[12063] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Fwd: Short substantive EFF policy question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanton McCandlish)
Tue May 3 20:49:49 1994
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 18:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: bruce@phantom.com, karl@mcs.com, frezza@radiomail.net,
farber@central.cis.upenn.edu, djw@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com,
stahlman@radiomail.net, dbuck@world.std.com, ggilder@mcimail.com,
gbolles@radiomail.net, rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu,
Sam_Boyle@mcimail.com, brodsky@radiomail.net
In-Reply-To: <m0pyBBf-000oCyC@venus.mcs.com> from "Karl Denninger" at May 2, 94 10:30:23 pm
> > > The only worthwhile thing the EFF has done is to provide legal support to
> > > people like Craig Neidorf and Steve Jackson. Putting Mike Godwin on the
> >
> > I beg to differ. Ever heard of Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet?
>
> Yes, and it is a nice work. It is also a nice piece of political speech,
> which makes it an advertising vehicle for EFF and not a public interest
> piece. I have it here for customers and others to browse, but warn people
> in advance to cut the rhetoric and you'll save 3/4 of the reading time.
Not sure what you are talking about. There is no political speech in it,
much less "3/4" of it, with the sole exception of Mitch's introduction,
which isn't even particularly political. All the rest of it was written buy
a professional writer hired by the project. I'm afraid I don't believe
that you've even read it. I believe that you *assumed* it was a piece of
political speech. And what's so bad about political speech anyway?
Bruce Sterling once told me "There's no such thing as too political". I
don't agree with Bruce's politics, but I agree with his estimation of
politics.
> > Ever
> > seen our work on ISDN?
>
> Irrelavent really, as "your work on ISDN" has done <ZERO> to solve the
> tariff problems in Illinois and elsewhere in Ameritech land which make
What makes you think EFF is in a position to solve tarrif problems?
State PUCs are in the position of solving tariff problems. EFF can put a
word or 2 or 10,000 in, and can influence (and *have* influenced)
regulatory decisions of this nature, but your criticism is like condemning
the battered women's shelter because domestic violence hasn't stopped.
> ISDN a complete win/lose for consumers and business people alike -- only
> the phone company wins when you go to ISDN service.
I think even Mr. Stahlman would side with me in disagreeing with you on
this.
If in Illinois, ISDN is overpriced, that's just too bad. This
situation will not last forever. In other areas, ISDN is available for
$15-30/mo, without Centrex fees. Most areas tariff ISDN too high still,
but not all of them, and sooner or later the rest will come to their
senses, with a little help. The kind of help EFF is around for.
> We have <no> ISDN customers right now. The reason isn't technical -- I
> can call ASCEND tomorrow and have a MAX box in my offices in a week. My
> guess is that I could implement our dynamic assignment paradigm on it
> (given the manuals I have) within a week and have it serving customers.
> No, the issue is cost to the consumer - at 40 or so hours a month the cost
> of USING an ISDN connection surpasses the cost of a 56kbps leased line! For
> industry this is unacceptable; it is cheaper to install dedicated service.
Of course it's unacceptable. And that's why it's (slowly) changing.
> For personal use it is prohibitively expensive (there is NO "flat rate"
> unmetered zone for calling on ISDN -- all calls are on a BUSINESS tariff
> here) and brings little or nothing to the table performance-wise.
Let's step back here. You are complaining about ISDN service in your area.
What have you done about it? Why are you blaming EFF for this? We'd like
nothing better than for you to have $15/mo. ISDN. If the opportunity
presents itself, we'll gladly say so. But the failure of your PUC to
tariff ISDN at a sensible rate is the PUCs fault, not ours, and it does
not reflect negatively on EFF or our mission that the IL PUC doesn't see
the light of day yet. When I moved to DC I was told that to get the ISDN
service I wanted for my BBS would cost me $38/mo. (if I remember
correctly), plus some $500 or so in Centrex fees, and all sorts of other
costs. I checked again, and these costs are gone. ISDN is around the
$15-30 range. Entire regional hub systems in FidoNet are using ISDN now,
etc. It may not be coming like a race car, but it's coming.
> And yes, at the end of the month when I speak in San Jose you're going to
> hear a blast at the telco pricing policies the likes of which the Gods have
> never seen before.
Good. It's always better to do something about something that argue with
other people trying to do something about it too.
> The advent of inexpensive 28.8kbps dial-up modems has
> obsolesced ISDN service.
Ah, no. Try running a PictureTel system off of buggy Hayes 28.8k V.fc modems.
Here are the FACTS. Most V.fc modems are buggy, and because 28.8kbps is
not a true standard yet, using a Zoom to connect to a Hayes (for example)
will almost never get 28.8k connects. More like 21.6 or 24.0k tops.
Unless you have remarkably clear lines, even with 2 same-brand, behaving,
V.fc modems, you won't get a 28.8k connect in the first place. Finally,
28.8k modems work over old phone lines (when they work). ISDN provides
multiple channels. Let's see you talk on the phone and transfer data on
the same POTS phone line. It's not going to happen. ISDN is a step above
POTS phone technology whether you like or can get it cheap or not. Your
displeasure doesn't change the facts. And lets not forget that
many advances in modem technology can and will be applied to ISDN
applications as well.
> ISDN TA-style service has three problems -- no
> compression internal to the units (and no standards for it if someone DID
> implement it),
This is not an ISDN problem, this is a consumer hardware vendor problem
that will fix itself. What on earth makes you think US Robotics, ZyXEL,
MicroCom, Hayes, et al., won't be ready and willing to create a standard
or series of semi-standards, and provide ISDN units for the general
consumer when the market is there to support it (a market EFF is helping
to create, incidentally, by promoting consumer-level tariffing)? Of
course they will.
> a cost-prohibitive structure for individuals,
See above. This problem will fix itself as well. Or rather, market
pressure will fix it, and is already doing so, even if not as fast as we'd
like.
> and NO
> interoperability with non-ISDN data equipment (can you say "dedicated gear
> and thus dedicated costs?).
The same argument can be applied to anything "Macintosh has a problem: NO
interoperability with non-Mac data equipment". Try telling that to
Apple's BoD. Or, "POTS modems have a problem: NO interoperability with
Centrex, ISDN, or wireless data equipment". Please. Also, what gear are
you talking about specifically? If you mean to imply that when ISDN is
affordable, that no one will make ISDN "modems" that work with standard PC
and workstation equipment, you are dead wrong. They already are. It's
just not cheap yet. Two years ago, typical price on a 14.4k modem was $600+.
Now it's around $100-$200, and often even less. That's progress for ya.
> SYNC service is USELESS to 90+% of the computer users out there. Async
So? What makes you think this will always be true? In 1980, most people
figured a personal computer was useless to them. I think somewhat less
that 90% of them think that way any more, don't you? How many people had
modems in 1985? How many people had light bulbs 10 years after their
invention? What percentage of the American population owned cars in 1920?
This is the weakest argument against ISDN possible.
> service (through rate adaption) is not officially supported beyond 38.4kbps,
> and that speed is EASILY reached with a 28.8kbps dial-up!
Huh? With what? Magic? You get the illusion of reaching that speed due
to hardware compression. As you should know, unless you are transferring
highly compressable files, like ASCII text material, you will not see
anything near 38.4k.
> ISDN in its present form is NOT a way to bring the Internet to the home in
What's the key word in that line? "Present". And this really doesn't
have that much to do with bringing the internet home to people.
> a rational fashion. Period. The problems aren't technical -- they COULD
> be worked on by EFF IF you decided to.
Oh yes, I forgot. EFF's work on ISDN does "<ZERO>" good.
> > Ever noticed that
> > EFF worked to get the sentencing guidelines for "computer crimes" amended.
>
> Am I to take this to mean that you don't believe that "computer crimes" are
> real crimes, or somehow aren't worthy of serious punishment? I happen to
> disagree VEHEMENTLY with that assertion.
It's an assertion you are imagining. Why is it that I get the feeling
that you are very very interested in finding something, ANYTHING, to
dislike EFF for, and far less interested in what we are really doing?
For the record, EFF's position is that "computer crime" is a bogus
category, and that crime is crime. If it's illegal offline, it's illegal
online. If it's legal offline, it's legal online. And vice versa.
Computers are TOOLS. It is no more logical to partition crime into
"computer crime" and "all other crime" that it is to categorize the
criminal world as "hammer crime" and "fountain pen crime" and "typewriter
crime". This fallacious categorization, which stems from ignorance, fear,
and knee-jerk panic, has resulted in people being sentenced to years in
prison for doing electronically what would have netted them a small fine
or 6 months probation had it be done offline. Teenage "hackers", guilty
of nothing but electronic criminal tresspass, get prison sentences while
violent criminals walk. It's illogical, it's unjust, and we've gone a
long way toward getting it rectified.
> > Etc. Please, don't simply trust what you read on the net as the be-all
> > and end-all of the facts. I find it a shame that you'd condemn our
> > organization as a one-hit wonder, when you appear to me to have not looked
> > at much of the work we've done, but simply listened to the rhetoric flying
> > about one issue, and concluded that those spouting it are 100% correct and
> > that their opinion of one of our missions accurately describes all the
> > rest of our work.
>
> On the contrary. I have listened to your own accomplishments and found
> them not only wanting, but in fact having the smell of something commonly
> reserved for the mainstream politician.
And what pray tell have you done? If you are not being part of the
solution, you are part of the problem. I don't see you tackling any of
these problems. In my reality tunnel, there are those that DO, and there
are those that just talk.
> > 1) Would you rather have "dumb guys" do the the lobbying? Lobbying WILL
> > BE DONE. This is a fact of life. You can have the law-n-order types and the
> > social-program wheedlers and so forth do all the lobbying if you like. See
> > how you like the world then.
>
> The EFF's own policy statement sounded like a social-program wheedler's
> style of statement to me, and you have NOT backed down from that in any
> substantive way.
We have not backed down from your interpretations? Sorry, I'm having
difficulty parsing that. If you wish to accuse us of this or that or the
other, I think the burden of proof lies on you. If our statements don't
sound right, then maybe they need a re-draft, but I don't think prose
difficulties warrant attacks like this. It looks to me like someone has
told you "EFF are bad guys", and you have believe this, and are now
looking desperately for any justification of this belief, coupled with a
sour-grapes attitude about ISDN, because *you* can't get it cheap in
*your* area. I'd like to suggest that it would be more productive for all
of us if you'd spend the time you waste railing at us for no good reason,
and apply that to writing letters to your state PUC demanding affordable
and useful ISDN.
> > 2) on what grounds do you base the assumption that EFF can only protect
> > civil liberties when residing in a city in Massachusetts?
>
> Uh, your utter lack of response to civil liberties issues when they arise
> outside of the two issues you were involved in up to now? The lack of
> tangible results? Or do we need something more?
What are you talking about? What "two issues"? You really don't know a
thing about us, do you? I'd like to ask just why it is that you are
critizing us when you do not know what issues we are involved in and what
results we accomplish. I think it's a very good question. For a summary
what what we've been up to over the last year, see EFFector Online 06.01
through 07.07. (ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/). I don't
think the list would appreciate my reposting our full history here, and
the pointer should be sufficient. If not, let me know.
> > 3) on what grounds do you base the assumption that all EFF does is lobbying?
> > As a matter of fact, very little of what we do is lobbying; that's the law.
> > If we exceed that quota, we lose 501(c)(3) status.
>
> So what else HAVE you done other than write political treatises in the form
> of a "Big Dummy's Guide" and put forth socialist programs and regulatory
> burdens -- oh, and refuse to answer substantive questions when asked?
No I don't think you know anything about us. What I see is blind heckling
for the sake of argument. You don't have any idea how many legal cases we
consult on, you don't know about our amicus briefs like that for the SJG
appeal, you don't know how many people I directly help every day, how many
calls from people in legal trouble Mike fields on an hourly basis, how
many times we testify at hearings every month, how many hundreds of
megabytes we devote to information on Clipper, how to get congressional
information, how to file FOIAs, where to get what you are looking for on
the net, how to keep out of legal trouble when running a BBS, etc, how
much work we've done trying to put a stop to Clipper and Digital
Telephony, etc., etc. I'd recommend starting with ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/
and read for a while. We do a whole lot more than you think we do.
As for the "substantive" questions, they have been answered, either in the
course of the debate, or in prepared statements like the one posted by our
Sr. Counsel, and I have no doubt I'll be answering them again. And again.
And again.
> > 4) on what grounds do you base the assumption that getting involved in the
> > political processes that actually MAKE the laws we have to live with is
> > somehow antithetical to the goal of protecting civil liberties?
>
> On the contrary, I have not made that assertion.
>
> I have made the assertion that you're aiming at the wrong targets, and that
An assertion that has yet to be backed up with anything.
> by doing so you have seriously damaged your credibility as an organization.
Funny, but we don't find this to be true. We have more members now than
ever, we are better known, we are getting more done, and we have a lot
more clout in places where it makes a difference, like Congressional hearings.
Our staff is growing, we are online more places, and providing more
services that ever. Organizations modelled on EFF are popping up all over
the world (since January I know of 2 in Canada and Australia, and one each in
New Hampshire, Norway, Japan, Ireland, and the UK). This does not look
like a loss of credibility to me.
> Either that misfire is intentional or not - I think that all the folks who
> read this have enough intelligence to figure out the upshot of those
> possibilities, and what it means.
I think they have enough intelligence also to spot when someone is
slagging an organization without actually knowing very much about them.
--
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
- Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994
