™ -- still couldn't get out of Uncle Sam's face. And it wasn't just that he called the government's widely reported breakup plans "reckless beyond belief" at a Thursday afternoon press conference. No, the real spittle-on-the-umpire's-cheek was Ballmer's enthusiastic description of the ominously Borg-sounding "next generation Windows services," which are really just Microsoft's effort to create more Web-based applications like Hotmail. Or are they? In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Ballmer said the services technology "will be integrated into Windows the client and into Windows the server... we see it being infused in and seamlessly integrated with Windows." Wow. Never mind that "Windows the client" and Windows the server" used to be four separate products -- Windows 95 and Internet Explorer, Windows NT and Internet Information Server -- before Microsoft got stir-happy and started puttin' da lime in da coconut. No, what's truly striking is that Microsoft is talking about extending this sort of integration to Web apps. Imagine a Hotmail that only really works for Windows 2000 users, or a Web calendar "free" to Windows CE users but useless to Palm Piloteers, or an Expedia with popup discount notices for Windows notebook owners but not Apple iBook owners. Considering that the mere act of rolling the browser into the OS prompted a federal antitrust suit that still threatens to split up the company, it takes some cojones to then take on hundreds of Web-app-based startups whose CEOs are likely dialing their lobbyists with maniacal fervor as we speak, plotting the release of Antitrust Suit 2001. From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Fri Jan 14 19:00:17 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A42C21B06 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03326 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:00:17 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <387FB889.E4AA0014@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:00:09 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Random-bits] AOL/DirectTV and FTC Joint Venture Guidelines AOL/Time Warner, AT&T and Direct TV There have been several stories mentioning AT&T acquistion of Media One giving AT&T an ownerhsip interest in many Time Warner properties. This from a June 21, 1999 on AOL's agreement to invest $1.5 billion with GM for a deal with Hughes and DirectTV -- a direct competitor with Time Warner and AT&T cable properties. It is becoming difficult to figure out which company's are really independent these days. Which is one reason that the FTC's decision to extend the period for comments on the joint venture guidelines is a good thing. Here is the URL for the FTC's proposed "ANTITRUST GUIDELINES FOR COLLABORATIONS AMONG COMPETITORS," http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9910/jointventureguidelines.htm Here is the URL for the AOL/DirectTV deal: http://www.direcpc.com/consumer/scoop/pr11.html AMERICA ONLINE AND HUGHES ELECTRONICS FORM STRATEGIC ALLIANCE TO MARKET UNPARALLELED DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT AND INTERNET SERVICES Will Accelerate Growth of DIRECTV, AOL TV and Launch AOL-Plus High-Speed Internet Service via DirecPC Nationwide Satellite System AOL to Make $1.5 Billion Strategic Investment in Hughes DULLES, Virg., and EL SEGUNDO, Calif., June 21, 1999 -- America Online, Inc. (NYSE:AOL), the world's leading interactive services company, and Hughes Electronics Corporation (NYSE:GMH), the world's leading provider of digital television entertainment and satellite-based data services, today announced a strategic alliance to develop and market uniquely integrated digital entertainment and Internet services nationwide. The Companies said that this alliance will accelerate subscriber growth and revenue-per-subscriber for Hughes' DIRECTV® television entertainment service and DirecPC® satellite-based broadband Internet delivery system, as well as extend the reach of America Online's developing AOL TV interactive television and high-speed AOL-Plus services. America Online and Hughes also plan to jointly develop new content and interactive services for the U.S. market and elsewhere in the world. This new alliance builds on the Companies' earlier agreement to develop a "combination" set-top receiver to make DIRECTV/AOL TV available to consumers next year. The Companies will launch an extensive cross-marketing initiative to package and extend the reach of both AOL TV and DIRECTV. Hughes and America Online will market the DIRECTV/AOL TV package to America Online's more than 16 million AOL and CompuServe members in the United States, as well as to millions more consumers of its Internet brands. Hughes also will market AOL TV to its more than 7 million current DIRECTV subscribers, and to millions of potential new subscribers through its extensive network of retail outlets. The Companies will also make the AOL-Plus broadband service available nationwide via the DirecPC satellite Internet network by early 2000. This initiative builds on America Online's recently announced partnerships with Bell Atlantic and SBC Communications to deliver DSL broadband connectivity to AOL members. The DirecPC network provides broadband download speeds up to 14 times faster than the standard 28.8 kilobits-per-second analog modem. AOL-Plus members will be able to transmit information back over standard telephone lines at speeds as