The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998 / hackers_encyclopedia.iso / zines / eff / eff205.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 25.9 KB | 528 lines

########## ########## ########## | VIDEO DIALTONE| ########## ########## ########## | The FCC and Video-by-Wire| #### #### #### | | ######## ######## ######## | CD/USENET| ######## ######## ######## | Newsfeeds via Disk?| #### #### #### | | ########## #### #### | | ########## #### #### | | | THE EFF PIONEER AWARDS: NOMINATIONS CLOSE MIDNIGHT | PACIFIC TIME FEBRUARY 19 | | =====================================================================| EFFector Online February 18,1992 Volume 2, Number 5| =====================================================================| THE PIONEER AWARDS:Nominations Deadline To date well over 150 nominations for the EFF/PIONEER Awards have been received and the list alone would make for a fascinating series of interviews and profiles. Indeed, we're making it a point to put that project in the list for things to get done in 1992. There is still time for everyone out there who hasn't nominated the person or organization they feel deserves recognition throughout known cyberspace as a pioneering element the birth and growth of this new medium to have their say. Remember, the nominations are open and that anyone may nominate anyone else -- even themselves. Everyone is eligible except EFF staff members. There's an entry form at the end of this issue of EFFector Online. If you know anyone whose a genuine cyberspace pioneer worthy of recognition please use it and use it quickly. Nominations close at midnight, February 19, 1992 -- Pacific Time. Thank you, The EFF -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- FCC Proposes to Allow Telcos to Deliver Video; by Andrew Blau blau@eff.org (EFF Washington Office) Should the regional telephone companies be able to enter the cable televion business? Should the cable companies of the country be protected from this potential competition? There are arguments for both sides. And the Federal Communications Commission has come up with a proposal that just may be able to make the answer fair to both sides and of benefit to the consumer at the same time. On October 24, 1991, the Federal Communications Commission announced its latest proposal for modifying the telphone company-cable television cross ownership rules. These rules keep telephone companies (telcos) out of the cable television business. The FCC enacted these rules in 1970 in an effort to protect the then fledgling cable industry from a range of anticompetitive practices by telcos seeking to maintain control over wireline communications. Rather than directly address whether telcos can get into the cable business, the Commission is proposing that telcos can offer a "video dialtone": an open line into a telco-operated distribution network, available on a common carrier basis, that others can fill with video signals, much like telcos now provide an open line to the telephone network that a subscriber purchases in order to fill with audio signals or data. This proposal also reflects the Commission's attempts to develop a policy framework that can accommodate video and other enhanced electronic services offered over a single wire. The Commission's Proposal The Commission's video dialtone proposal was outlined in a three-part release that described the Commission's scheme and reasoning and requested public comment on it. The first part holds the core of the Commission's proposal. This section describes video dialtone as "an enriched version of video common carriage under which local exchange carriers (LECs) will offer various non-programming services in addition to the underlying video transport." The report suggests that video dialtone will facilitate "the provision of additional non- programming services and of enhanced video gateways including detailed menus, information search capabilities, and subcriber driven data processing." As such, it is a "'platform' through which subscribers can access video and other information services." The Commission has two models for how video dialtone might be implemented and regulated. The first approach (which it clearly favors) has two levels. Level one is a platform that gives users access to video and non-video services on a non-discriminatory, common carrier basis, regulated like other basic telephone services. The platform would allow service providers and subscribers to reach each other and would likely include basic directory and routing functions. On the second level, the LEC could provide its own advanced gateway and related services on an unregulated basis, subject to competition from other gateways and video services using the platform. In the second approach, there is a single Advanced Gateway, through which consumers could gain access to non-programming video services (e.g., picturephone, videoconferencing) provided by either the LEC or other service providers. In this single-level model, the LEC would provide certain enhanced features, such as navigational aids and search capabilities, menus and other information to make the gateway easy to use. The second part of the report was based on comments received in earlier rounds of this proceeding. It reflects the Commission's interpretation of current law. First, the Commission has concluded that the cross-ownership ban does not apply to interexchange carriers such as AT&T or MCI, but only to LECs. As a result, interexchange carriers may enter the cable business today, under the same conditions that apply to cable operators. Second, the Commission has concluded that under a video dialtone model, neither the telco, the programmer, nor the program packager is a cable operator, and thus no party is obligated to obtain a cable franchise in order to provide video service. (For all practical purposes, this undercuts the process by which cable operators are allowed to wire communities and removes the local community from decisions about the local communications infrastructure.) By invoking its interpretive authority, the Commission has chosen a strategy to promote telco involvement in video that relieves it of having to ask Congress to repeal the cross-ownership ban that was written into Federal law. The third part of the report addresses two additional issues in a more open-ended format. First, the Commission returns to the question of whether LECs should be allowed to become video programmers themselves and how the video dialtone model affects the issue. Second, the Commission raises questions about whether the policy objectives it seeks to promote are consistent with the incentives it provides. In particular, the Commission asks whether Commission policies discourage investment in advanced technology. The EFF's Position In presentations before the FCC the EFF argued that the Commission's underlying principles are strong, but that the proposal needs additional 'debugging' before it becomes policy. EFF's position is that the Commission's model of integrating video and non-video services in a common-carriage based framework is an excellent start. EFF also fully supported the goals the Commission set for itself in this proceeding: 1) to promote an advanced public infrastructure available at reasonable charges ; 2) to foster competitive markets to meet advanced communications needs ; and 3) to advance the bedrock First Amendment value of diversity of information sources. Finally, the EFF agreed with the Commission that the video dialtone should be implemented so as to: facilitate competition in the provision of services, be easy for the average person to use, and be sufficiently flexible to accommodate new technological developments. The EFF's concerns fall into three general categories. First, EFF pointed out that the Commission was proposing an integrated framework for voice, data and video services at the same time it has an open inquiry into the potential architectures of advanced intelligent networks, yet it has not made any arrangements for connecting the two. As a result, EFF expressed concern that the Commission was going forward with a policy framework without taking into account the architecture and technical capabilities that network planners can already forsee. Second, the EFF noted that the Commission's proposal all but assumes an integrated broadband network, which is likely to be years away. The EFF suggested that the Commission not overlook the role that ISDN, repositioned as a residential service, could play as a transitional technology that could achieve many of these goals more quickly than waiting for the broadband infrastructure on which the Commission's proposal seems to be based. In addition, by fostering an ISDN-based platform, the Commission would be creating the conditions for consumer interest and demand to develop, thereby avoiding the Commission's own concern about "governmental edict" becoming the prime driver behind network development. Third, the EFF raised questions about whether the Commission's proposal will accommodate the individual or non-commercial information provider. Although the Commission is interested in ensuring that the video dialtone is easy to use, they seem to be interested primarily in that ease of use for consumers, while ignoring issues facing information providers. For example, the non- discriminatory tariffs proposed by the Commission may become a problem depending on how they are set. If rates are set on the assumption that the primary users are large commercial applications, whether it be Prodigy or Paramount Pictures, then smaller providers such as individual, non-commercial BBS operators, or simply individuals with a point of view to express electronically, may find themselves priced out of the market. Therefore, EFF suggested that the Commission consider ensuring low or no-cost access for for noncommercial, non-profit or individual information providers. What's Next? The Commission received formal comments from over 150 parties and well over 230 letters on the issue. Next it will accept reply comments before it turns any parts of its proposal into policy. There is no time limit for the Commission to act, however, so that policy may not appear for some time. -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Usenet on a CD-ROM, no longer a fable (Commentary) by Ian Feldman ianf@not.bad.se The latest tempest-in-a-teacup of hurricane proportions on Usenet is raging quite nicely in the news.misc group. This time the subject matter should be of interest to many, so here comes the nitty-gritty. A company in the USA recently began offering Usenet-on-CD-ROM monthly disks for a fee (approximately US$35 per disk, if memory serves me right; $25 per issue if one subscribes to it). As a product goes it is not expensive; in fact it is downright cheap all things considered. Getting a full news feed each day from somewhere - even if from a nearby friendly service - is bound to cost many times that in telephone charges alone. On the other hand.... having the full monthly Usenet (ALL OF IT, from all countries of the world, not solely from the USA) arrive in your mailbox, even 2 to 4 weeks after the posting date, must be considered an incredible and amazing opportunity. Ah, to be able to peruse all 500+ MB of it at will, at one's convenience, even without formal access to Usenet. Therefore all kudos to the initiator, Sterling Software, and may they live long and prosper. Thanks for that alternative news feed, even if it is a bit slooow. But then, as someone recently said on the net, "there are few other media that can beat the bandwidth of a truck full of CD-ROMs." ;-) Of course, that... feeling of elation, for want of a better phrase, was not what the storm was about. Rather than accept the service that Sterling Software offers for what it effectively is, a different form of the distribution of the net news, the rage was all about (1) them charging you for the CD-ROMs (the horror! the horror!) and (2) them infringing upon real or imagined intellectual property rights of the posters to Usenet. Sterling Software, in the words of its spokesman, Kent Landfield, makes no claims as to the reuse of the public news that they supply. They view themselves entirely as an alternative transport and archival service (all those trucks full of CD-ROMs gathering dust ;-)) Thus anybody will be free to put the contents of the NetNews/CD's up for use with FTP, mount them for access in local BBS, import them into the WAIS (Wide Area Information Service) and so on. The original posters' rights and restrictions on reuse, if any, are still in force. The information on CD-ROMs continues to be as free as it was in the beginning. Yet, listening to some of the arguments being passed in the heat of the discussion it becomes clear that in the mind of the flamers it apparently is acceptable that UUNET, PSI, and other _commercial_ Usenet providers charge for the telephone-accessed feeds, not to mention the charges to the telephone services themselves, but it is definitely not acceptable to offer an alternative that's cut in the plastic and aluminum that the CD- ROMs are made of. No, sireee, the latter is "publishing," therefore constitutes criminal unauthorized infringing upon use of _their_ words which may not be embossed in stone unless they get paid for it. Well, that's roughly how the argumentative posters feel. At times it was outright funny, but chiefly left me with a feeling of very limited and narrow minds now trying to butter up the importance of their own egos, the written end products of which are usually submitted in a Without-A-Thought[tm] fashion to the net. Please observe that I claim full intellectual property rights for the above expression, "Without-A- Thought[tm]," which may not be used by anyone without written permission from the undersigned. I waive that right for use by TidBITS and Sterling Software however (yes, since TidBITS is distributed in the comp.sys.mac.digest group it too will end up on the CD-ROMs). The above was, of course, a bit sarcastic. But it illustrates well where we'd soon be if the extreme arguments against the NetNews/CD product were taken at a face value and adhered to universally. Anybody[tm] could claim Sole Rights[tm] to Any Expression Whatsoever[tm]. Fortunately the company in question has had the guts to face up to the potential lawsuit-trigger-happy netters by, effectively, taking the legal grounds for a suit out of their hands. In a recent message on the net they offer every individual among those bent upon not allowing own contributions to be distributed in plastic and aluminum to register with them on an individual basis, asking them to remove any future posts of his or her from the data mass prior to each monthly pressing of it. Fortunately the CD-ROMs' contents are prepared by a special software that filters such people's posts automatically so the process need not be that complicated. One registered letter to the Sterling Software and they're gone, gone, gone forever, and the rest of us are hardly worse off for it. In the end the arrival of such a service may perhaps even lead some of the current "I Post Therefore I Exist" submitters (it sounds even better in Latin!) to consider twice whether or not to risk being an eternal (or at least the life of a CD-ROM) subject of ridicule for posting offensive or stupid stuff, an activity that up to now has largely been an unpunishable offense. Perhaps that in part accounted for the recent outburst on the net, that the NetNews/CD effectively changes the rules of the game; from now on self-censure becomes a necessity for all posts by all nominally responsible, and wishing to retain that label, people. The whole issue of the NetNews/CD is too vast and too important to be presented here in depth; those interested with access to the Usenet may try to read the relevant articles by visiting the /usr/spool/news/misc at the earliest opportunity. Alternately, send email to the company (addresses below) to be added to an administrative (cdnews) or a directional (cddev) mailing list. The rest of you may now start feeling being admitted AT LAST to the Real World[tm], where there is TOO MUCH[tm] of practically everything; trust me, I've been there and I wish not to live anywhere else but. Information from: Ian Feldman -- ianf@not.bad.se <end> -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- "I've been working toward a consistent set of policies and a consistent set of goals for five years. "We[NSF] know where we want to be. We want to get out of the business. As soon as the government stops funding the suppliers of networking and begins funding the users of net working, it's the users who become responsible for appropriate use." --Stephen Wolff, who oversees the Internet for NSF -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S FIRST ANNUAL PIONEER AWARDS CALL FOR NOMINATIONS (Attention: Please feel free to repost to all systems worldwide.) In every field of human endeavor, there are those dedicated to expanding knowledge, freedom, efficiency and utility. Along the electronic frontier,this is especially true. To recognize this, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has established the Pioneer Awards. The first annual Pioneer Awards will be given at the Second Annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference in Washington, D.C. in March of 1992. All valid nominations will be reviewed by a panel of outside judges chosen for their knowledge of computer-based communications and the technical, legal, and social issues involved in networking. There are no specific categories for the Pioneer Awards, but the following guidelines apply: 1) The nominees must have made a substantial contribution to the health,growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications. 