Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!nosc!crash!pro-smof.cts.com!jonl
From: jonl@pro-smof.cts.com (Jon Lebkowsky)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: email's not real Mail, now, is it?
Message-ID: <6545@crash.cts.com>
Date: 27 Dec 90 01:56:03 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Lines: 26

In-Reply-To: message from vancleef@nas.nasa.gov

You ask whether I watch commercial television: actually not often, for the
same reason I dislike Prodigy...I would argue that you're not ignoring the
commercials, but tolerating them, and they still do their work. And I found
them particularly intrusive on Prodigy, possibly more so than on commercial
teevee or radio.

I don't disagree with Prodigy's right to set whatever standards they want, and
if you're a satisfied customer, that's your prerogative. Obviously those of us
who don't like Prodigy have the option to cancel our memberships (which I
did), just as you have the option to retain yours.

But I also have the right, possibly the obligation, to explain my feelings
about the Prodigy system and its implications for electronic communications in
general. My concern is not whether Prodigy has a right to exist or to operate
as it sees fit, but I am concerned with how a system like this can become
dominant, in the same way that commercial network television dominated video
for 30+ years. My concern is that commercial systems like Prodigy will
dominate telecommunciations and put the squeeze on systems dedicated to
information-sharing.

I've worked with GEnie and PCLink, both offering similar services to Prodigy,
and neither has exhibited the kind of crass commercialism that I've seen on
the latter. Sure, they push their 'pay for play' services, but they don't push
'em down my throat (choke). And they have been up front about e-mail costs.