fast as 56.6 kbps. Hughes Network Systems, a unit of Hughes, provides the DirecPC system and service, and will design and initially manufacture the combination DIRECTV/AOL TV set-top receiver. The alliance will also enhance the development of Hughes' next-generation satellite system for two-way, broadband connectivity, known as Spaceway?, scheduled to launch in 2002. Hughes previously announced a $1.4 billion investment to design, manufacture and launch the North American system and accompanying ground infrastructure. Under the agreement, America Online will make a $1.5 billion strategic investment in a General Motors equity security, which carries a 6-1/4% coupon rate, that is automatically convertible into GM Class H common stock (GMH) at a 24 percent premium in three years. GM will immediately invest the $1.5 billion in a security of Hughes under similar terms where it will be employed to implement the strategic alliance between AOL and Hughes. AOL said the investment would be non-dilutive to its earnings. [snip] -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:love@cptech.org voice 1.202.387.8030 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Tue Jan 18 12:08:12 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C37B21B4F; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (jamie.essential.org [216.0.124.36]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17188; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:08:12 -0500 Sender: jamie@genoa.essential.org Message-ID: <38849E1C.8A54BAC2@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:08:44 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Random-bits] Media Concentration issue: David Cassel on AOL censoring email critical of AOL *** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do *** ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:39:00 -0800 (PST) From: David Cassel To: AOL Watch Subject: AOL Watch: Is AOL Blocking Your Mail? I s A O L B l o c k i n g Y o u r M a i l ? ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ On September 6, the AOL Watch newsletter was sent to its 50,000 readers. But subscribers on AOL didn't receive it. Canvassing nearly two dozen of the list's AOL subscribers, all reported the same thing: the newsletter didn't reach their AOL mailboxes. Had AOL's "spam" filters made a mistake? Or was the newsletter being deleted because it had included the phone number for cancelling AOL accounts? AOL's postmaster didn't respond to requests for comment. But AOL's privacy policy specifies AOL can read your e-mail "to protect the company's rights and property." Have they already invoked that clause? In July of 1997 Simutronics announced that AOL "without our knowledge, has been deleting all e-mail from Simutronics addresses to AOL addresses." A gaming newsletter also reported e-mail from gaming company Sierra wasn't reaching AOL addresses, and both incidents were cited in a lawsuit filed by a third company. http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0066.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0080.html Ziff-Davis News uncovered another incident, in which AOL, equating an internet web site's "Thank you" notes to customers with unsolicited commercial e-mail, began deliberately blocking the e-mail. (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,4436,2139310,00.html) And one former AOL content partner told AOL Watch their goodbye to staffmembers suspiciously failed to arrive. In fact, AOL's Terms of Service also states they may block access to web sites that are "injurious to AOL" -- and they may have already begun. The author of a book about on-line dating -- titled "You've Got Male" -- filed a lawsuit in November alleging AOL prevented their users from accessing her site! Reuters reported that AOL had earlier demanded she stop selling the book and to never re-print it. "My attorney told me, 'You may as well change the name of the book," the author commented, "because you can't fight a big company like that'." http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-122453.html?tag=st.cn.1. http://www.youve-got-male.com/rocky_mountian_news_story.htm AOL has the power to control whether publishers can reach their audience. The "disappearance" of the last edition of this newsletter ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0102.html ) meant that many AOL Watch readers didn't received a post for nearly ten months. (Ironically, that edition had been titled "Breaking AOL's Grip".) AOL subscribers concerned at the thought of a corporation rifling through your mailbox, picking and choosing what e-mail you'll receive and which web pages you'll access, should also consider: when it comes to simply delivering mail reliably, AOL has a bad record. At various times AOL has sporadically refused to deliver mail from several other internet services, including the Microsoft Network, FlexNet, Fuse.net, En.com, Cybercom.net, and Gorilla.net. http://www.aolwatch.org/flexnet.htm http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16907,00.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0011.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0009.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0081.html http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0080.html One December, AOL even stopped displaying thousands of web pages for over ten days. ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0031.html ) But AOL has affected the flow of online communication in other ways, too. On December 24 the Washington Post reported that internet service providers have been "bombarded with calls" from subscribers, most complaining that after installing AOL's 5.0 software, "non-AOL Internet software is disabled." Beta-testers warned AOL about the problem, the Post and other news outlets have noted -- but the warnings were apparently ignored. http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/print/0,1089,8_216641,00.html Anger over the glitch proves noticeable numbers of AOL users now choose non-AOL services for their net access. Though AOL appears to have disregarded them, the users show that thousands of internet services exist for dissatisfied AOL subscribers, and that AOL doesn't have a monopoly on delivering service to homes like the cable television companies that deliver cable programming. But has AOL discovered a way to change that? A proposed merger with Time-Warner grants AOL access to that company's cable system -- and some observers fear other net services won't get the same access. Then only AOL would be able to offer high-speed net access through the cable! In his most-recent Community Update, Steve Case gloated that the deal gives AOL "an unprecedented ability to drive commerce" -- but besides exclusive rights to lucrative advertising and sales money, AOL could also determine what news and information is available. One columnist suggested that the real appeal of the merger "hinges on the ability to control both customers' ability to access the Internet and what they see, hear and read when they're online." http://www.alternet.org/PublicArchive/Hazen011400.html A variation on picking-and-choosing what subscribers receive will then become a reality! Senator Patrick Leahy warned that "we will have to look closely at whether it makes public policy sense to consolidate control of content, cable and Internet service distribution channels." ( http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/releases/0001/0110_4144.html ) Even before AOL's proposed merger, Forbes magazine had suggested AOL as "potential defendants" in a Department of Justice monopoly break-up. ( http://www.forbes.com/forbes/99/1129/6413054a.htm ) Now Senator Leahy wants Americans to think about the future. "At some point, all of this concentration and convergence has implications for consumers, because it will minimize competition and choice, giving us fewer voices and fewer pipelines in the marketplace." Ultimately the Senator cautions about the need to "make sure that all that information does not become funneled and controlled by just two or three sources." Resistance to the merger is already building. ( http://www.nypost.com/business/22004.htm ) Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology warns that "AT&T and Time-Warner are both trying to set up broad band internet services that can discriminate among content providers, and effectively degrade services offered by competitors" ( http://www.cptech.org/ecom/aol-tw.html ) The European Union also announced that they'll investigate the implications of the proposed deal, and Canada's Ministry of Industry is already being urged to move against it. http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,121604,00.html http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,33668,00.html Concerned netizens have a way to voice their concerns. "People should contact the agencies that will review the merger," the Consumer Project on Technology's Jamie Love told AOL Watch. "That will include the Federal Communications Commission, as well as the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission." There's also the ultimate protest: cancelling your service! One celebrity is already seeking suggestions for ways to replace his AOL account -- Michael Moore, director of "Roger and Me." He explained his feelings on his personal web page. "If just a few people end up owning all the ways for us to communicate with each other, and they decide what will be communicated and what won't, then we are all in deep trouble." ( http://www.michaelmoore.com/01122000.html ) Moore notes that "The incredible beauty of this Internet is that you and I can bypass all of them and talk to each other directly. They hate that!" Fear of the new world order showed in dark humor circulating the internet. http://graphics.nytimes.com/00/01/11/oped/011100opart.GIF http://www.globeandmail.ca/series/cartoon/0112.html One AOL Watch reader joked there might be consequences for cable viewers. "Attempting to switch channels will result in the message 'A request to the host has taken longer than expected. If the problem persists...' " And at least one Time-Warner employee with an AOL account suggested to AOL Watch that the deal has a bright side. "Perhaps now I'll be able to stay connected for more than three minutes without being cut off." Even the technology editor for Salon -- an AOL content partner -- saw the merger as a call to arms. "AOL-Time Warner's interests are now aligned opposite those of a freewheeling, independent Internet," their Managing Editor wrote. "So let's give 'em hell -- while we still can." (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/01/14/aol_deal/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=) In fact, those who value the freedom of their speech over the interests of corporations are already on the move. Unidentified web users have already