I already wrote a long response and don't want to repeat the points and will
write about the IP address fallacy in an essay I'm working on. The point
about the static IP address is indeed technical -- there is no need for them
and they only work in the 1980's static Internet.
I do want to emphasize that it is a free speech issue. Arguing that if I
were diligent enough I could work around such impediments is not the
response any more than "separate but equal" was in the US in 1954. But AOL
does have the right to not listen except that they are also purporting to
provide their customers with access to the Internet and they are not. AOL
does not own its users but because the .Com disaster their users are not
really mobile.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 18:14
To: asrg(_at_)bobf(_dot_)frankston(_dot_)com
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out?
At 2:24 PM -0400 7/26/03, <asrg(_at_)bobf(_dot_)frankston(_dot_)com> wrote:
The responses I got (only 2) remind me of the concept that free speech is
only allowed as long as you don't abuse it. For this list I must point
translate this phrase to point out that restricting free speech to what is
allowed ain't no free speech. It's heartening to see the reaction in Hong
AOL is not restricting free speech. They are restricting where you
can speak from. That's a common practice in realspace as well as
cyberspace. I don't know of any ISPs that provide floating IPs and
no mail server, perhaps there are some. But fundamentally AOL is
saying that if you want to speak to their users, you need to do so
from a static location--either yours or your ISPs. I have a hard
time of considering that even a step down a slippery slope, let alone
a restriction.
Static IP addresses are bug. But putting that aside, Requiring me to only
That's a philosophical conclusion. From a technical and historical
standpoint it would appear that static IPs would be the norm and
dynamic are a side effect of limited IP availability.
To respond to another letter I don't need, I don't want an ISP and I must
not be required to have an ISP any more than I must not be required to send
Which is fine, but in that case you'll certainly have a static IP.
The problem you are describing is a side effect of what you want to
happen with regard to IP addresses, it has very little bearing on
current internet usage. AOL's restricting is annoying, but smaller
ISPs and companies have been implementing the same restriction for
years. Yes, it's lousy, and it's a pain. But it has nothing to do
with free speech.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg