0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) (10/05/90)
Responding to: Ravinder Bhumbla <rbhumbla@ucsd.edu> (and Telecom Moderator) continuing a long and frustrating thread about blocking international card-charged calls from payphones, Mr.Bhumbla (in Digest V10, Iss712) says: >I called the AT&T operator today to find out a way to get around the >blocking of calling card calls to India from payphones.... And goes on to describe the frustration and obvious untruths that he, like many must be receiving daily about the matter. Our Moderator replied at some length about the wrongness of this, and suggests that it is time some real action took place, saying: >...how stupid does AT&T think their average user must be? No matter >who you call with some authority/knowledge in the matter at AT&T, >you will never get the same answer twice, and you will never get a >*truthful, candid* answer at all! ... and suggests some public action, concluding with: >When you contact the FTC, FCC or telephone administrations, carefully >document your claim with the time, place and destination of your >call. Include the names and titles of any employees of AT&T you speak >with. Let's force the issue! PAT] I wholeheartedly agree with consumer action that gets corporations to pay attention, and here suggest all the participants in this forum have a tool they may not know of. It is the Internet gateway to public E-Mail. On the AT&TMail and MCIMail networks, some very influential people have listings. Here they are: Username: !reallen NumericID: !6284486 Name: Robert E Allen Company: AT&T Address: Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Phone: +1 201 221 5151 MCI ID Name Organization Location 109-0242 William McGowan MCIC Washington DC No further should need to be said in view of what Digest readers have demonstrated from the past, except to say that this may mark an innovative way for top execs to hear from the public. And, as our Moderator advises, ALWAYS ask those Three Little Words: "What's Your Name?" It can work wonders. If you get a refusal, then make note of the time, date, and number at which you got an employee who refused to identify themselves and put that in your report. It could be more powerful than having the name! [Moderator's Note: The first of the two addresses given above would be addressed from the net as 'reallen@attmail.com'. The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what happens and post the responses received. PAT]
PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter M. Weiss) (10/07/90)
In article <13083@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) says: >No further should need to be said in view of what Digest readers have >demonstrated from the past, except to say that this may mark an >innovative way for top execs to hear from the public. >[Moderator's Note: (etc.) >The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether >or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it >scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what >happens and post the responses received. PAT] My opinion is that the readership NOT deluge those addresses with mail. I would suggest that spokesfolks from the list e.g., our Moderator be assigned that task. It would be a shame if so much noise were generated that this channel of communication were cutoff. Peter M. Weiss | pmw1@psuvm or @vm.psu.edu 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | not affiliated with PSUVM | VM.PSU.EDU University Park, PA USA 16802 [Moderator's Note: I'm not quite sure I understand your claim. Is it 'noise' if you do not agree with the letter-writer? If Mr. McGowan suddenly began refusing to read/answer his mail personally, would that be a big loss? Can you explain further? You are not suggesting that either MCI Mail or ATT Mail would deliberatly cut the connection and reduce their email universe as a result of a few letters sent through which were (in your estimation) 'noise' are you? PAT]
JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet (10/08/90)
>>The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether >>or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it >>scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what >>happens and post the responses received. PAT] >My opinion is that the readership NOT deluge those addresses with >mail. I would suggest that spokesfolks from the list e.g., our >Moderator be assigned that task. >It would be a shame if so much noise were generated that this channel >of communication were cutoff. Putting on my (unearned) powdered wig again, I also believe deluging an email box with correspondence is unwise and perhaps illegal. There may even be some laws relative to using the telecommunications networks in this manner. First, it is abusive, generally bad form, and potentially illegal (harrassment) to deprive someone (including corporations of the rightful use of their property. I think deluging an email box could be construed to fall under this, even if it has not yet been tested in the court. I'm fairly certain there are similar ones that protect people against constant phone calls whose intent is to annoy or have the effect of interfering with its normal use. Second, for an individual to think about such is contemplation and is not (yet) illegal. For individual to discuss illegal acts can be interpreted as conspiracy to commit, which is illegal. If we want to change phone company behavior, I agree with the responder that lobbying (it's not always a dirty word) is a more responsible way by presenting facts and consensus of opinion and that bypassing the bureaucracy by sending it direct to the email accounts of the corporate leaders is entirely reasonable. The WORST that can happen from THAT is that they ignore it or bounce it down to a peon for a response. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: I think your 'legal advice' is all wet. If several people sending email to the same person(s) at more or less the same time is illegal, then the thousands of people who send public opinion messages to their congress-critters daily via Western Union are all criminals, since several telex machines run almost constantly 24 hours per day in the Congressional Telecommunications Center handling these. When someone publishes their email address -- just as when they publish their telephone number -- they are inviting people to contact them via that media. The 9000+ persons who call 202-456-1414 each 24 hour period -- many of whom actually ask to speak to George -- are also guilty of clogging the circuits, no? Those crackpots! Cut off their phone service and stick 'em all in jail! Furthermore, the people who use their own computers and modems to connect with Western Union to send lobbyist telegram messages should likewise be prosecuted, huh? And to discuss or explain how a 'crime' is committed on its face becomes conspiracy? What lawyer told you that? Therefore television shows which run crime dramas should all be indicted as co-conspirators, right? Of course that won't happen, because CBS has a smart-mouthpiece of their own on retainer. And when Kay Graham or one of my other competitors uses their editorial page to encourage readers to send their opinion on some issue to a corporation, they are also guilty of harrassment, right? I can just hear it now: ... " why poor Bill McGowan ... he had to actually sift through and erase a dozen email letters from folks who don't agree with the way he runs things at MCI ...ahhhhhh" (whining tone of voice). I manage my email just fine, thanks; let him do the same. Lots of publications and electronic media invite, indeed encourage people to assist in lobbying for a given cause. I will do the same. Or is it 'lobbying' when you agree with the cause, and 'harassment' when you do not? Your complaint is invalid. PAT]
JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet (10/09/90)
[ Insert moderator's tirade here ] :-)
I think my first statement adequately disclaimed any real legal
expertise. My powdered wig may indeed be all wet. However, if
expertise, legal or otherwise, is a criteria for commenting in the
digest, I think the submission list will have to be cut down to a very
few individuals, from what I have read here.
