Murali, good to talk with you again.  I fully agree with
you and Rick Sinclair's previous posting on the issues.

Yes, it is not the responsibility of corporate business
to provide free service, products, or goods to the
public at large.  Again, no problem with that from my
side.  The initial issue that got this ball rolling was
the offensive verbage CEO Goldstein used to address so-
called deadbeats on the web.  From appearances he
directed that to persons who use free ISP for personal
business.

By that inference of his statement then since he did not
clarify, he included the poor diabled along with this.
My contention still is, that there are many low income
disabled who have been using that free ISP service, and
who are now cut off.

In the light of 508 and now that some sort of
legislation has been enacted as to accessibility, would
that ruling also apply to Mr. Goldstein?  If it does,
will he and his associate CEOs be compelled to provide
that access to these low income disabled?

Rudy
.
.
.
> Paraphrasing Rudy's Comments:
>
> "These people don't have any free choice
> > or option of access to “super technology” as some of
> > their disabled counterparts who may have fortune smile
> > on them, and who possibly work for institutions and
> > other such corporate entities that provides the
> > Technology.  A valid question should arise in the minds
> > of all logical minded persons because of this corporate
> > decision.  And that is:  Will Mr. Goldstein comply with
> > Federal Accessibility Guidelines and accommodate these
> > disenfranchised individuals"
>
>     I am an advocate of equal access to social resources for all people
> despite their  disabilities whether physical or economic. However that is the
> responsibility of the society to provide equal access to all its citizens and
> NOT of the corporations. We elect representatives to make laws to foster
> general social welfare of all the populace. Some demagogic politicians get
> elected by representing themselves as champions of the people and portray
> some individuals who take undue advantage of the social largesse and wish to
> deprive the whole underclass on that basis. This type of propaganda serves
> them well and they do get elected to high offices. It is the duty of
> knowledgeable persons to lift these veils of demagoguery and expose it for
> what it is. However the corporations have NO moral obligation to provide any
> free Internet service to any individual poor, rich disabled or abled as much
> as a pharmaceutical company has to provide the poor with free expensive
> medications. However when they do so because it fits their business model
> they have to be held accountable to the same guidelines as one would an ISP
> such as AOL or ATT or MSN. If they discontinue the free model it is their
> prerogative, however it is also the moral and ethical responsibility of
> "Compassionate Conservatives" OR "Responsible Liberals" to make sure that
> these economically deprived (I would say disabled) individuals, are not left
> behind. A society that is divided in stratums, is not a sustainably
> prosperous society in the long run. How does one provide the Internet access
> to all the people at a reasonable cost before some politician starts talking
> it down as another entitlement? Remember the Health Care Crisis and Universal
> coverage!
>     The reason we would want to look at the PG&E books would be to assure if
> it is a contrived shortage but a real one (remember the hearings about the
> gasoline shortages in summer, one wonders whatever happened to them)! I
> believe in any society more so in a democratic society the populace has to be
> vigilant, so that their rights are not usurped by some demagoguery or self
> serving interests. This type of forums does help raise our awareness, however
> it has to be coupled with some form of sustainable action, otherwise it just
> becomes what it is: Just plain talk! In my humble opinion it is good to see
> such divergent opinions.
> Murali