HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oleg@gd.cs.csufresno.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:12:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Departement of California State University in Fresno

In article <41080.2B61C5DA@puddle.fidonet.org> Matt.Midboe@f20.n373.z1.fidonet.org (Matt Midboe) writes:
>JH>The illogic of ISDN is that modern modem technology is rendering it
>JH>pointless.
>
>        Were did you come up with that? I went to a NeXT user group
>meeting to see a demonstration of ISDN and their is nothing in modern
>modem technology to deal with that. Also modern modem technology isn't
>bringing digital lines into my house! Really read up on ISDN a little
>bit more and I am sure that you will find modern modem technology does
>not offer the things that ISDN offers.
>

Was it much faster than running programs in interest using -NXHost option
over a SLIP connection? Actually I haven't tried ISDN myself, but manual for
NextStep 3.0 says that programs can take several minutes to start.

Oleg
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:9091 comp.unix.bsd:11695 comp.unix.wizards:5600 comp.org.usenix:1360
From: Danny Weitzner <djw@eff.org>
Subject: Re: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C. shuffle
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78CC3947604AC6A@j-q-adams.eff.org>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 03:56:20 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:52:21 GMT

In article <C1E1xH.Cu@news.iastate.edu> John Hascall, john@iastate.edu
writes:
>It seems to have been not terribbly unwise to have (essentially) all the
>roads owned by the government 

Well it seems terribly unwise to me.  These "roads" are not just carrying
the digital version of the products that are transported over the
publicly owned highway system.  All of these "superhighway" analogies
seem to have made us forget that a lot of what will be carried over the
data highways is SPEECH, POLITICS, CULTURE, DISSENT, CONTROVERSY, and
even what some would call SEDITIOUS IDEAS.  The government does not have
a great track record about promoting the dissemination of ideas with
which it disagrees: ie. Senator Helms cuts National Endowment of the
Humanities funding, ex-President Bush prohibits federally-funded clinics
from MENTIONING the word "abortion."  Are these the kind of highways that
you want for the future of communications?

A very shortsighted former chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission said that television is just like a toaster with a picture on
it, and therefore represented no significant regulatory challenges.  He
meant, oh lets just forget about the "free speech thing."  While the
image of information networks as superhighways may be effective at
getting certain people's excitment up about the promise of new
technologies, we have got to remember that we are talking about much more
than commerce here.  

Don't get me wrong, I do think that government has an important role in
stimulating the development and deployment of information infrastructure.
 Government also has a role in making sure that it is affordable for
everyone, along the same lines as funding for public libraries and the US
Postal service.  But, I would be very unhappy if the only place to buy
digital connectivity was from Uncle Sam.
!7



x

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Daniel J. Weitzner                       202-544-3077 (voice)
Senior Staff Counsel                     202-547-5481 (fax)
Electronic Frontier Foundation           djw@eff.org
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20003
!!!U^!l|!!!UNu!a!Oz|!!!!!!!!O!!%%!!!!!!!!^!!
Mw!!>`!!`%y!JV\w
`!!!!I!```g!+f!!g!U
x*@!
!!:!!!!
u!!g!I!```!&!!g!!y!!!!!![!!!	!Vw
!!!Vw!!g`!``!!!`!*!U^!l|!	!g`!``!!!]!)!!!d!!
ff!!!!!!Vw!7!!!n!p|!!)!!!
Vw
!Vw
!<`l|``!!T!9!!(!!Vw
|``!l|!Se!K#!!p|g`
















H

-:LaserWriter
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
From: bill.slattery@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Bill Slattery) 
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:47:00 GMT
Reply-To: bill.slattery@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Bill Slattery) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

   >John Perry Barlow               barlow@eff.org
   >253 West 73rd, #17H             NeXTmail to:
   >---
I thought you lived way out west.
---
 * SYL.LA.BLES - New.port, RI  (401) 848-9925
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  SYLLABLES (#1834) : RelayNet(tm)
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:27:56 GMT
	<1993Jan21.172021.5930@netcom.com> <1993Jan21.202037.5393@eff.org>
	<BETSYS.93Jan22141657@ra.cs.umb.edu>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston


PS I do understand that your idea is to make the net so big that
censorship becomes impossible. I just think that this has ALREADY
HAPPENED. My university could censor me but the government couldn't,
unless they gave us a gag-order, which is not technological in nature.
   For that matter they could blackmail us and say that if we didn't stop
some form of communication they could cut off our funds. But, if they
tried to stop us by making general restrictions on NSFnet we've got
dozens of other ways to come in, including buying accounts on Barry's
or Brian's commercial services (the World and Channel One.) If we
needed to we could cut over very quickly...again, our problems would
be with our own cluuunky bureaucracy and not with the feds.


--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:9351 mi.misc:930 mi.news:214 comp.dcom.isdn:1269 alt.great-lakes:944
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,mi.misc,mi.news,comp.dcom.isdn,alt.great-lakes
Subject: Phone tag with ISDN, (and) a result in Michigan
Date: 28 Jan 1993 23:34:57 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

If you want to play along with the ISDN phone tag game, here's
the story to date.  This may be of use to you if you are interested
in getting ISDN service in your local area, or better yet, if you 
are trying to find a person in your local telco who is actually
enthusiastic (willing, able, eager) to *sell* ISDN to you.

Called the Bellcore National ISDN center +1 800 992 ISDN.  Asked
for a contact in Michigan, they gave me the Ameritech ISDN center
at +1 800 432 ISDN.  Talked to a very nice fellow by the name of
Larry Becker, he gave the names of Ralph Serrico +1 313 488 1815
and Diane Zane +1 313 488 1809 within Michigan Bell to contact them.
Both of them were away from their phones.

Called Larry back, it turns out that his office is only an Illinois
office, and that they really don't sell or support services in Michigan.
He does look like a good contact in IL tho.

Pulled out my phone book, looked up ISDN in it, found Bruce Hill.
Talked to him for a while, he was enthusiastic and informed about ISDN,
but after our conversation it was clear that he was the technical guy 
and really didn't want to be barraged with sales calls.  But: he
did say that the person who was the right person to direct calls
at is
	Al Banach, +1 313 552 2153

So, within Michigan at least, give Al a call.  Tell him you are
interested in ISDN, that you heard about it from Usenet, and
mention my name if you feel you need an introduction.  Tell him
you'd be using it for LAN interconnections if that makes sense,
and ask about the ISDN Direct single line tarriff.  Find out what
they are charging !  And drop dark hints that if Michigan Bell
doesn't get with the program we'll just have to talk to the cable
companies...

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562 (fax: 998 4563)
  For information on Msen connection services: mail info@mail.msen.com
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: More Info To Come on EFF Shortly
Date: 21 Jan 1993 08:51:43 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) wrote:

: First of all, current "commercial" services use partly subsidized
: facilities. If the net were fully commercial, this would stop and costs
: would rise. So, then, would prices.

Please identify if you can just where my commercial service is being
subsidized.  It's not by the taxpayers of the state of Michigan - they
are putting money into Merit, and my net link is through PSI in New York.

If more of the net were on a sound commercial standing, some of the
subsidies that go to prop up inefficient and wasteful practices would
disappear.  Regional nets would not be able to hum along with mostly
idle T1 links as "backups" in parallel with other circuits, and they'd
be more inclined to price services at the marginal cost of providing
them rather than keeping up the old monopolistic "fully loaded average
cost" approaches of trying to sock newcomers with the full baggage of
their previous existence.  (PDP-11's forever, and all that.)

: Second of all, right now some commercial services aren't yet maximizing
: profits, for a variety of reasons, including competing with "free" services
: which would go away under full commercialization, attempts to build an
: initial customer base to justify capital facilities, etc.

You labor under the (false) assumption that the commercialization of the
net will lead to the demise of "free" services.  If anything the wider
access to raw bandwidth made possible by the expansion of stable,
self-sustaining firms in the Internet industry will lead to an explosion
of free (or nearly free) services.  There will also be more non-free
services, and more sorta free services, and more services where someone
other than the end user is paying to make things happen.

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 GLOB
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games trial
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:30:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


And another thing...

If one publishes a newsletter (the paper kind), would that automatically
immunize one's my computers from search and seizure, and require the use of a
subpoena for investigative purposes?

How does the law handle cases of publishers suspected of, say, tax
fraud or some other computer-related crime unconnected with publishing?
Can search and seizure take place in such cases?

