HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 24 Jan 1993 21:38:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Information Technology Integration, Univ of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: honey@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: hone.citi.umich.edu

David Sternlight writes:
|> The facts are that there have been massive technological economies during
|> the deregulation period. Had AT&T not been broken up, and regulation
|> continued to force prices to the competitive level by regulatory simulation
|> (which is the way public utilities theory works in the presence of natural
|> monopolies), prices would have been even lower.

actually, long-distance tolls went down because at&t was no longer in
the position to subsidize the local loop with long-distance revenues. 
so the latter went down (because the market forced it to) while the
former went up (because the regulatory bodies allowed it to).

btw, i'm not much interested in the requirements for "perfect"
competition -- ordinary competition, such as that seen in every day
life, will do.  and in fact there already is a competitive marketplace
for networking at the link layer.  (i.e., you can lease t1 circuits 
from a number of providers.)  nren proposes to elevate this to the 
network layer.

	peter
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.org.usenix,comp.unix.wizards
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:44:43 -0500 
From: William Bardwell <wbardwel+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
	<1993Jan20.230616.25164@igor.tamri.com>
Distribution: inet

Get a grip.
BSDI, and BSD/386 are attempts to develop a usable
operating system in a minimum amount of time from
code that was beleived to be copyright Regents of
UC and no one else.
The state copyright state of that code was not
contested until BSDI approached a comercial release.
Neither BSDI or BSD/386 were major restructurings
or major modifications of the Net-2 release, and
as such any complaints about it being a copy of
AT&T code must be directed to UCB.  UCB has clearly
never meant to put Un*x in the public domain, they
wanted to do OS research by developing new and novel
algorithms to deal with various OS issues.  They worked
within the structure of the AT&T code, because they wanted
to work on one component at a time, and that was funcional
code that could be built apon.

William Bardwell
wbardwel+@[cs.]cmu.edu
From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: WIRED - new magazine dealing with technology and where it's going
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:07:35 GMT

jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:

>Does anyone know WIRED's publisher's address or phone number, so I
>can get my local bookstore to carry it?

You could try:

Wired Magazine (WIRED-DOM)
   544 2nd street
   San Francisco, CA 94104

   Domain Name: WIRED.COM

   Administrative Contact:
      Kreth, Will  (WK58)  will@WIRED.COM
      (415) 904-0660
   Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      Seiden, Mark  (MS367)  mis@SEIDEN.COM
      (415) 665-8117

   Record last updated on 20-Nov-92.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   CYGNUS.COM			140.174.1.1
   RTL.CYGNUS.COM		140.174.1.2

Talk about 'wired'... how many non computer specific magazines
are connected to the internet?
-- 
David Lemson                                                (217) 244-1205
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson 
NeXTMail & MIME accepted                           BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD
From: 71155.544@compuserve.com (___)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Replies Welcome
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:58:19 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org

Date:  01/25/93 (Monday) 8:53pm PDT
From:  LJP
     >INTERNET: 71155.544@compuserve.com
To:    eff-talk@eff.org
Subj:  Comments Re. E-Mail Filing Legal Documents

 I would appreciate replies to the below.  
 Of particular relevance is the feasibility of using cryptography
to protect confidential communications, such as legal documents.
 Thank you.

From:  L. J. Peters, Esq. [71155,544]
       [71155.544@compuserve.com]
Subj:  Comments Re. E-Mail Filing Legal Documents
To:    ALL 

 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is considering allowing
 the electronic filing of patent and trademark applications, and
 eventually all documents.  Presently all such filings are done on
 paper.

 The PTO has asked for public comment on the feasibility of such
 filings.  

 I am considering writing a comment for the public record (I
 generally support such a move, but it is important to point out
 any possible pitfalls), and would appreciate any critical
 suggestions.  All replies are in confidence.

 The deadline for comments is February 28, 1993, but please E-mail
 your comments to me on or before February 21, 1993.

 I am particularly interested in comments on the following
 questions the PTO has asked:

 (1) Should the PTO accept electronic filings by diskette, on-line
     or both?

 (2) If paper applications are converted to electronic form by the
 PTO, should the PTO destroy or retain the paper applications?
 
 (3) Should the PTO create a registry of "electronic application
 transmitters" capable of transmitting patent and trademark
 applications for others?  If so, what, if any, criteria should be
 established before one could be "registered" as an electronic
 application transmitter?

 (4) What benefits do you foresee for the applicant if electronic
 filing is adopted?  What disadvantages do you foresee?
 
