HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: What AT&T get out of it...
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:18:30 +0000

Something just went <click>...  I now see where AT&T has a lot to gain
by pushing NREN with EFF's help:

:Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:49:54 GMT
:From: steinman@hasler.ascom.ch (Jan Steinman,- Bytesmiths -,Tel x3946)
:Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
:Subject: Re: US Losing Lead in Telecom - USC Report

:In article 5@eecs.nwu.edu, tjrob@ihlpl.att.com () writes:

:> From article <telecom13.32.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, by jimmy@denwa.info.com

:(Quotes speculating on reasons for US telecom tech lag deleted.)

:> No, you missed the point. It is federal tax policy which is
:> dramatically different between the U.S.A. and many other countries.

:Can we speculate what the change in administration may do with this?
:The Clinton/Gore campaign stessed renewed infrastructure, and I
:believe they specifically called for the funding of a "data highway"
:system, similar in scope and effort to that which produced the
:Interstate Highway System.

:To me, this indicates that if telecom industry lobbyists do their job,
:there should be no problem getting amortization rates for telecom gear
:down to those of computer gear, at least in the next four years!


:Jan Steinman, Bytesmiths		   steinman@hasler.ascom.ch
:2002 Parkside Court, West Linn, OR 97068-2767 USA   +1 503 657 7703
:Beundenfeldstrasse 35, CH-3013, Bern, Switzerland   +41 31 999 3946

Basically, what this says is that the big providers of copper wire
running for thousands of miles across the US are reluctant to replace
them with better technology because they currently have to write
down capital costs over a *long* period of time (one that was deemed
appropriate 50 years ago when the legislation was approved). Now
they see a chance to make significant upgrades in the name of NREN
and that they can do so in a way that'll let them off the amortization
hook they're still stuck to.

The conclusion I draw that will test this hypothesis is that the
physical technology they will be putting in for NREN will also be
handling voice.  anyone know if this is already in the plans?

G
From: jcurran@nic.near.net (John Curran)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C. shuffle
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:10:09 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: New England Academic and Research Network
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.near.net

In article <BETSYS.93Jan25132053@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>John, you'd know the answer to this: What would happen to NEARnet if
>the government asked us to "go private?" What's the extent of NSFnet
>funding involved in NEARnet? I'm a bit confused about how both
>educational and commercial enterprises get our connectivity from the
>same place. Aren't some NEARnet members commercial?

NEARnet is supported by its members, both commercial and non-profit.  We
don't receive any funding from NSF for our operating costs.

>  If we (UMass) for example, had to start buying our service from the 
>commercial providers, could we, and would it be a huge cost increase?

You certainly could purchase from the "commercial providers".
I don't know for sure, but I expect you can find comparable pricing.
Our services compare very nicely, and we've had many folks switch to
NEARnet as a result.

>  Pardon me for asking all this in public, but there seem to be a lot
>of different ideas floating around about the public and private
>funding of the Net. I assume that NEARnet is comparable to the other
>Regional service providers in mix....

Not necessarily.
/John
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 22:18:23 CST
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo) writes:

| The relevance to the "computing community" is that EFF would like to 
| expand the community to include millions of people who don't necessarily
| want to think of themselves as part of a "computing community".  EFF 
| would like there to be a platform in place that will foster the creation
| of new tools that will enable everyone to have access to online information
| and to take part in electronically-facilitated community.

So why not help support the FSF and try creating more UUCP support for
more platforms?  The support for UUCP is minimal on almost any platform
except UNIX; for example, of the three PC types I know best, the IBM PC
has only one serious shareware UUCP package that provides it all; the
Mac has no free/shareware UUCP package that provides more than mail
access; the Apple II has NOTHING (no flames please... we're talking
about Joe Public... besides, I LIKE my Apple IIGS :-P ..)

This is a sort of topic that EFF seems to be skipping in its quest for
bringing Usenet to the masses - a LOT of these masses might plunge
into Usenet if there were only software they could use to connect with.
And I mean FREE (or if you absolutely MUST, shareware...) software..