I think PAT's logic circuit was left on hold :-).
Not every email address, even when published, is designated or
intended as the recipient of very large volumes of communications, any
more than having your phone number in the white or yellow pages
entitles people to overwhelm it with calls and make life miserable for
you or make your phone (system) unavailable for practical use. Most
of the phone numbers you cite as (counter)examples are intended and
even promoted for such use and the consequential volumes are expected.
The fact that they are often (wo)manned to handle the load indicates
this. This applies also to sending communications to corporations in
general, especially customer service and PUBLIC relations.
> And to discuss or explain how a 'crime' is committed on its face
> becomes conspiracy? What lawyer told you that? Therefore television
> shows which run crime dramas should all be indicted as
> co-conspirators, right?
PAT missed the point entirely. IF depriving somebody of the rightful
and reasonable use of their property/service is illegal (there is such
a thing as telephone harassment, but I don't know if there is, either
explicitly or implicitly, an email equivalent - is the medium
critical?) then a GROUP of people planning to do something WITH SUCH
INTENT is a type of conspiracy. Remember, the original discussions
suggested how neat it would be to overwhelm these people with email
messages. How would you construe the meaning/intent of that ?
I will not repeat the arguments about the wisdom of civilized and
organized argument as a form of lobbying over mass electronic yelling.
Based upon past moderator's notes, I really expected a more 'moderate'
point of view from PAT. Maybe he had a rough night - there sure was a
deluge of digests to my mailbox. Hmmm, maybe I have an email
harassment case there :-) Oops, I think I invited them by subscribing.
Jeff Sicherman
[Moderator's Note: I do not think I said it would be 'neat' to
overwhelm anyone with anything. I think a couple names and email
addresses were given saying persons dissatisfied with some aspect of
the service provided by the companies represented by those two
gentlemen could write to them at the addresses provided. It is not
harrassment when you write someone to express an opinion or complaint
to them. Furthermore, I would have *no idea* how many people would be
writing. Maybe everyone but a few people are happy with things the way
they are. There is no deprivation of property involved. Those people
are not being deprived of the use of their email service in any way.
And what makes you think that anyone who would write to either of
those persons would engage in 'electronic yelling'? And who are you
to define 'electronic yelling'? You are making a lot of presumptions
which are false on their face. Preprinted postcards and individually
written letters flood into the offices of AT&T daily lobbying for one
thing or another. Are those folks depriving anyone of the use of the
mail? Both Mr. Allen and Mr. McGowan receive lots of mail from the
public each day. Are those men, in your opinion so special, and so
different that they should not have to read an email letter from a
commoner? Your argument is still invalid. Finally, thanks for your
comments about my logic circuits. I really appreciated that. PAT]dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David Tamkin) (10/21/90)
Jeff Sicherman wrote in volume 10, issue 728: | PAT missed the point entirely. IF depriving somebody of the rightful | and reasonable use of their property/service is illegal (there is such | a thing as telephone harassment, but I don't know if there is, either | explicitly or implicitly, an email equivalent - is the medium | critical?) then a GROUP of people planning to do something WITH SUCH | INTENT is a type of conspiracy. Remember, the original discussions | suggested how neat it would be to overwhelm these people with email | messages. How would you construe the meaning/intent of that ? Mr. Sicherman, you overlook one difference between the telephone and email: if you are bombarded with incoming telephone calls, you cannot use your phone for outgoing calls, nor can you receive desired incoming calls, so indeed you have been deprived of a service you are paying for. But if you are bombarded with email, your outgoing email can still get out and your desired incoming email (at least on a large commercial system like MCI Mail or AT&T Mail, where storage space is not a factor) still reaches you. You may be exasperated, annoyed, angered, or incensed, but you have not been deprived of email service. If you wish to bombard me, kindly do it on GEnie or MCI Mail; at my accounts on local pubnet sites, storage limitation *is* a factor. David Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines IL 60018-7002 708 518 6769 312 693 0591 MCI Mail: 426-1818 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com
JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet (10/21/90)
Gee, and I naively thought this thread had died a merciful death, but I guess you gotta allow for slow readers and PAT's propensity to continue publishing responses that take his side even when he cuts off ones that don't (like my last response to his last comment). PAT inserted his point of view sarcasticly in a recent issue (748?) which I won't waste the effort on responding to. MODERATION has its privileges I guess in which moderation is not an obligation. Actually, I'm willing to live with that given all the work this obviously takes; only a fanatic would do it in the first place. As I have acknowledged consistently, I'm not a lawyer (one of MY few virtues) nor a telecom expert like many readers, so the things I postulate may not be supported in statute or tariff, but I think I can support their logic and good sense with anybody. > Mr. Sicherman, you overlook one difference between the telephone and > email: if you are bombarded with incoming telephone calls, you cannot > use your phone for outgoing calls, nor can you receive desired > incoming calls, so indeed you have been deprived of a service you are > paying for. I think you are taking a very narrow view of things. First, the email has to get through to the receipient so there is a bandwidth consumption through nodes, networks and accounts, the nature and extent of which may vary from system to system and with the actual amount of mail. Second, the effect of this load on the recipient's email service may also vary from implementation to implementation and in some indeterminable portion of cases indeed interfere with his use of the service. We haven't even addressed the effect upon the providor (MCIMAIL, etc.) and whther they have a case and a cause for interference with normal operations. > But if you are bombarded with email, your outgoing email can still get > out and your desired incoming email (at least on a large commercial > system like MCI Mail or AT&T Mail, where storage space is not a > factor) still reaches you. You may be exasperated, annoyed, angered, > or incensed, but you have not been deprived of email service. I seriously doubt that any tribunal would decide on the (il)legality or liability based upon the size of the recipients disk space. If anything, this would impact amount of damages. This would call for rather detailed foreknowledge by the perpetrators and I don't think has anything to do with the central issue: which is whether a group of individuals 'conspired' to send large volumes of email traffic with the intent to harass the recipient. I do not know how a judge would rule or jury would decide on this; I just think that if the medium is not a public forum (so freedom of speech is not an issue) and if the volume is the message, there is an argument for harassment and a case for conspiracy among the contributors. > If you wish to bombard me, kindly do it on GEnie or MCI Mail; at my > accounts on local pubnet sites, storage limitation *is* a factor. Seems to me this supports my argument: you want to restrict the freedom of others to communicate with you on a volume-dependent basis; why shouldn't other others have the same right ? ---------------- [Moderator's Note: Thanks for letting me know I am a fanatic. I'm sure David Tamkin appreciates your comments about him being a slow reader also. Not everyone can devote their entire day to reading TELECOM Digest, Mr. Sicherman. One reader on MCI Mail said he is currently about thirty issues behind. Will you graciously pardon us if in a few days he gets around to your message and decides to respond to it? And if you don't mind, we prefer not to have meta-conversations here, as per your 'gee, I thought this thread had died a merciful death ...' . If you do not wish to continue discussing something, Mr. Sicherman, then *don't discuss it*. One of the wonderful things about net news is that you can skip over the messages you do not want to read. Contrary to your assertion that because I did not agree with your message I would not print it, you will note that indeed, your messages do get published here, like lots of others. Or did you mean that your messages were not printed here as a priority item, Mr. Sicherman? Was that it? Yours were to be moved to the top of the stack? Although by net custom, my title here is Moderator, I more view my role as facilitator and editor. I am admittedly, a telecom activist. I encourage people to do things which in their estimation will make a difference for the better. Your arguments against the use of email as a way of informing, educating and persuading people are invalid. The dire consequences of which you and others have spoken are unrealistic. You freely admit to not being a solicitor. Why don't we leave it at that? No one here is encouraging anyone to 'flood' or 'disrupt' the email service of any site. Define those words as you wish, Mr. Sicherman. It does not matter, really. Dozens of copies of this Digest go daily to MCI Mail and AT&T Mail. Your message will be included in the current mailing. I guess I am already causing a flood of mail, considering I get over a hundred letters daily and try to print at least 25-40 of them. The amount of text transmitted as news on any given day greatly exceeds the amount of email between sites. Would you stop that also? Some of it is pretty vindictive toward the same companies we talk about here. Better still, perhaps you and Mr. Stanley could start a mailing list and say all the Correct Things To Be Said each day, and route your messages to the Correct Departments and the Correct People. PAT]