claimed the domains anti-aol.org and aoltimewarnersucks.com , and they've even installed a pornography page at aolwebmaster.com. (It's slogan is "So sleazy, no wonder I'm number one.") "Web Vengeance" software took it further, using a parody doppelganger -- "America Offline" -- to illustrate a program letting users shoot bullet-holes into any web page. http://www.segasoft.com/webvengeance/index.html AOL's unspoken desire to control all media may have met its match in Georgia resident Christopher Alan. He claimed the domain stephencase.com -- then composed a rockabilly song about it and put it up at the URL. "When you bought Time-Warner we were all impressed. How come you didn't buy your web address?" The bluesy guitar tune http://www.stephencase.com, http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/62/christopher_alan_cook.html served as an important reminder -- that the internet houses millions of individuals, each with their own uses for technology. Alan's taunting song reaffirms the hope that ultimately consumers will do what *they* want... oblivious to what Steve Case wants. "You may be a big-shot down at AOL, but I'm the one that got your URL!" THE LAST LAUGH AOL is even having trouble providing users with access to their own software. An exit screen ad in September barked "We've got a new and improved browser!" -- then told users to "Download now at Keyword: " The ad's failure to provide an actual keyword made downloading impossible -- and users who guessed keyword "browsers" were told that that keyword didn't exist. AOL's software then suggested users try keyword "brewers." David Cassel More Information - http://www.fair.org/media-beat/000113.html http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,121553,00.html http://slashdot.org/features/00/01/10/1418231.shtml http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/dg113099.htm http://yahoo.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1429691.html http://www.internetworldnews.com/idx_article.asp?inc=010100/1.01Decon&issue=1.01 ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ Please forward with subscription information. To subscribe to this list, type your correct e-mail address in the form at the bottom of the page at http://www.aolsucks.org -- or send e-mail to MAJORDOMO@AOLWATCH.ORG containing the phrase SUBSCRIBE AOLWATCH To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to MAJORDOMO@AOLWATCH.ORG containing the phrase UNSUBSCRIBE AOLWATCH. ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Wed Jan 19 15:09:35 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E6F21B8F for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by genoa.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09410 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:09:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:09:35 -0500 (EST) From: James Love X-Sender: love@milan.essential.org To: random-bits@venice.essential.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Random-bits] Aaron Pressman - Kennard praises TW merger It would appears as though FCC Chairman Kennard is sticking with his see no evil, speak no evil policy regarding cable company control over the broadband cable internet platform. Jamie From aaron.pressman@reuters.com Wed Jan 19 15:06:10 2000 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:03:25 -0500 From: Aaron Pressman Subject: reuters on kennard and aol-twx U.S. FCC head encouraged by AOl-Time Warner deal WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (Reuters) - America Online's proposed merger with Time Warner Inc. was another "encouraging" sign that the marketplace can resolve concerns about the openness of cable high-speed Internet systems, the top U.S. communications regulator said on Wednesday. As he has done many times in the past two years, Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard said he had no interest in having the FCC require that cable companies give Internet service providers access to their high-speed systems. "I think it's encouraging," Kennard said at a new briefing, when asked about the AOL-Time Warner deal. "I've been saying since the very beginning of this debate that the marketplace should work this out...the signs are encouraging." No. 1 Internet service provider AOL had previously lobbied the FCC and Congress for regulations requiring that cable companies share their high-speed lines with competitors. At the press conference announcing the Time Warner merger, AOL Chairman Steve Case committed to voluntarily opening Time Warner's lines but said he no longer thought new government rules were required. Kennard declined to comment on his agency's expected review of the deal, saying that the companies had not yet filed for approval. Kennard said he would carefully review AOL's written commitments to open access that would likely accompany such a filing. "Some of the statements we've been seeing around this AOL-Time Warner transaction are encouraging," Kennard said. "Now the devil is in the details and we'll have to look and see what is really being committed to but, yes, I'm optimistic and still encouraged." ------------------------------- | James Love, Consumer Project on Technology | P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org | Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org | Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 From owner-random-bits@venice.essential.org Wed Jan 19 23:29:44