Reports are coming in about this corporate strategy of
reneging on their "responsibilities" or "promises", even
to those who have NOT "abused" their service plan.

The corporation just makes your connection a long
distance call - unless you bump yourself up to a higher
fee level on their server if available, or you pay a fee
through another [related, integrated, merged,
associated, combined, or whatever cute designation they
want to term their manipulation to suit their self
serving corporate whim, etc.] ISP.

Rudy
.
.
.
> I've been off "for two" and just wanted to say that I used to use Blue Light
> at home but the call up numbers have been changed so that it is not a local
> dial up any more here in Ottawa. The call up numbers seem to be only US area
> codes. (that is what happened to me anyway) Notes have appeared by email
> saying to check for additional area codes for dial in but with the tech.
> economy troubles in the stock market I can't see it soon.
>
>
> Smile
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Poehlman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Days of Plenty Are Over at Free
> Internet Services (f...
>
>
> simply no.  and no one has been cut off but for abuse.  the services
> remain free if you use them judiciously.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rudy Caris" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: January 02, 2001 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com Article: Days of Plenty Are Over at Free
> Internet Services (f...
>
>
> 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 �?osuper 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