2) The contribution may be technical, social, economic or cultural. 3) Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or organizations in the private or public sectors. 4) Nominations are open to all, and you may nominate more than one recipient. You may nominate yourself or your organization. 5) All nominations, to be valid, must contain your reasons, however brief, on why you are nominating the individual or organization, along with a means of contacting the nominee, and your own contact number. No anonymous nominations will be allowed. 5) Every person or organization, with the single exception of EFF staff members, are eligible for Pioneer Awards. You may nominate as many as you wish, but please use one form per nomination. You may return the forms to us via email at: pioneer@eff.org. You may mail them to us at: Pioneer Awards, EFF, 155 Second Street Cambridge MA 02141. You may FAX them to us at: (617) 864-0866. Just tell us the name of the nominee, the phone number or email address at which the nominee can be reached, and, most important, why you feel the nominee deserves the award. You can attach supporting documentation. Please include your own name, address, and phone number. We're looking for the Pioneers of the Electronic Frontier that have made and are making a difference. Thanks for helping us find them, The Electronic Frontier Foundation -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------ Please return to the Electronic Frontier Foundation via email to: pioneer@eff.org or via surface mail to EFF 155 Second Street, Cambridge,MA 02141 USA; or via FAX to USA (617)864-0866. Nominee:_________________________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________________________ Company/Organization:____________________________________________________ Contact number or email address: ________________________________________ Reason for nomination:___________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Your name and contact number:____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Extra documentation attached: _______ -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------ -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we need the financial support of individuals and organizations. If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by becoming a member now. Members receive our quarterly newsletter, EFFECTOR, our bi-weekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect to become a member. Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible. Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish. Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals. But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you must actively grant us permission to share your name with other groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason. ---------------- EFF@eff.org MEMBERSHIP FORM ---------------<<< Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. 155 Second St. #22 Cambridge, MA 02141 I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________ $20.00 (student or low income membership) $40.00 (regular membership) $100.00(Corporate or company membership. This allows any organization to become a member of EFF. It allows such an organization, if it wishes to designate up to five individuals within the organization as members.) [ ] I enclose an additional donation of $___________ Name:______________________________________________________ Organization:______________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ City or Town: _____________________________________________ State:_______ Zip:________ Phone:( )_____________(optional) FAX:( )____________________(optional) Email address: ______________________________ I enclose a check [ ]. Please charge my membership in the amount of $_____________ to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Number:____________________________________________________ Expiration date: ____________ Signature: ________________________________________________ Date:______________________ I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems appropriate [ ]. Initials:___________________________ -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law: Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the* primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source. -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- =====================================================================| EFFector Online is published by | The Electronic Frontier Foundation | 155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 | Phone:(617)864-0665 FAX:(617)864-0866 | Internet Address: eff@eff.org | Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged | To reproduce signed articles individually, | please contact the authors for their express permission. | =====================================================================| Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253