[FoRK] [tt] Vint Cerf is

Bill Kearney wkearney99 at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 5 13:40:21 PST 2012


It's easy to throw stones, a lot harder to make the argument.

I disagree that access is a right.  But I insist that any access when 
purchased must not be encumbered or otherwise filtered, restricted, (folded, 
spindled or mutilated...).  I vote such with my wallet when purchasing IP 
services.

Thus it seems entirely reasonable to legislate that if access is going to be 
offered as a saleable commodity to the citizenry that said access be 
entirely unfettered.  It seems entirely /unreasonable/ to insist that access 
be provided for as if it were some kind of right (of a constitutional 
nature).

So yeah, if you can't afford it you're fucked, now go away you flea-bitten 
rabble...

However, this shouldn't preclude anyone or any entity from giving it away. 
But in doing so they're still be required to offer it without filtering. 
Plenty of places do this, for various reasons.

The workplace, however, being the obvious exception.  You're on company 
time, so it's company rules.  Feel free to seek employment elsewhere or 
readjust your IP access demands until you're off the company clock/premises.

-Bill Kearney

-----Original Message----- 

On 1/5/12 3:48 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

| (ability to TCP/IP is free speech. period.)

Ability to use it, if it exists -- agreed.

When I read Cerf's piece earlier today, I wondered how much more he
could jumble his premise, and still get something published! Cerf seems
to wobble back and forth between discussing "actually having internet
access," and "being allowed to use internet access."

True, "actually having" IP tone seems merely a privilege.  Someone needs
to pay for it, at least, which hinders ubiquity.

However, "being allowed to use" IP tone seems as close to a universal
human right as anything that has appeared in my lifetime...



More information about the FoRK mailing list