Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!hao!gaia!zhahai
From: zhahai@gaia.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: Stargate bullshit (common carrier vs broadcast)
Message-ID: <306@gaia.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Mar-87 07:35:48 EST
Article-I.D.: gaia.306
Posted: Thu Mar 26 07:35:48 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Mar-87 06:04:31 EST
References: <103@stargate.UUCP> <301@gaia.UUCP> <759@looking.UUCP> <1913@hoptoad.uucp> <17972@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <198@drilex.UUCP>
Reply-To: zhahai@gaia.UUCP (Zhahai Stewart)
Organization: Gaia Corp., Boulder, CO
Lines: 60

I am glad to see that this discussion is slowly resolving some points (I hope)
and defining others.

One key issue is why Stargate would need to impose restrictions on its
subscribers redistribution of information.  The answer seems to be that
the technology is expensive and somebody has to pay.  It seems strange
that the other telecommunications companies can "move the information from
A to B" without such restrictions - if Stargate cannot it would seem to
be more and not less expensive (even if the expenses are distributed
differently).

Suppose I have a site which spends $1000 per month on receiving news (plus
more on sending, but thats another subject).  Can Stargate deliver the same
service for $900 or less?  Or can they do so only if they get another $500
from sublicenses, for a total of $1400?  If they can do it for $900 (or less)
they don't need to restrict it.  If they need a total of $1400 then they are
wasting money, in effect acting as a bill collecter by reducing my costs some
but raising other's costs more than enough to make up for it.  A cute scam,
vaguely related to a pyrimid scheme, but they should be clear if that were
the case that they were providing bill collecting+telecommunications for
(in this example) $400 more than their communications only competition.

In the arbitrary example I give above, I would do better to continue using
current telecommunications services at $1000 and have a private agreement
to ask those I feed for a total of $200.  They save, I save, and the most
cost efficient telecomm service gets our business.

Note that if the sites I feed have their own phone bills of $1000 (total for
all of them), they would still have that bill on top of anything discussed
above - if any site had a bill greater than what Stargate would charge them
they could get it direct.

If on the other hand, Stargate can provide the same service as a modem or
packet network for less money, they could be a boon.  In which case, they
should stop this nonsense about restricting redistribution (other than of
their own created work, of course).

I am concerned about a possible scam, wherein they really sell a more
expensive service but it "seems" cheaper to some sites.  I certainly
hope this is an unneccessary concern.  If they would lay their cards on
the table it would help a lot - can they move information from one local
calling area to another cheaper than their competition, assuming that the
information will be freely distributed thereafter, or not?

I will not put a copyright and prohibition on this, as I hope all that
silliness can be dispensed with.  I will begin if something is amiss.

By the way, it is not inconsistant to prohibit information movers from
using an article if they attach restrictions to it.  Yes, it is a restriction,
but it is placed by the intellectual author and originator to prohibit
others from usurping the information by attaching further restrictions.
The phrasing may need work, but the concept is valid and consistent.
(It would be self-contradictory if the author prohibited any restriction
of any sort even by him/herself).

Cheers,  ~z~

-- 
Zhahai Stewart
{hao | nbires}!gaia!zhahai