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Map of Iowa Comm. Net available (was Re: More details on ICN ...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:09:47 GMT

john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}callahan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
}}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
}}> Here is a brief sketch of what the State of Iowa is currently doing.
}}> The Iowa Communications Network is a network of fiber being laid
}}> to a `point of presence' in each of Iowa's 99 (rather smallish)
}}> counties.  From there, connections will be made to each of the
}}> 3 State Universities, the dozen or so Community colleges, and other
}}> interested private colleges.  Then connections are envisioned to
}}> all (~500) public school systems.  Then connections to the state's
}}> public libraries (roughly another 500).  Also connecting will be
}}> various state agencies and interested companies.

I had a couple of requests for a map of the ICN.  The only one I have
has been faxed, xeroxed, and scanned so it's a little mushy, but
still fairly readable (it's also way behind on what parts are marked
as completed).

Details:

    ftp ftp.iastate.edu
    username: anonymous
    password: yourusername@your.net.address
    cd /pub/netinfo
    bin
    get icn-map.ps.Z

The compressed file is ~150KB and blows up to ~2MB and, as the name suggests,
is a PostScript file.

John
-- 
John Hascall                   ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center  +  Ames, IA  50011  +  515/294-9551
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:58:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jan25.112855.74@cobra.dra.com> sean@cobra.dra.com writes:
>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....
>
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.

The cases for certain Public subsidies to R&D, to education, and to
provision of environmental quality via regulation are, in part, but three
examples.

One amusing consequence of this kind of thinking, and the related
"externalities" are such notions as that Japan (for example) should pay us
for part of the costs of many of our energy policies which have an effect on
the international price of oil, since they lower the cost of energy to the
Japanese as well as to ourselves.

The technical discussion is richer than brief notes in a newsgroup can
indicate. For example, one wants to establish a "rate of return" for such
publicly subsidized activities such that they won't be undertaken unless the
rate is at least equal to that for marginal projects in the private sector
that would have been undertaken if the capital were available there instead
of having been taxed away by the government. There are also issues about
the method of public finance.

Finally, let's keep our eye on the ball. We're not really discussing the
general case here, but how these notions apply to direct Public subsidy of
the Internet backbone/NREN, and alternatives for same. Thus some dissents
and "footnotes" about other issues (maybe actual, physical lighthouses
aren't a good example of the general principle, according to revisionist
economic historians) are irrelevant to the specific discussion.

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
From: peterme@ocf.berkeley.edu (Peter Merholz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: 2nd Day Steve Jackson Games trial
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:13:07 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu
Keywords: EFF Civil liberties

Whoooo-EEE! This sure is exciting... 

One thing for the records:

>the system.  Some of it, at least, had been deleted on March 20, 1993
>(almost 3 weeks after the Secret Service had seized the computer), since
Ahem? 1993? 

--Peter "Eagerly Waiting to see the SS get Drawn and Quartered" Merholz
-- 
*****************************************************************************
Peter Merholz			*   MY GOD  * "Good thing we were wearing our
Research Assistant/		*    WHAT   *  extra thick socks."
  Undergraduate F*ck-up		*   HAVE I  *  -Dangermouse, after falling 
UC Berkeley			*   DONE?!  *   off a cliff.
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: Conflict of interest?
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:49:45 GMT

In article <bhayden.728048197@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
B

>I am of two minds on the legislation. First, I have been reassured by
>a U.S. prosecutor specializing in white collar crime that the apparent
>penalties under the bill are just that - apparent. Transgressions are
>governed by mandatory federal sentencing guidelines. This means that
>the minimum copyright felony (first offense) results in mandatory 
>4-6 months of probation. All things being equal, U.S. prosecutors 
>do not pursue cases unless there is jail time involved. (The more
>jail time the better).
>
>But - not all things are equal. U.S. Attorneys are if nothing else,
>Political. They bend to the latest fad pushed by the Attorney General.
>They also respond to local political pressure. This means that a
>company could conceivably twist arms and get a prosecution.

Good points. It's also worth noting that criminalizing such behavior
increases the potential abuse for confiscation or forfeiture of
equipment. Criminalization also provides a justification for searches and
seizures by law enforcement. As the BSA seizure of APL BBS suggests, a user
list can become a "hit list" for law enforcement. The federal anti-piracy
legislation (PL 102-561, formerly S893) also gives groups such as the SPA
more leverage in coercing out-of-court settlements from alleged software
copiers by invoking the threat of both civil and criminal sanctions if
they do not comply. One need not prosecute to abuse the new law.

