[11321] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Universities (was: What is an "Internet reseller"?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John [Francis] Stracke)
Tue Mar 29 07:35:21 1994
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 10:47:38 +0500
From: francis@avalle.insoft.com (John [Francis] Stracke)
To: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Glenn S. Tenney's message of Sun, 27 Mar 1994 01:12:25 -0800 <199403270912.BAA08154@netcom9.netcom.com>
>>Anyway, what's the difference between a university charging a student,
>>who's using IP for schoolwork, and a company charging one of its
>>departments, who's using IP for company work?
>
>A department of a company is still part of the company.
OK, it was weak. But consider: first, it seems pretty clear that a
university that charges $X/yr to get on the campus LAN, and thereby
the Net, is no different from a university that rolls that fee into
tuition, right? So let's talk about the latter case; it's simpler.
The university bought the pipe to educate its students, which is the
university's primary goal. Thus, student use of the pipe is to the
university's direct benefit. In order to make the pipe more useful
for its intended purpose, it opted to make it available to students in
their rooms, thus reducing the load on the campus systems. This is
*not* the same as selling access to someone who would not otherwise be
entitled to it.
> The student is not
>working for the university and is not doing the "company's" work -- the
>student is the customer.
Actually, students are generally considered as something more along
the lines of members of the university, rather than customers (this
extends to loss of some of a consumer's normal expectations--for
example, my college considered my name, address, etc., to be public
info, which it could sell to third parties, and would not remove me
from the list being sold). I contend that a student of a university
is part of the university. This is a case of the "generally accepted
standards of the industry" phenomenon Karl has mentioned.
> It is NOT splitting hairs -- I don't know of ANY
>company for which it's employees have to pay for the privilege of being
>there.
Do you know of any ISP whose prices depend on how smart you are? :-)
>>The real difference, IMHO, between a university and an ISP is that the
>>university doesn't provide IP access to the public.
>
>Then any tax supported university or junior college or whatever that is
>required to be available to the public (for example, state universities) IS
>providing access to the public.
"Available to the public" is typically applied only to libraries. You
can get kicked out of a state university's computer lab if you're not
a student or something. (Admittedly, it doesn't happen *often* at
most schools, given the difficulty of checking IDs on everybody that
comes in.) At the school where my father teaches "high school and
younger students" (their phrase, not mine) are (theoretically) not
permitted in the library later than something like 5:00 (this despite
the fact that this is the closest approximation to a real library in
town). Moreover, there are barriers to any visitor using the
library--there are something like four or five visitor parking spaces
on campus, and they're limited to 30 minutes.
> However if the CIX decides to
>follow my understanding of Karl's position, then any university charging
>separately or itemizing computer access as part of the tuition *IS* an ISP.
OK; I'm mainly just intellectually interested in the argument. ;-) It
interests me largely because your position shows a view of the nature
of universities different from mine. <shrug>
/===========================================================================\
|John (Francis) Stracke | My opinions are my own.| No matter how |
|InSoft, Inc. |========================/ subtle the |
|Mechanicsburg, PA | wizard, a knife between the shoulderblades |
|francis@insoft.com | will seriously cramp his style. |
\===========================================================================/
