[9652] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: bill summary: Telecommunications Act
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (adam fast)
Sat Jan 15 12:43:48 1994
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 09:43:20 -0800 (PST)
From: adam fast <adamfast@u.washington.edu>
To: Dave Hughes <dave@oldcolo.com>
Cc: compriv <com-priv@psi.com>
In-Reply-To: <m0pLDLA-0008WCC@oldcolo.com>
On Sat, 15 Jan 1994, Dave Hughes wrote:
> I don't want to question the proposed Washington law until I
> understand it better - but would you answer Bruce Gingery's
> question/observation - does it de facto freeze out of the
> 'net' all the semi-publicand private systems like Fidonet,
> Mac's First Class networks, and even the individual 'Point'
> softwares that are spreading?
>
> Or are we missing something?
i understand your criticism-- there is not a clear definition of a
data transport provider, versus /users/ of data transport providers. a
sticky situation, to say the least.
the intent of the act is to allow users and providers to use whatever
protocols they want to use, as long as they publish them, /not/ to
restrict or outlaw the use of any protocol.
the intent of the act is to facilitate and coordinate network
interconnection at a neighborhood level, and if a fidonet or FirstClass
network wants to connect to the data transport network, this gives them a
way to, a place to, assurance it won't cost more than the actual costs,
and a referee to help them.
i will respond in more detail when i have time later today.
adam