 Thanks!  Feel free to post this message anywhere else where it
 might be heard.
 <eof>
From: honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:39:07 GMT
Organization: Center for Information Technology Integration, Univ of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: honey@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: hone.citi.umich.edu

David Sternlight writes:
|> More importantly, some writers seem unaware of the "lighthouse" argument of
|> basic economics. 
|> ...
|> The lighthouse argument applies, it is believed by many, to the NREN and
|> even wider networks--the benefits of research and education to the nation
|> are greater than the costs of the networks.
|> ...
|> Thus (for example) Mike Godwin's argument to give the money to individual
|> universities fails.

that's your opinion, david, one that i don't share.  if the huge investments 
in networking in the commercial world are any guide, a little pump priming may 
be all that's needed to get the nren off the ground.

imho, 'natch.

	peter
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:33:54 GMT

In article <9301221535.AA04066@pizzabox.demon.co.uk>, gtoal@pizzabox (Graham Toal) writes:
>The 'networking for the masses' will only take off *on the back of* internet
>for the masses via v32bis/v.fast modems.  Those users will upgrade first
>and then the ISDN market will be there.  So you have to get the *services* in
>place first, not the hardware.
>
>Concentrate on the human element, EFF.

I'd like to see more discussion and information about experience on
these lines.

I've been doing some work (mainly phone calls, sharing information for
now) along these lines - to get public information (put out by the
government, volunteer organizations, libraries etc.) to the net via
gopher etc. on one hand, and asking some questions about how ie.
public libraries could be used as free internet access points.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: larryk@cton.com (Larry Kollar)
Subject: Re: Consumption tax...Oh no! 
Organization: Computone Corporation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 15:13:44 GMT

In article <palmer.728056910@news.larc.nasa.gov> palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov 
writes:>
>
>Maybe so, but if you noticed, nobody said anything about getting rid of the
>income tax.  In fact, it's going to go up for everyone, and even get more
>"progressive" (i.e., the more wealth you create and the more you contribute
>to society in general, the more the government is going to take what you've
>got).

"The more wealth you create?"
                     ^^^^^^
"The more you contribute to society in general?"
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't make me laugh.  Income level has VERY little to do with creating 
wealth or contributing to society these days.  Someone posting from a 
government site ought to know that better than anyone. :-)

Case in point:  remove the upper echelons of a good-sized company (say, 100+ 
employees) for two weeks -- send 'em to a fancy resort on the coast if you 
like -- and the company just keeps humming along.  (You can't accuse me of 
setting up a straw man here; I've seen it done at a company I used to work 
for, fancy resort on the coast and all.)

Try removing all BUT the upper echelons for two weeks.  Heck, just try 
removing the secretaries for two weeks and watch the company grind to a halt.

Not that I agree with being born free and taxed to death, but you need a 
more realistic argument.

--

Larry Kollar		Senior Technical Writer		Computone, Inc.
larryk@cton.com		Packet:  kc4wzk @ wa4bro.#atlga.ga.usa.na
From: harwell@bandw.panam.edu (Anne Harwell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: One good thing about the EFF mess
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:02:12 GMT
Organization: The Pig's Trough
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
X-XXMessage-ID: <A785A14B2C01AA13@abh.techrscs.panam.edu>
X-XXDate: Fri, 22 Jan 93 19:04:11 GMT

The best thing that has come of all this is that it has forced people
within EFF who ordinarily don't spend too much time on the net to realize
that there are real people on the other end of the wire. Whether this
realization will soak through to Berman & Co. as they take up digs in the
Seat of Power remains to be seen. I am not holding my breath.

-abh
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:46:41 +0000

:From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)

:In article <1993Jan18.152015.22182@icecube.pinedale.wy.us> John Perry Barlow <barlow@icecube.pinedale.wy.us> writes:
:>I couldn't agree more. This is partly our fault, partly yours, and partly the  
:>result of the fact that Net is really a very poor medium for communicating  
:>anything of complexity. It favors the ascii equivalent of sound bites even more  
:>than television.

:I must take strong exception to this statement. If nothing else the
:net is the perfect place to make a complicated point. You have
:high bandwidth to post your point and an audience that can read
:and has an attention span somewhat over the average 3.2 minutes. 

Seconded absolutely.  Such a poor understanding of the nets frightens
me in the New EFF.  You'd never have heard Rita spouting such nonsense
I'm sure.  You know, John, if you have such a poor opinion of the
usefulness of the net, why the hell does EFF exist?  To promote an
Open Platform so that *everyone* can have their 3 second soundbite?

G
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:57:21 +0000

:From: John Perry Barlow <barlow@eff.org>

:But just this week, during Congressional testimony which we largely directed,  
:Ed Markey has adopted Open Platform as his own (see Tuesday's Washington Post).  
:He was supported in this by John Sculley, representing the computer industry's  
:main political action arm. 

I know who Sculley is and who he represents, but could someone tell us
foreigners who this Markey is please?  If he's a politician, who was his
campaign funded by?  Which big businesses are in his constituency?

:We are now getting to the point where it will be useful to ask you lobby  
:Congress on specific points. Before all we could state was the destination and  
:the broad strokes of the imagined route. 

AHA!!!!  Now I understand the point of EFF having a membership.  It seemed
totally pointless until now, since all the decisions were being made by the
EFF board without reference to the views of the membership.  I see now that
the point is to have a large number of people available to sign the
petitions to Washington to further the goals of AT&T et al.

Since most of the membership were (OK, I'm guessing, but it seems to be
the feeling on this group) attracted to EFF by it's championing of
individual causes and not some big-business free-enterprise political
platform, and that aspect of EFF's work is now being downplayed
severely, there's a good chance next year's membership list will be
considerably shorter.  How will your big political objectives go through
if you can't get enough signatures on the bottom line to be taken
seriously?  Just don't go to Washington saying you represent the
masses on the net please... make sure they know you're a self-motivated
group of a handful of rich people who are funded by even richer companies. 

G
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Conflict of interest?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:31:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) says:

>	Remember when everyone is a felon then no one is a felon.
>	They cannot and will not lock up everyone (regardless of how
>	attractive that might seem to people with a law enforcement
>	mindset).  


Exactly. Result: they use the law to lock up people they especially feel 
like locking up, for reasons that may be unrelated to the law itself. Cf
RICO.
-- 
         I just know that something good is gonna happen
         I don't know when,
         But just saying it could even make it happen ...      _o_
                                                                |<
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: LOOK AT THIS MESS!
From: david.chessler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (David Chessler) 
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.chessler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (David Chessler) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

On 01-23-93 (01:12), John F. Whitehead, in a message to All
about: "Re: LOOK AT THIS MESS!", stated the following:

JFW>Although it is unfortunate that some people have trouble reading long
   >messages, it is not practical or fair to expect that the thousands
   >who aren't hindered by your software's flaws (or antiquities, or
   >whatever) should limit their abilities to meet yours.

Most (all but one) of the long messages in question are already
divided at 155 or 160 lines.  If the people posting them would
simply break them 5 or 10 lines earlier, I would be happier, and
neither you nor the one other person flaming me would notice the
difference.

JFW>For example, it's unreasonable to think that if you have an old car
   >that can't go over 30 mph that everyone else should drive slower on
   >the interstate for your convenience, even if (especially if) your

I have a computer capable of advanced graphics.  I am grossly
limited in using INTERNET-USENET mail services because everything
is limited to the capabilities of a dumb character-mode-only
7-bit ascii terminal.  Why?  Because that is the least common
denominator on big systems.  So I don't put ANSI-art or sound
into my messages. By your argument I should, and say "it's *your*
problem."  (note use of * instead of the ANSI escape code for
underlining text, the 7-bit "graphics" for my "signature")
 ___   __
  d_)--/d           David.Chessler@f190.n459.z1.fidonet.org


 * SLMR 2.1b * R/O or Netmail:  Route to ->NETEAST (#132) or 1:109/459
---
 * NETWORK East . Rockville, Maryland . 301-738-0000
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  NETEAST (#132) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
                                 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: Internet as a natural monopoly (was: Re: EFF and its growing pains...)
Originator: fig@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:38:38 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>Since we can divide the Internet conceptually and "regulatorily" into the
>wires and channels, and the uses of those wires and channels, I suggest that
>a single, natural-monopoly publicly funded backbone/physical network, with
>economies of scale, as at present, with the current eclectic organization,
>would provide the best of both worlds, as well as a possibly unique
>organizational model.

>In contrast, fragmentation by a voucher system, distribution among
>competing commercial interests, etc. can't achieve any lower costs (if the
>backbone is properly regulated as to fees), and will lose the economies of
>scale. The only results can be higher prices and degraded service.

>Just about the only argument I'd be sympathetic to is one which would claim
>there's in-being idle capacity at least equal to the backbone, in commercial
>firms, that would serve "all current airports", not just the big ones. I
>have not heard anyone make that argument yet, nor discuss the undertakings
>necessary by such firms to insure that national R&D and Education policy
>objectives continued to be met.

David, given your status as former Fortune 50 economist and your apparently
strong convictions about how the national network of the future should
be developed, I wonder what you are doing to make your personal vision 
happen.  I don't think you are going to change the course of EFF.  But
I do think that everyone with as clear a vision as EFF believes it
has of its mission should be promoting their own vision somehow to Make
It So.

I respect your economic background, although I do not for a minute buy
the idea that economics is a science and that, hence, your theories
on monopoly vs competition are infallible.  A battalion of prestigious
economists helped guide the country into the state it is in now.  Go figure.
-- 
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation          (617)864-0665 (voice)
Cambridge Office                                  (617)864-0866 (fax)
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:9124 comp.unix.bsd:11720 comp.unix.wizards:5613
From: loki.trickster@digund.uucp (Loki Trickster) 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:40:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Digital Underground - PRIVATE
Reply-To: loki.trickster@digund.uucp (Loki Trickster) 

CD>Of course, you can't go any faster than V.fast on an analog phone line--the
  >Shannon limit slaps you hard in the face.

I've been hearing "The phone lines canna take it much longer, Cap'n!
(The Dilithium crystals are stressed enough as it is ...)" since 300
baud modems were the state of the art.   EVERY TIME the limit is pushed
a bit, the makers of the then-current SOTA say "It can't be taken any
farther".

What *IS* this "Shannon LImit"?

Loki the Bemused Trickster
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-2003 . Money is always there - only the pockets change.
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,uk.net
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:01:46 GMT
Organization: UEA School of Information Systems, Norwich, UK.

In <6543@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) writes:
>This guy must have a real problem with the telephone system - imagine all
>those crooks can actually use a phone to talk to each other and plan crimes
>- obviously should be regulated :-)

This is exactly the argument the FBI have tried to use in the US to
outlaw telephone equipment that they can't tap.  Consider also the
shutdown of the short-lived PAX anonymous service.  Have the UK security
authorities tried to get similar statutory right of access to
telecommunications?  Presumably access to everything on the system would
be a condition of getting a BBS licence.

--                                ____
Richard Kennaway                  \ _/__    School of Information Systems
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk       \X  /    University of East Anglia
uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk      \/     Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:47:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.051825.20299@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>Mike Godwin comments on another writer who attempts to use the biological
>origin of fossil fuels as an analogy and describes it as a kludge.

Just to clarify your syntax a little bit: the other writer called it
kludge, not I.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:08:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.205624.75@cobra.dra.com> sean@cobra.dra.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.185826.12667@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>> The discussion isn't about lighthouses. That's just the name given to the
>> argument. The argument is about cases where the public benefits for
>> something are much greater than the public costs, and the private sector
>> won't do it alone, usually because the private sector cannot capture the
>> benefits and charge enough for them to recover costs.
>
>Ok, I've found the references.  Ronald Coase, Nobel laureate in Economics
>in 1991, wrote a nifty little paper called "The Problem of Social Cost"
>some number of years ago (I believe in the 1960's).  _The Economist_
>recently did a review of the paper in the Febuary 23, 1991 issue called
>"Of bees and lighthouses (ananlysis of the paper `The problem of Social
>Cost' by Ronald Coase"
>
>Ok, enough background, I'll cut to the chase
>
>From the Economist:
>
>"The Coase Theorem and the further work it inspired have demolished the
>presumption that externalities and public goods automatically call for
>government intervention."
>

The argument wasn't the general one, nor did I say "automatically." The
argument was a specific one about the issues we're discussing.

>I would recommend interested people read the Economist article.  It is an
>excellent rebuttal to almost everything David has said in his article.  The
>Economist is available in electronic format, or at better libraries everywhere.

You'll have to do much better than attempting to refute by reference. Since
you have the article, you need to quote the relevant matter. I'm sure you
know better, and your failure to be specific raises the most serious
questions about your claims.

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:28:55 GMT
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

In article <1k11hgINNhcg@intercon.intercon.com>, rac@intercon.com (Rob Carolina) writes:
> It is also interesting to note that, historically, most lighthouses
> were privately funded.  This is an amusing rebuttal to the very
> popular lighthouse argument.

True, I also remember a Nobel prize was recently awarded to a person
whose work involved debunking the "lighthouses must be publicly funded"
theory.

_The Economist_ had a write up about it a while back, now if I can just
find the right issue....

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk