roundtable: Re: conduit, content, and monopoly control

roundtable: Re: conduit, content, and monopoly control

Re: conduit, content, and monopoly control

DDeBar (Spikey@BestWeb.net)
Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:17:45 -0400 

Message-Id: <199708181241.IAA20045@okeefe.bestweb.net>
From: "DDeBar" <Spikey@BestWeb.net>
To: <roundtable@cni.org>
Subject: Re: conduit, content, and monopoly control
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:17:45 -0400

And how ironic that the primary thing that people lack in this struggle to
put the tools of the information age to maximum benefit is the information
you convey here, viz, that it is possible and desirable to do so.

Our work IS cut out for us, yes?

DDeBar

----------
> From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <roundtable@cni.org>
> Subject: Re: conduit, content, and monopoly control
> Date: Monday, August 18, 1997 2:36 AM
> 
> 
> > I thank Richard for this VERY enlightening post. I especially agree
that it
> > is essential to consider what the telco's, etc., believe to be in their
> > interest if you are going to try to predict their behaviour.
> 
>   Power and in particular the power of monopoly capitalism has its own
>   logic and movement, as Richard has consistently concluded.  Prediction
>   of telco behavior on that basis, namely, to enhance their own power
>   and wealth continues to be a reasonable liklihood.  Ironically, that
>   power is predicated upon convincing "the People" to act against their
>   own interests, and therefore, has limits also shown by history.
> 
>   The basic question remains in defining those limits, or defeating the
>   same by a salient recognition of the fools game now spinning out of
>   control.  For example, there is nothing whatsoever except self-imposed
>   constraint, to prevent the people from designing a Global Information
>   Infrastructure (GII), which supports economic prosperity, social
equity,
>   and ecological integrity as mutually reinforcing goals.  This may look
>   something like my own proposal or a variation thereof, which members of
>   this list have seen often enough.
> 
>   The people may also organize themselves to support such a design and
the
>   assertion of that power could well be unvanquishable, there being no
>   significant economic, technological, or organizational impediments to
>   such a design.
> 
>   What this means is that the game is ours to win or loose, by
recognizing
>   or continuing to blindly deny the source of our misery--self-imposed
>   constraint.
> 
> Vigdor
> 
> 
> Vigdor Schreibman
> <fins@access.digex.net>

[CNI Home Page]