Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ra!Ra.msstate.edu!lush
From: lush@EE.MsState.Edu (Edward Luke)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
Message-ID: <LUSH.90Nov5160026@athena0.EE.MsState.Edu>
Date: 5 Nov 90 22:00:26 GMT
References: <1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca> <yTqyR1w163w@dogface>
	<1990Nov02.044428.2834@looking.on.ca> <1990Nov2.141012.25200@ncs
	<FWP1.90Nov2111853@tzu.CC.MsState.Edu>
	<1990Nov05.033218.21980@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
	<FWP1.90Nov5084449@tzu.CC.MsState.Edu> <LUSH.9
Sender: usenet@ra.MsState.Edu
Distribution: na
Organization: MSU NSF ERC for CFS
Lines: 59
Nntp-Posting-Host: athena.erc.msstate.edu
In-reply-to: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu's message of 5 Nov 90 17:01:41 GMT


      government net.  (I can not afford to create another net myself.)  For
      this reason I find the position 'He who has the gold, makes the rules'
      a very dangerous one.

   How about a rewording.  If you wanna use MY gold you play by my rules.
   Now if you wanna use someone elses gold then that is between you and
   them.

You are illustrating the problem with that position quite well.  The
net is not just the NSF backbone, or the UUnet or any other SINGLE
ENTITY.  This is the whole problem... We could decide to reduce
ourselves and the net to the lowest common denominator, but for the
net to be effective, doesn't it require interconnectivity and freedom
that the net currently enjoys.  If the NSF backbone was to really
stick to it's charter religiously then wouldn't it have to disconnect
access to any net that provided services not strictly in it's charter?
Wouldn't this be a harm rather than a benefit to the net's
effectiveness?

   The main problem here is that we insist on using a network created by
   the government for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE (support of research) as a
   general purpose communications path.

... but then fact meets reality.  If the network really was a specific
purpose net, why the connection to portal and public access unix
sites?  Lets face it, what the network says it is, and what it is are
two different things.

   And there are alternatives.  MCI offers email connectivity to
   subscribers that doesn't use government network equipment (though it
   does gateway to that equipment).  So does Compuserve.  And I believe
   uunet is attempting to establish a network backbone on a commercial
   basis.  So one alternative is to create, like the phone system, a
   network backbone of some sort that is privately funded and supported
   by a fee to users.

True.. things are getting better.  But what scares me is that
buisnesses can be more political animals than the government itself.
What guarantees are there that I will have an uncensored forum from a
buisness if the government doesn't provide it.  Lets face it, networks
are the new communication medium.. first the printing press, then
radio, then television, now the network.  Shouldn't we be concerned
now in it's birth about saving it's freedom for the day when we are
actually depending on it for most of our news and information.

   Another alternative is to create a government sponsored network that,
   like the postal service, has no specific charter.  Such a network
   should not be under the control of the NSF.

Well since the net already is in a state of anarchy..(charter, Ha!)
why don't we just change the name of the department managing it?
Write your congressmen!



Ed Luke
Mississippi State University
lush@ee.msstate.edu