See an unfamiliar term? Check the newsletter glossary.
newsletter://mv.com
December 1995
Happy Holidays
from all of us at
MV
Note: text copies of all issues of the monthly newsletter can be found on
mv in the public archive; look in /pub/mv/inews. They're also in the
online menu!
Old Rates, New Rates, and This Invoice
By now you should be aware that our rates went through a significant
set of changes effective September 1. (Please consult our web page,
http://www.mv.com, for current rates structure - or email or call us with
any questions you might have.)
However, please note that this invoice is for the months of July and
August, and that therefore the original (pre-September-1) rates apply here.
And Newer Rates!
Our rates are again going through some refinement. While the details
aren't quite ready for this printing, be sure to watch for them in our web
page, and in the MV newsgroups (mv.forum.general, in particular).
Future Invoices
We are very much behind in our billing, something we are working on
correcting. By way of catching up, our next bill will likely cover the
three-month period covering September, October, and November.
InterNIC charging for domains
As of mid-September InterNIC, the organization charged with managing
names within various top-level Internet domains, instituted a policy of
charging for domain registrations. Prior to this, funding for domain
registrations was done through government contract.
InterNIC's new domain charge is a $50/year fee. If you register a new
domain, you will be billed a $100 charge which will cover the first two
years. If you have a domain registered currently, you will be billed a $50
fee when the next anniversary of your domain comes due.
Note that this is an InterNIC fee and an InterNIC policy: it has noth-
ing to do with MV Communications. For more detailed information, please
refer to the InterNIC's web page at http://www.internic.net (look under
registration services).
Congressional Efforts to Censor the Net
The efforts of fundamentalist lobbies and other groups to "clean up
the Internet" goes on even as Congress recesses for the holiday season.
For long months the Congress has wrestled with a major telecommunications
reform bill, which on the whole represents major changes in the way that
telecomm companies are regulated (or not). But attached to this bill are
provisions to censor content on the Internet. These provisions, with roots
in the so-called "Communications Decency Act" passed last summer by the
Senate, attempt to "dumb down" the Internet, prohibit indecent speech, and
impose huge sentences and fines on violators and intermediaries, all in the
name of protecting children. This despite the fact that the prohibitions
on "indecency" are held to be wildly unconstitutional (even by the Depart-
ment of Justice); that no further laws are needed to prosecute such legiti-
mate crimes as obscenity and child pornography on the Internet; that there
are parental-control technologies currently available and still emerging.
Despite an estimated 50,000 (or more) calls opposing Federal regula-
tion over "decency" on the Internet to Congressional committee members dur-
ing a 3-day period in December, the final bill was drafted with the censor-
ship language included. This mirrors the passage of the CDA in the Senate
in August in complete disregard of significant grassroots opposition. What
is so wrong about this bill? In brief, it attempts to control the manner
in which you communicate over the Internet. It imposes Federal sanctions
against certain modes of speech and expressions of thought. It puts exces-
sive controls on communications merely because the medium is different and
unknown to those making the laws. By specifying huge fines and harsh sen-
tences, even against third parties, it puts the chill of governmental power
in force against even tolerating adult conversation on the Internet. If
you have a Web page on the net, you will have to make sure that no one,
anywhere, can find it indecent. If you make a Usenet posting: the same.
If you send email to a mailing list: the same. If you send a message to
your teenage son, daughter, nephew, niece: the same. Do you want your
Internet that way? (Incidentally, your Chamber of Commerce thinks you do;
they were used as a huge lever in support of the CDA's passage in the Sen-
ate.)
It is possible that this bill could be signed over the Christmas holi-
day. However, it may not be, but either way, there's still a chance to get
your feelings known. No matter what, you can learn more about this issue
by going to
the Voter Telecomm Watch page (http://www.vtw.org),
the Electronic Frontiers Foundation page (http://www.eff.org),
the Coalition for Democracy and Technology page (http://www.cdt.org),
the Electronic Frontiers New Hampshire page (http://www.efnh.org),
or the ACLU page (http://www.aclu.org - note: due to open in January).
One day, you'll be able to express your opinion to your government
electronically, and that opinion will have its proper weight because its
content is not dictated or controlled, and because it will be digitally
verified, encrypted, and be delivered via a respected and universally
accepted medium. For now, you'll need to call or write your message,
because Congress does not respect communication on the Internet, and they
are showing it. If you value this fledgling Internet, please do what you
can to educate yourself about this and other legislation affecting it, and
act on your conclusions.
MV Communications, Inc. (603) 429-2223