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:28:27 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

david.chessler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (David Chessler)  writes:

>The other example I should give is the National Rifle
>Association (NRA).  This is a relatively small organization, but
>its members are found in every congressional district, and when
>asked to write letters, they do so.  The NRA also gives money,
>but, in the end, it's probably the votes, and the zealousness of
>the supporters that are the true sources of its power.

Ahem... 3,000,000+ dues-paying members is a relatively *small* organization?
So what does it take to be considered large?

But your point is well-taken.  NRA's power does NOT come from campaign
contributions - it's their effectiveness in getting their members to vote
and write/call/visit their congresscritters that really has the punch.


[more deleted]

>Thus, the cheap, mass-market "IBM"-standard PC that you profess
>to despise (if I read one of your other posts correctly), is an
>important factor in making EFF--or the computing community, for
>that matter--politically effective.  Certainly, EFF will never
>have the money to "buy" politicians' votes with campaign
>contributions.  But, as a resource for a grassroots computing
>community, it can be effective in winning politicians' votes by
>organizing the votes of the electorate.

You got *that* right.  The letters and phone calls are the MOST important
thing to congresscritters, especially when they get LOTS of them.  And the
only way to really get a massive calling campaign organized is to have
quick access to your organization's members.  NRA does this with prompt
mailings, but the EFF has an even BETTER advantage: the speed of The Net.
Let's use it.

-- 
Michael T. Palmer         |  "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any
m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov  |   other way than one which will conceal it
RIPEM key on server       |   from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix,gnu.misc.discuss,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: boyd@prl.dec.com (Boyd Roberts)
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:28:39 GMT

In article <MIKE.93Jan22144301@cuba.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at>, mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael Gschwind) writes:
> 
>  * written in C				ATT

A selective view of history:

>  * Paging				BSD

nasty stuff

>  * Fast File System 			BSD

pjw's bitfs

>  * Job control				BSD

rob pike + bart locanthi's blit/jerq/mux (recently rob's 8 1/2)

>  * csh (just a personal plug ;)		BSD

V8 shell (more recently tom duff's `rc')

>  * IPC/networking/sockets		BSD

dmr streams
 
>  * vi (eek - but better than ed)	BSD

rob pike's jim & sam

>  * curses 				?BSD?

unecessary: see `Job Control'

>  * lex,yacc				ATT

ok

>  * sendmail 				BSD

dave presotto's upas

>  * dbx 					?BSD?

tom cargill's pi

>  * termcap 				BSD

unecessary: see `Job Control'

and where was this good stuff done?

    .... Bell Labs.


Boyd Roberts			boyd@prl.dec.com

I think you hear me knocking, and I think I'm coming in...
And you know what?  I'm already wearing the Bullet-Proof T-shirt.
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 08:12:59 CST
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

| Right there, right where you say "the file decompresses." If something
| is executing a program to decompress a file, on my system with no
| marker, that something is an unwanted intruder on my system. 

Well then, if you're running an MS-DOS system with shareware,
you're OVERRUN with unwanted intruders.  What do you think PKLite
and LZExe are?


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
From: peterme@ocf.berkeley.edu (Peter Merholz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:10:51 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu

Some may consider me foolhardy in that may first .talk post is in response
to Mike Godwin, but I can't think of a better way to immerse myself in this
discussion...

In article <1993Jan21.120307.24733@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>
>> Before you start thinking about folks
>>like us finding better ways to burn bandwidth, how about thinking of
>>ways to get the masses connected - old big ears and his 'electronic
>>town halls' etc.
>
>Why the "Before"? Can't we be concerned with both at the same time?

Err, no. Not unless the EFF and affiliated organizations number active
workers in the hundreds, which I very much doubt. A grassroots organization
must focus on limited goals and priorities, and try to achieve them one step
at a time. I agree that we must be concerned with "better ways to burn
bandwidth," but it seems to me that a more logical priority is connecting
the masses. Better bandwidth is inevitable; connecting all parts of
our increasingly segregated society is not.

>
>>Is getting a significant percentage of the US poplation net connected
>>one of your priorites?  If so, what percentage?  In how many years?
>>If so, how do your current initiatives (like pushing high-bandwidth
>>access, and presumably high-cost computers to make good use of it)
>>fit into that picture?
>
>Are you saying we must choose *between* promoting access and promoting
>infrastructure improvement? Why must we choose between these two goals?
>
For the reasons cited above. Infrastructure improvement is important, but
also more likely to be taken care of. Connecting the masses is far more
important.