Jim Thomas
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:12:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


Robert A. Carolina, writing from my old alma mater, asks if I am advocating
the virtues of centrally planned economies. As one who sat at the feet of
Lionel Robbins, certainly not. As one who has been Chief Economist of two of
America's Fortune 50 companies for 10 years each, you may rely on me to
oppose any suggestion of inappropriate central planning or government
regulation. But the present case is different.

What I am advocating is modern public utility theory--when a natural
monopoly exists, it should be permitted to gain the cost-side economies of
such a natural monopoly, and regulated down to competitive pricing on the
demand side. It should not be "broken up" on some far-fetched political
argument about "competition" which has no theoretical economic basis
whatsoever in the case of "natural" monopolies.

As for Carolina's remarks about the ending of cross-subsidy lowering some
prices, and raising others, of course. But that's not my point. A good deal
of economic reasoning is simple physics. You can't use more of something
than exists, for example, is one of the axiomatic bases of supply and
demand.

In the present case the physics is straightforward: The budgets of the
"competing" long distance carriers in the U.S., taken together, are much
higher than AT&T's budget was for marketing, advertising, promotional
losses, management, and some facilities. Someone is paying for that, and it
isn't the stockholders or the government. That leaves you and me, boys and
girls. Thus we are paying more than we would have if the cross-subsidy were
eliminated and AT&T left in place as the regulated natural monopoly carrier.
Recall that this was not some case of breaking up a "robber baron"
monopoly, but one of breaking up a "natural" monopoly which was regulated in
its pricing by the Government, so that the pricing would approximate the
competitive level in the marketplace. It was cost plus a rate of return,
with the rate politically set and costs low because of monopoly supply
economies, and carefully scrutinized.

Similarly, I argue that the (call it what you will) Internet
backbone/NREN/whatever is a natural monopoly. (For those unfamiliar with the
term, it means that the technical characteristics of the thing mean costs
are lower if there's one system and one provider. Regulated public utility
companies are other examples, as I claim are both local and long distance
phone services.) The lowest cost to the public and the economy results when
a natural monopoly is permitted to gain monopoly economies of scale on the
cost side, but is prevented from monopoly pricing by regulation.

I know some of the U.S. legislators who broke up AT&T. Most agree that
it was a mistake, and that total costs to the public are higher than they
would have been, but it is too late to put it back together

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
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
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:22:07 GMT

In article <1jmt98INN3h9@NYAYA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU> reinitz-john@cs.yale.edu (John Reinitz) writes:

>Be careful, Mike!!! The dinosaurs were around for a good 40 million
>years. That's two orders of magnitude more than humans. So, treat them
>with a little respect for another 39.6 million years or so :-)

I have the utmost respect for their long survival. But they still stand 
as evidence that the forces of evolution were not their friends.


--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
From: rac@intercon.com (Rob Carolina)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 25 Jan 1993 10:38:24 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: intercon.com
Summary: Cost of building nets and lighthouses

In article <1jq7jrINNr44@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu writes:
>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

I, for one, tend to agree with Peter on this point.

It is also interesting to note that, historically, most lighthouses
were privately funded.  This is an amusing rebuttal to the very
popular lighthouse argument.

I was also a bit disturbed by David's earlier suggestion that
the existence of multiple telecommunications service providers
has increased the cost of service due to duplication of effort
(marketing and other support costs).  It is true that the
breakup of bell increased the costs to most consumers for service,
but this was due to the end of the pre-existing cross subsidy
of local service by increased long distance revenue.  (I.e., 
profits on Long Lines paid for losses on local loop service.)

While I agree that some markets might best be served by a
monolopy, I sincerely hope that David is not advocating the
virtues of centrally-planned economies.  Certainly having
multiple service providers results in duplicated effort; it
also produces competition.

--Rob
-- 
Robert A. Carolina          All opinions are my own.  My statements
London School of Economics  should not be relied upon as legal
and Political Science       advice -- I charge for that. ;-)
*** Email replies to: carolina@vax.lse.ac.uk ***
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk