Subject: Re: APT 706 Filing
Robert Cannon (cannon@dc.net)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 19:50:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 19:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806052350.TAA10544@cais.cais.com> To: roundtable@cni.org From: Robert Cannon <cannon@dc.net> Subject: Re: APT 706 Filing
On 6/4/98, Donald Vial <dvial@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> I find your swipe at APT's 706 filing disconcerting.
> Unfortunately, rather than a display of "guts", your
> attach on APT comes off as projecting on to others a
> relationship that may exist between you and the major
> supporters of your organization. I would prefer a
> civil discussion of differences that may exist over
> the implementation of 706, rather than an attack on
> the integrity of people like myself and Henry Geller
> who work on APT filings pro bono. I really don't know
> who you are, but I will match my integrity and
> independence against yours any day. Donald Vial,
> Policy Committee Chair. APT
Donald
Respectfully . . .
The fact is that APT is funded by ILECs. The fact is that the APT 706
petition requests some of the same relief that the ILECs request in
their 706 petitions. The fact is that the ILECs and APT filed their
petitions in relatively the same time period.
You however, respectfully, sling an accusation at me that it is
unfounded. You accuse me of bias based on "my major supporters." I take
it you did not even visit my web site. The Internet Telecommunications
Project is a 100% pro bono project with NO supporters. I do not get
paid for this. I just spend a lot of my own time reading and writing.
I am not employed by any internet trade assn.
Guts???? Well, APT stood up at TPR and asked for support of their
petition. APT did not state the substantive relief that APT is asking
for. APT did not state that it is asking for regulatory relief for
ILECs. APT did not state that it is asking for access charges to be
imposed on ISPs. I responded publicly at that meeting and on this list.
Public debate is a very good thing a democracy, wouldnt you say Donald?
One thing I have never done is attack you personally (such as you have
mistakenly done to me). Do you deny that it is important to know where
people's funding comes from? I think you would be laughed out of DC if
you were to posit that funding is irrelevant. AGain, you are funding by
ILECs and you are asking for the relief that ILECs want. That's not an
attack, Donald. That is important information. Information comes from
a perspective. To know one's perspective is to comprehend that
information better. If you are comfortable with the ILEC funding, then
explain to us why we should also not be concerned. You must be honest
and know that the interests of ILECs are red flags to many of us in the
public interest and internet fields.
As for challenges to honor donald, it is no dishonor to advocate a
position for individuals in our society. It is a dishonor to fail
disclose any conflict of interests you might have. APT's petition does
not disclose that ILECs are significant supporters of APT. It states
"APT is a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, whose members include
almost 300 grassroots organizations and individuals seeking to foster
public high-quality infrastructure to every home in the nation." APT's
web site at the time of your filing did not disclose that ILECs were
significant supporters. The link to APT's supporters did not work at
the time, as did not most of APT's web page. I e-mailed APT at that
time asking if they could restore the links. Finally, there was a
request on a telecom listserv for disclosure of APT's funding. To my
knowledge, that request was not publicly answered. I am glad to see
that APT's web site is once again fully functional and discloses this
information (although it does not disclose how much funding is from the
ILECS).
By the way, Donald, I have had my dealings with APT before. I believe
APT has published one of my articles and I consulted with your old? ex
dir Ruth Holder. I apologize that we have not been properly introduced.
How about lunch??
My home office number is 703-527-6631. If you still have questions
about my bias or funding, please call me.
APT's petition is wrong; deregulation of ILECs is not the way to bring
high speed internet access to Americans. Your accusation that I am
biased by my major funders is also wrong. I receive no such funding.
I challenge you to produce any evidence to the contrary.
Respectfully yours,
-Robert Cannon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Cannon, Esq. || Leashes!
cannon@dc.net \ @@==* We Dont Need No
www.cais.net/cannon ====== Stinkin' Leashes!
|| || -Pancho Villa
~~~~~~~~~~Internet~Telecommunications~Project~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:26 EST