--Peter M

-- 
*****************************************************************************
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: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: Conflict of interest?
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:58:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.155618.22634@news.eng.convex.com> gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
>	Remember when everyone is a felon then no one is a felon.

No.  When everyone is a felon then we are all fair game for aggressive,
ambitious procecutors and the SPA.

>	They cannot and will not lock up everyone (regardless of how
>	attractive that might seem to people with a law enforcement
>	mindset).

No.  What they do is lock up, or better yet, seize the assets, of a few
people who annoy them as object lessons to the rest of us.  Ever heard
of "chilling effect"?

Selective prosecution is alive and well, thank you.
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Gates and Walton are the perfect reasons for a wealth tax.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey)
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: Individual Network (UK)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:45:56 GMT
Followup-To:  comp.unix.wizards

In article <59066@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <C1A118.2rs@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk> joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey) writes:
>>   USL has had some original ideas in the last 20 years.
>
>Read about Multics, Paid for by the US taxpayer; BCPL, paid for by the
>British taxpayer.

Multics: cool.  CPL: Phoenix still lives at Cambridge!

>                  Should AT&T pay royalties for each use of a function
>switch in UNIX source? If we are going to have aggressive protection of
>property rights in software and software concepts, the taxpayers should, of
>course, get their share. Agreed?

Why?

The entrepeneurs of the day knew the rules, and how to bend them.  Same
for you.

What's the .sig: "We are giants when we stand on other peoples shoulders"?

(Until recently, maybe) *all* research done on behalf of the US Gov. is *in
the public domain*.

If the taxpayer paid for Multics - *no royalties are payable*.  Heck - it's
*your* constitution, after all.

The UK has differnet rules, of course.

>BTW, UNIX was developed at AT&T while it was a federally mandated national
>monopoly. 

But of little relevance.

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

joe.
-- 
Joe Sharkey      joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk      ...!uunet!ibmpcug!jshark!joe
150 Hatfield Rd, St Albans, Herts AL1 4JA, UK        Got a real domain name
(+44) 727 838662           Mail/News Feeds (v32/v32bis): info@inet-uk.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: New case for EFF, ACLU, and CPSR
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:48:34 GMT

In article <JMC.93Jan22123256@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Please explain what the computer enthusiasts were doing that aroused
>the suspicions or ire of these authorities, justified or not.
>What possessions were seized?  If, as I suspect, the EFF staff attorney
>is witholding this information for some legal tactical reason,
>you can't expect any help from an uninformed computer community.

No one is withholding information. This incident has been widely 
discussed since early November (see, e.g., CuD 4.57). The
Mall security director was recorded on tape as indicating that the
disruption was instigated by the Secret Service. If true, the
incident is not simply a case of "hacker harassment," but a possible
incidence of abuse of authority by the US Secret Service.

Jim Thomas

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C. shuffle
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:47:18 GMT

In article <C1805L.6x7@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>While this is an ambitious project for a small (~2M) rural state,
>it is, in my opinion, the correct way to bring electronic services
>to the people.  The way to build demand in adults for these kinds

Only, I hope, as an experimental prototype project.   The vast worldnet
we are building will become the foundation of our society, even more so
than the roads or other networks.   To have it owned and controlled by
any one entity, particularly the government, would be highly unwise.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mcastle@cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle)
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:54:46 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1jrcksINNguk@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>In Germany, law requires every BBS sysop (as well as every other
>provider of telecom services of any kind) to give authorities full
>access to their systems, to actively support the tapping and, of
>course, to keep quiet about it.
>
>No, this is not a police state. :-/
>

Egads!!  Here we are worrying about it in the US and other countries 
already have it!  Did I miss this information in the FBI-telephony
threads? (quite possible, as I was more concerned with my grades at
the time)

I hear all the time about how Amerika is becoming more and more 
restrictive, and how other countries are much more free than ours.

