Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!fullnews
From: fullnews@engin.umich.edu (Henry Park)
Subject: Re: 804 dialout
Message-ID: <_7.-MMG@engin.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 91 06:45:46 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
References: <1991Jun3.134026.11020@athena.mit.edu> <1991Jun4.143647.4165@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Jun7.050512.29949@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Distribution: usa
Keywords: DIALOUT

In article <1991Jun7.050512.29949@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> tfabian@falcon.lerc.nasa.gov (Teddy Fabian) writes:
>
>are you living in a cave??  no company or university is going to give you
>(an outsider) something for nothing.. they're not in business to do that...
>if they do, they certainly wouldn't be in business long...
>
Fabian is referring to the idea of "dialouts" in situations where no password
is required. He seems to feel that there is something unethical about using
freely accessible resources. In some of the annoyances he is talking about I
think he is right.

However, this point here is not clear to me at all. Sure COMPUSERVE is not
giving out free e-mail to Mars. On the other hand, it might make a very good
marketing strategy if COMPUSERVE could attract large numbers of clients, wipe
out competitors etc. It would be a great long-range strategy.

Universities may have very long-term strategies in terms of what they get
out of providing public access. Like the largest of computer companies they
benefit from the general public's increasing use of computers, period. They can
sell more classes, provide their students better and more intensive
communications with others and show outside computer donor companies how well
they are using the machines and how much the company has benefitted from donations. Some universities even own their own telephone companies.
Others may have complicated relationships with companies.  

I don't know what corporate and university executives believe is a good
strategy. I also don't think anyone else does.

Actually it seems to me that the only thing served by all this discussion
defending private property is to hold the economy back. Whatever short-range
goals people or companies may have, in the long run, it is the society's best
interest to foster public access as much as possible. Many of the defenders
of "ethics" may in fact be unwitting servants of economic stagnation, something
I find ethically indefensible.