Perhaps an overview might reveal that the ideal state of affairs is
simply that access is a "cost of doing business", the position taken by
the Canadian government.
A company which cannot cover its costs of doing business goes out of
business, that is the influence of the market. It does not necessarily
go bankrupt, although that might be a legal dodge used in the process.
Most sell out to their competition, and major shareholders land quite
comfortably on their feet.
The distinction between the two, business and government, is that the
former has no "moral sense", except in a very tangential way. The
purpose of a corporation is to make a profit for its shareholders. The
CEO who thinks or does otherwise, is simply not doing his job.
Governments, however, are supposed to be the custodian of the collective
"moral sense". That is what we elect them for. They impose rules on
business organizations, including safety and labour regulations, taxes,
and other measures for the good of society, as part of their job.
Corporations, and other business ventures, are not "citizens" per se,
and have no say where it counts - they cannot vote.
In the normal order of things, activists who want changes made for the
benefit of the disabled would lobby government for laws, and sue
corporations, where necessary, for compliance.
Awareness doesn't have too much to do with it, beyond awareness of the
law. Most corporations have legal staff to keep them informed.
Rick Sinclair
SNA
Rudy Caris wrote:
>
> Hello Kelly,
>
> Happy New Year, and I appreciate your candid point of
> view. What we are talking about here is accessibility
> access to the web, aren’t we?
>
> George Orwell quite appropriately examined the delicate
> balance of economic power that “the elitist classes
> wield for control” in his 1984, where their sole desire
> is to maintain the existing status quo, versus the
> deplorable plight of the oppressed [disabled] poor.
> Under that scrutinizing light then, it is free Internet
> Service that provides that reasonable access to web
> technology that is the only option open to millions of
> disabled people. These are people whose income is only
> about $500.- to $800.- per month to survive on.
> Charging these people $21.95 a month or thereabouts for
> this service, means they don’t eat for two or three
> days. And viewing the article on an interlinear basis,
> and as “reasoning” from the tumultuous frontlines may
> permit: The ISPs referenced “are going out of business
> as much as PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) on the west
> coast is going out of business.”
>
> Hitting these poverty stricken disabled hard by coercing
> an up to an estimated 20% hike in their utility fees by
> claiming a “trumped up power shortage”, as well as
> jacking up web access service because of “loosing
> profits”, is pure bunk. And is this the understanding
> of the facts, and the reason why advocates are now
> calling for governmental intervention and having the PGE
> books audited to ascertain the factuality of their
> claims? And in the wake of the recent Federal ruling
> of “Guidelines Set for Web Accessibility”, should these
> Advocates now call on Mr. Goldstein and his associate
> CEOs as well, to make available and open up for
> inspection their corporate Books of Account to ascertain
> the factuality of their claims? And after these facts,
> when we check the ownership of those consolidated ISPs,
> will we find the same names on the roster. Including
> Mr. Goldstein?
>
> We are all caught up in the loop of corporations
> merging. And as some “reasoning” from the tumultuous
> front lines may again permit me, we need to and we have
> to fully consider those disabled persons who are trying
> to survive day-by-day, and whose only means of access to
> Technology is a free ISP with their 75 Mhz 486, or lower
> grade Pentium. 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?
>
> >From this perspective and point of view
> then, “...corporations [and ISP (Internet Service
> Providers)] merge, not because they are going out of
> business.” These “Corporations merge because it is more
> profitable for them.” [Economics 1A – The Corporate
> Strategy] [The Global Business]
>
>
|