Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihuxn!res
From: res@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: MCI ad
Message-ID: <1023@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 19:36:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1023
Posted: Wed Apr 10 19:36:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 02:05:48 EST
References: <477@rdin.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 68

In response to:

> It would be just like AT&T to get mad at MCI and do something
> stupid to retaliate.  

It seems to me that I recently used the words "cheap shot" to describe
a comment like this.  Hmmmm.  I have not yet heard of any retaliatory
action by the Corporation because of a lapse of judgement by a
misguided individual.

> It was that kind of attitude on their part
> towards companies like MCI that made the government break them
> up in the first place.  

Wrong.  It was, as part of a very complex legal/social/political
situation, the classical "big is bad" syndrome complicated by
confusion between the Justice Department and the FCC on where the line
between correct behavior under regulation and incorrect behavior under
anti-trust law should be drawn.  In the end, divestiture will probably
be one of the best things to happen to AT&T -- once we get a chance to
compete without having both hands tied behind our backs by the FCC!

> Considering how many AT&T sites there
> are on the net, I would say that they need us more than we need
> them.  If they stop carrying the news for us, we could stop feeding
> news to them!

Huh?  I do not follow the logic of these statements.

> Now wasn't that childish?  I can understand why some would be
> upset by ads on the net, but I don't think that it should generate
> such net-wide ill will.  

I guess I have not read all of the postings yet on this subject.  I do
not recall seeing any angry responses by people from AT&T -- certainly
none by AT&T corporately.  There have been comments from a number of 
non-AT&T sites that express unhappiness with the posting, but I expect 
that most of my collegues reacted to it as I did: "What a waste of net 
resources, and it wasn't even posted to the right newsgroup -- this
should be in net.jokes."

> Let's face it: most sites on the net
> are engaged in commercial endeavors.  

True, many sites are located at business concerns, but a great many
(particularly on the ARPA legs of the network) are at universities.

> It's only natural for some
> to view the net as a good advertising medium.  

Interesting.  At least at this location of AT&T Bell Labs our
management has no such view of the net.  As a medium for exchange of
technical ideas, and as a feedback path for comments on our products
and the problems people have encountered using them, yes.  As a channel
for advertising, no.

> Your higher-ups
> might not like paying for the time, but his higher-ups probably
> wouldn't pay for his reception costs unless they could get some
> advertising value from the net.

I really doubt that companies on the net such as Tektronix, TRW, BBN,
as well as my own AT&T have such a view, if they are even aware of the
net as something more than a piece of the computational overhead cost.
Anyone at another company care to comment on this?

					Rich Strebendt
					...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res