Evidently, It's Not *Your* Internet, World

The Times goes a bit into the current situation with ICANN. For those who don't follow this sort of thing:

Icann [sic] was created at the Clinton administration's behest as a private-public alliance to oversee Internet addresses. Although Icann says it is advised by more than 80 nations and has had citizens of many countries on its board, it operates under a memorandum of understanding with the Commerce Department.

Icann was founded with the intent of becoming an independent or "denationalized" group. But in June, the Bush administration backed away from that plan, saying in a "statement of principles" issued by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that the United States had the right to maintain oversight of Icann indefinitely.

And folks wonder why non-English-speakers, particularly from outside of North America or Europe, are having a tough time getting with this Internet thing. Let's not be responsible for ruining another great, global initiative.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/business/14register.html

Company Uses Courts to Clamp Down on Activist

Isn't this always the way?

"A Canadian stay-at-home mom of 3 recently created a website to report on environmental problems around her neighborhood. The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'. However, not everyone was quite as happy, as she soon found out, when one company decided to sue her for libel to the tune of $2 million." [From Slashdot]

Naturally, the normal course of action here is for the company to make the court process so lengthy and expensive that the mother can't afford to continue. It's a travesty that this fact, rather than the facts of the case, doubtless will be the basis for its resolution.

Bad User Interface, Vol. 1

I despise it when applications place an annoying start-up screen right in the middle of your display -- even if you launched the application in the background.



So much for whatever I was trying to type, eh? I just have to wait until it finishes loading. Sigh. Would that with the press of a button, the developer -- or, more likely, the marketing person -- responsible for this would receive a quick and much-needed beating every time anyone is forced to suffer through this.

Verizon's Nickel-and-Dime Shenanigans

My girlfriend and I just got a landline phone in our overpriced new apartment in Hell's Kitchen. It's to be used solely for the front desk to call us when we have visitors or packages. I got the cheapest package available -- less than $10 a month. It will be the first non-cellular service I've owned in more than five years.

Of course, leave it to Verizon to tack on a slew of hidden charges that appeared only on my first bill -- charges that they conveniently neglected to mention when I registered for service.

I had been notified about their $16 Service Order Charge when I first ordered service online. The rest of these fees were a mystery.

As a result of this, my first month's phone bill went from less than $20 to $100. Surprises include:

• a $12.25 "Premises Visit Charge" -- of which I'm skeptical, since no Verizon employee came to my apartment, and since the phones actually worked before I set up service, it's unlikely that they had to send someone to my building to switch on service.



• an equally frustrating $39.00 "Line Charge" -- which it's unclear how this differs from the Service Order Charge.

Keep in mind that this is for phone service that's around $9.00 per month. A rep I spoke to at Verizon said these were unavoidable one-time fees, but was unable to explain them in any real precision.

And the telcos wonder why people are leaving them for Internet-based services. Idiots. They and their stockholders deserve everything bad that happens to them.

I also like how I also get to pay a $7.47 FCC Line Charge fee every month, which is only a dollar less than the cost of my actual service. To hell with the FCC, which hasn't actually looked out for the interests of consumers, or attempted to foster real competition, in ages.