Subject: Re: Action Alert for Comments in FCC Advanced Services Inquiry
Daniel del Solar (dsolar@well.com)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:18:59 -0700
Message-Id: <35EDB643.6F903925@well.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 14:18:59 -0700 From: Daniel del Solar <dsolar@well.com> To: roundtable@cni.org Subject: Re: Action Alert for Comments in FCC Advanced Services Inquiry References: <1.5.4.32.19980902150938.006cf184@pop.mindspring.com>
Mark J. Huisman <cinemark@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Craig A. Johnson <caj@tdrs.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/1/98, John Scwartz <schwartz@usa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/1/98, Maureen Lewis <mlewis@apt.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > APT filed a petition on February 18, 1998, urging the FCC to undertake
> > > > simultaneous inquiry and rulemaking proceedings. The petition, suggests
> > > > specific measures for removing barriers to advanced network investment
> > > > and for affirmatively stimulating such investment. APT believes that
> > > > its proactive recommendations are a necessary corollary to easing
> > > > certain regulatory restrictions that discourage ILECs and new entrants
> > > > from building new sophisticated network facilities.
> > >
> > > Am I mistaken, or is this the very issue about which APT repeatedly has
> > > failed to respond on this very list? If so, why would APT expect that
> > > list members would be galvanized to action by this posting?
> >
> > Excellent questions John. Where are the APT spokespeople, when it comes
> > to answering the tough questions? Exhortations to action which leave a
> > whole series of previously posed questions dangling do little to rally
> > support.
>
> Dear Fellow Participants,
>
> As a journalist, I too, have made similar queries of ATP on this list
> and via telephone. I have not received an answer to my queries about
> these queries.
>
> I have, therefore, chosen the only response I believe fitting, both
> journalistically and practically: Until I get a response to each and
> every question posted or posed by me or others on this list or
> elsewhere, I will simply ignore ATP's presence, physically on this
> list and politically in the arena.
Huisman's laudable sentiments are EXACTLY what the FCC wants, no
small-time players, that is, no citizens, input. They want ONLY want to
hear what the BIG BOYS may be thinking. So freezing them out of your
consciousness will only allow the "agenda" to move forward. Typically
this kind of agenda only continues the trend to freeze out the citizen
of all roles, except for that of "overpaying" consumer. The only role
that is suitable.
Perhaps we might stage a "mock-trial" and answer the questions in the
ways we think they ought to be answered, and then reply with that in
mind. To fail to reply, or submit positions, means only that
alternative agendas will be frozen out of FCC deliberations.
What do you think, John S.?
Daniel del Solar
Media Consumer
Citizen
<dsolar@well.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:40 EST