But this post and frisk's post regarding his home country's nation
wide id (in alt.privacy I believe) makes me wonder if we (as a 
collective net.entity) are focussing too much on what the US 
government is trying to do and looking at what other countries 
have already done.

Not sure where I'm trying to go with this thread.  Just rambling.
How much research is being put into other countries laws (by eff
and other such groups) and what effects they have had?

Feel free to redirect as appropriate.

>Olaf

mrc
-- 
Mike Castle .-=NEXUS=-.  Life is like a clock:  You can work constantly
  mcastle@cs.umr.edu     and be right all the time, or not work at all
S087891@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU   and be right at least twice a day.  -- mrc
    We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan.  -- Watchmen
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: pbachman@scott.skidmore.edu (peter bachman)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:35:36 GMT

Who funded Alexnder G. Bell? According to a program I saw that was
produced by Annenberg CPB, it was opium traders!

.
From: d_smith@chef.uwe.ac.uk (Dylan Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:49:44 GMT
Organization: The University of the West of England, Bristol (The Magic Roundabout)

In article <C10EHL.E2n@demon.co.uk>, gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
|> [posted to comp.org.eff.talk; xposted to uk.net and uk.politics - follow-
|> ups to comp.org.eff.talk please]
|> 
|> I just got mail (following up from some other thread in this group) from
|> someone in the UK who mentioned that there is a move afoot to see that
|> Bulletin Boards in the UK are licenced.  He said the people behind it were

Bad move. It's restrictive, and will help to destroy a hobby many of us
enjoy. It will only go to erode our liberty further.
-- 
Email : JANET  dylan@uwe.hal | Everywhere else : dylan@hal.uwe.ac.uk
             d_smith@uwe.csd |                 d_smith@csd.uwe.ac.uk
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 12:11:08 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau28.ira.uka.de

In article <jrk.727729306@zen.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:

> 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.

In Germany, law requires every BBS sysop (as well as every other
provider of telecom services of any kind) to give authorities full
access to their systems, to actively support the tapping and, of
course, to keep quiet about it.

No, this is not a police state. :-/

Olaf
-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
  "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games trial
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:31:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


In the report on the first day of the trial, Steve Figallo's message says:
"She also didn't know there was a special law for publishers regarding
searches.

Could we hav e some details on this special law, please?

Thanks;
David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re- What the State of Iowa
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:58:40 GMT

Date: 1/25/93    9:20 AM
Subj: Re: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C.
 
 > The vast worldnet
 > we are building will become the foundation of our society, even more so
 > than the roads or other networks.   To have it owned and controlled by
 > any one entity, particularly the government, would be highly unwise.
 
It would have its upside, though: non-government network providers have no
obligation to respect your freedom of speech, or of the press, or of
assembly, or against unreasonable search and seizure, or of due process --
as anybody who used Prodigy in the early days was forcibly reminded.  (I'm
told it's not as restrictive, now.  But after all the arbitrary censorship
I put up with, I'm not going back any time soon.)
 
The highway analogy may be better than the people pushing it realize.  It
would be expensive, inefficient, and run by political appointees.  It
would require ever higher and higher tax revenues to support.
Congresscritters would insist that major contracts for it go to their
districts in exchange for key votes on other Administration proposals.
There would be a lot more interest in extended service to new areas than
in maintaining or upgrading the parts already built.
 
BUT ... it would be MUCH easier to extend and defend civil liberties in
such a system than in anything the private sector provides.
 
 
 J. Brad Hicks     Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com
 X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Consumption tax...Oh no! 
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:15:51 GMT

tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.235024.13664@ico.isc.com> timhu@ico.isc.com writes:
>>I was just listening to NPR ATC. I suppose that we're starting to look a lot
>> like Canada. Not
>>that Canada's bad or anything, but the VAT sure is.

>Actually, if you've got to have taxes, VAT is a far better tax than income 
>tax.

Heh, there has actually been quite a bit of a discussion about
replacing the income tax with a national sales tax, but we can't get
just one or the other.  The greedy bastards will want to keep all of
them.
-- 
Don't take a butcher's advice on how to cook meat.  If he knew, he'd be a
chef. -- Andy Rooney
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk