Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6118 comp.org.eff.talk:8923 comp.unix.bsd:4531 comp.os.mach:2058 news.groups:49654 Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!olivea!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!gateway.univel.com!ns.novell.com!gateway.novell.com!thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM!terry From: terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit) Message-ID: <1992Sep4.002737.21618@gateway.novell.com> Date: 4 Sep 92 00:27:37 GMT References: <1992Sep1.180222.20077@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Sep2.171951.22044@gateway.novell.com> <Bu0ouz.2Ct@rice.edu> Sender: news@gateway.novell.com (NetNews) Followup-To: alt.flame Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT Lines: 84 Nntp-Posting-Host: thisbe.eng.sandy.novell.com In article <Bu0ouz.2Ct@rice.edu> cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes: > what? non-academic people want one > big group we're all forced to read? > I don't get it. Some individuals felt that a crossposting to all news groups to deliver a politically motivated message was acceptable, since they felt it was news everyone *should* be interested in. A "big group we're all forced to read" would be about the same effect. >>The newsgroups included (even in this posting) are quite germane to the >>topic of the AT&T suit. > NOT >at least not news.groups, anyway. Although the other stuff in this >thread about where the thread belongs may be appropriate to news.groups. That, and the posible impact on usenet as an entity as a result of what is generally thought of as an "undesirable" outcome to the suit. >>[usenet not appropriate for boycott] >>This is doubly true of the Internet, which is the primary mechanism used > >Let's say "a major mechanism, in the USA." Usenet would survive without >the NSF part of the Internet, it would just be slower in places. It would require significant rearchitecting in places to get the connections back up. >>in the distribution of usenet, since the funding body is the NSF, a federally >>funded agency, and organisation of a boycott in this manner violates several >>federal statues regarding restraing of trade. > >Now that's actually sort of interesting, since the long-distance digital >lines the Internet runs over are provided by MCI. So it could appear >that MCI was helping the NSF, or NSF was helping MCI, to promulgate a >boycott of AT&T. Alert the conspiracy theorists! (But please be nice >to us non-conspiracy-theorists and take it to alt.conspiracy.) I >don't actually think this is a real issue because the opposition to >the boycott have just as much opportunity to post to the net. But they have less opportunity to "unboycott", as it were. Let me take this opportunity to correct my statement that "NSF funds the Internet", which is not precisely true. Let me also demonstrate the twistly little path I took which led me to the conclusion that it would be possible to kill usenet as a result of enraging AT&T lawyers, who demostrably sue as a result of little provocation: o NSF funds NSFNet o DARPA funds ARPANet o In the U.S., these two networks constitute the bulk of the backbone sites and transport mechanism for usenet. o Involvement in the institution of a boycott of a private corporation by NSF or DARPA by providing necessary communications services to establish said boycott could be construed as a conflict of interest on the part of these agencies. This would be a violation of federal regulations which could result in restriction of usenet traffic on NSF and DARPA operated portions of the Internet, or removal of these hosts from the Internet. o The last two items probably bear resemblence to reality only if the government doesn't overreact (as if this were possible ;-). o Removal of these hosts from the Internet would significantly cripple the Internet in the U.S., the primary source of netnews traffic, and, by extension, usenet. After a rather extended period, the Internet would be likely to recover connectivity (thus re-connecting usenet). o Continued operation of the hosts with restriction of only usenet services would be unlikely to cause the formation of alternate routes, as the only traffic restricted would be usenet. This would be likely to kill usenet. Since everone is probably as tired of this thread as I am, followups are to alt.flame. Hopefully, this will incite postings to this article rather than others, and the thread will simply disappear so we can get back to doing useful work. Terry Lambert terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Disclaimer: Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.