[9642] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: bill summary: Telecommunications Act
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Gingery)
Sat Jan 15 02:58:34 1994
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 00:50:06 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Gingery <lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu>
To: adam fast <adamfast@u.washington.edu>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, communet@uvmvm.BITNET, nii_agenda@civicnet.org,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9401142328.H23938-0100000@goren1.u.washington.edu>
[plaintext summary omitted]
It would appear, though that it does indeed seem to leave private and
semi-public systems such as the millions of FidoNet users out in the cold
unless they connect fully and with everyone. Yet, FidoNet works on
store-and-forward, and in most cases, utilizing protocols (variations
on Z-Modem or SeaLink file transfer protocols, or the newer "Janus") which
are not in the slightest compatible with other portions of the information
highway. In most cases FidoNet members bear the cost of moving all E-Mail
to and from their "own" systems.
At the same time, FidoNet, itself, IS a member of the InterNet community,
with various gate points and automatic address translation software at
quite a number of points around the world. This cannot be said for MOST
of the other "networks" which use the same technology -- usually the same
software even to the versions.
It also would seem to prevent small startups in an artificial restriction
of trade. If someone wished to provide ONE kind of interconnectivity to a
small group of the "public", they would be prohibited unless they could
finance a comprehensive audio/data/video distribution system with full
interconnectivity in full competition with "grandfathered" systems with
significant "outside plant" costs already amortized.
I hope you folks in the North West are not in the habit of doing what
Wyoming so often does -- pass it the way it was word-crafted, then count
on enforcing it selectively to fit (at times) the original intent.
Bruce Gingery lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu
