Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!agate!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: ANS Acceptable Use Policy Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 17:41:21 GMT References: <23952@well.sf.ca.us> <7874@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <6323@awdprime.UUCP> <1991Apr05.011813.4610@vpnet.chi.il.us> Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology Lines: 50 louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes: >It has nothing to do with being against IBM, per se. It has to do with >*any* company calling the shots. I don't like to think that I may somehow be >required to follow their policy. As long as you are using someone else's equipment (especially when you do not pay for the services) you will have to play by someone else's rules. >So the net's basically held together with cellophane tape and toothpicks. So >what? It works pretty good, considering. If IBM got a hold of it, they might >turn it into another Prodigy (ugh!!) [.imminent death of the net...] Just for your information, IBM maintains ownership of the NSSes. No explosions have occurred thus far. (This may have actually changed when ANS was created.) >[...] If IBM would let such >things pass through their hallowed halls, then fine. If not, then they should >stay away. Why not find a provider that will allow you to use its facilities for such purposes? You know... competition, capitalism, etc. Look at Alternet or PSI. If no one will provide you with the service and there are enough of you out there, then someone will enter the market to fill the gap. >If *any* company were t run this thing, I'd like it to be AT&T (no, I don't >work for them or own stock in them). They probably have more experience >with data networking than IBM (Prodigy is a good example of their idea of >networking). Actually, I consider Prodigy a *bad* example of IBM's networking. I much prefer the NSFNET as a better example. And don't forget that NSFNET was created by a contract that went to competitive bid (like most gov't contracts), so at the time, there was nobody else out there who was up to the hardware task. Of course, that's just the hardware. NSF has really been calling the shots in terms of policy. >AT&T could basically give a sh*t what goes on as long as they >make a buck off of the bills. They don't constantly monitor calls and say >"you can't say this", so I doubt they'd do that with a network. IBM has >proven themselves capable of doing this: Prodigy again!!! Imagine that! In a network environment, I believe that IBM would be hard pressed to do this, as it could open them up to liability issues. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]