hello,

i entitle this set of reflections; microsoft versus individual
freedom. the last 200 years has seen great strides in personal
political and economic freedom.   the constitution started this off by
building a balance and distribution of power into government.   in
this century, economic monopoly was recognized for the concentration
of power it was and law was introduced to reinstate balance and
distribution of market place power.   labor agreements had a similar
function with regard to a monopoly of power over worker economic
lives.  when a situation arises to concentrate power, all of our
freedoms are accordingly threatened. this is the cause of the recent
legal and senate attention paid to microsoft's computer software
monopoly in the form of congressional hearings  and the attorney
general's suit against them.. here i only want to draw attention to
one small part of the microsoft problem, adaptive access. with the
recent born again actions of mr. gates, he puts an offer on the table.
he says he is once again aware and sensitive to our needs. he will be
asking all at microsoft to be equally so sensitive and aware.   to
clinch the proposed deal, he will triple the minuscule access program.
we need to remind ourselves that this is only a first offer.   if we
accept it, we relinquish again the balance and distribution of power
in this monopoly situation.  of course, by intention, we are not to
see it as an offer by the manner in which it was so carefully gift
wrapped and presented.  if not so disguised, the reality of this being
only a first offer would be apparent and open the possibility that
counter offers would be made. to allow and entertain counter offers
would suggest that consumers have some part in exercising their
individual and combined power in this monopoly environment. exercising
an apparently unbounded paternal concern for those poor crippled
people, he will even go as far as to entertain advocates' input. this
is far, far removed from balance and distribution of power in the
access marketplace, in the monopoly he is desperate to maintain.

i would like to offer a proposal by which to reintroduce a balance of
power.   we are aware and sensitive to microsoft's needs to want to
maintain monopoly power and to have to respond only as conscious and
public relations direct and we should be open to their input.  but, we
find their first offer lacking in meaningful proposals which will
return a balance and distribution of control inherent in purchasing
power. there needs to be once again a balance of power in the access
marketplace.   therefore, while providing input as advocates, we will
simultaneously be asking government to enforce on itself the rules it
has already passed. every day the government continues to buy windows
and update microsoft applications.   it should stop.   government will
proceed as it always has regardless of what software it uses.    it
would publicly proclaim the moratorium and the start of a search to
replace sources of new accessible software with other manufactures
products.  novel, ibm, and others have in place operating systems,
networks, and applications which will do the job just fine.  with the
os2 operating system which will run dos, windows, and it's own
software, government can continue to even use the hugh supply of dos
and windows 3.1 applications it already has, a small fraction of which
the latter is accessible. where windows 95 products are being used,
there would be minimal disruption by returning to the equivalent
windows 3.1 and dos products which they have on hand anyway. this
approach has a big plus in it for the government in another way. it
could drop it's suit and senate hearings because microsoft would be
scrambling to not only become accessible but also to end it's very
questionable marketing practices.

the disabled need to help themselves and the government in this
regard.   there is an vacuum of advocacy leadership on this issue
among the traditional groups. sure, go to access summits and talk with
microsoft, but don't accept the first offer microsoft has put on the
table.   snatch back a balance of political marketplace power by
offering counter offers and simultaneously flexing the potential and
real power of government purchasing.  at the same time, make
coordinated plans for a concentrated advocacy and public awareness
effort in all of it's forms.   it works.   last fall, a mild flow of
letters and public discussion of the web browser wake up call has
microsoft putting this first offer on the table.   what would a real
advocacy program do if combined with our counter offer?  the access
problem with windows is solvable from a technical aspect.   the only
question is whose proposal for spending how much money and on what
time table, is as of yet outstanding.  we need to reintroduce the
balance of and distribution of power to which we have access in the
market place of ideas and public awareness, in the political market
place, and most of all; in the advocacy market place.

                                                     regards,

                                                     dan