FCC Regulation (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 18:20:01 CDT From: Dave Hurst <hurst@vistatech.com> To: nexus-gaia@netcom.com, fringeware@illuminati.io.com, leri@pyramid.com Subject: FCC Regulation (fwd) Forwarded from the com-priv mailing list: (UPI) WASHINGTON, DC. The White House confirmed today that the FCC will become the Federal agency to assume responsibility for regulating the so-called "Information Super Highway." Today this consists of an autonomous network of computers known collectively as the Internet. Usually reliable sources revealed that the government is becoming increasingly apprehensive about the Internet's uncontrolled growth and the potential for damage to national security. A highly placed government source was quoted as saying "...now anyone with a thousand dollars can obtain the computer hardware and software necessary to communicate on the Internet. Irresponsible individuals can easily transmit messages worldwide. Clearly, there is a need for government regulation." In response to these concerns the FCC is rumored to be preparing restrictive regulations to assure "responsible use" of the Internet. The FCC is reportedly cooperating with other national and international agencies to coordinate these regulations. Several former eastern bloc countries and Italy are reportedly coordinating their internal regulation planning with the FCC. Although details are sketchy at this time, these new regulations are likely to take the form of some sort of license examination for Internet users. Despite the fact that a costly new government bureaucracy will be established, it will likely save money in the long run, according to government sources. "A single USENET posting may cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars, therefore, if licensing reduces such postings by only 10% the savings will more than recover these additional costs", said a highly placed government source. Expert government watchers have been able to piece together a fairly comprehensive picture of the soon-to-be-proposed license requirements. Based upon the past history of the FCC, the test will likely consist of three parts: theory, jurisprudence and practice. The theory portion of the examination will include written examination of the principles of digital logic, elements of generic machine language programming, and comprehensive knowledge of TCP/IP and network interfacing hardware. The jurisprudence portion will assess the candidate's basic knowledge of the regulations governing use of the Internet and will cover ethical as well as legal issues. Licensing will likely include an "Internet oath" requirement in which the candidate will swear to uphold certain basic standards of conduct. Users of the Internet will be required to broadcast their license numbers at logon and intermittently after connection to the Internet. The practice portion of the examination is likely to be the most controversial. Reportedly, all candidates must pass a typing skills examination and achieve no less than 40 words per minute to obtain a (temporary) novice license. This must be raised to 80 words per minute before a regular-status license will be issued. Novices will restricted to operating networked computers having speeds of less than 5 Mhz or operation of SLIP or dial-up connections of no greater than 2400 baud. (It is rumored that the FCC will make 5 Mhz replacement crystals available at a nominal charge to temporarily slow computers of novice operators). The FCC also recognizes that there are conditions when terminal emulators are not available. Therefore, an expert class will be established for communication using only numeric keypads and bi-digit numeric displays. Although needing a minimum of equipment, this mode will require sending, receiving and manual translation of raw ASCII codes. Guidelines for minimum communication rates for this mode have yet to be established while the FCC awaits public input. Although felt to be a desirable goal for all users, this class of license will only be required by individuals operating wireless (RF) LANS. Asked what the effect of proposed regulations would have on the Internet, a highly placed official noted that these rules "should not be considered prohibitive, as they simply bring regulation of the Internet in line with other communication modes under FCC governance." However, the source did feel that such regulations should be very helpful in restraining the rapid growth of the Internet.
Are y'all sure this wasn't a joke? Didn't they at least LOOK in the the practicality of enforcing something like this? I think this illustrates the need for self regulation in cyberspace. If we had only created smart netnews and email filtering software quickly enough, this never would have happened. JWS
On Sat, 27 Aug 1994, Jason W Solinsky wrote:
Are y'all sure this wasn't a joke? Didn't they at least LOOK in the the practicality of enforcing something like this?
Of course it is a joke. Read it.
Of course I'm an idiot. I think I'll go to sleep now. Its scary, that having read just the first half of it, I could believe it to be true. Or maybe it merely proves that my mind is mush. Yours Foolishly, JWS
Jason W Solinsky <solman@MIT.EDU> writes:
Its scary, that having read just the first half of it, I could believe it to be true. Or maybe it merely proves that my mind is mush.
It fooled me for the first few paragraphs, too. It's traditional in these spoofs to have some "tipoff", a strange date or name, at the top, but I didn't notice anything like that. I think it's a bit unethical to send this kind of thing out; someone who just skimmed the first part may come away with entirely the wrong impression. (It was an entertaining spoof, no question, I just wish they had taken a little more care to avoid misleading people.) Hal
On Sat, 27 Aug 1994, Hal wrote:
Jason W Solinsky <solman@MIT.EDU> writes:
Its scary, that having read just the first half of it, I could believe it to be true. Or maybe it merely proves that my mind is mush.
It fooled me for the first few paragraphs, too. It's traditional in these spoofs to have some "tipoff", a strange date or name, at the top, but I didn't notice anything like that. I think it's a bit unethical to send this kind of thing out; someone who just skimmed the first part may come away with entirely the wrong impression.
It sure was well written. Sounded just like a press release/story. I was starting to get a little pissed until I hit the paragrpah about licenses.
(It was an entertaining spoof, no question, I just wish they had taken a little more care to avoid misleading people.)
I suppose that for the next five years the net is going to be overflowing with reposts and requests to call your congressman. Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linux - the choice of a GNU generation | finger blane@free.org "A little rebellion now and then is a good | for PGP key thing" - Thomas Jefferson | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsen Ray Arachelian just wrote:
Who do we bitch to inorder to prevent this?
Send your Morse code telegram--you've passed your exam, I presume?--to the FCC. But hurry, as I understand they're about to pass the law. Here's a section of what I sent FCC Commissioner Craig Shergold: Dih dah, dah, dah dah dah: Dih dih dah, dah dah dih dah, dah, dah dih dih dih, dah dih, dah dah dah, dih dah dih Dah dah -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
This has got to be a hoax, right? The airwaves/ham radio license model really doesn't work in this area! I'd think it was pretty funny, if I didn't have niggling supicion that it might be possible for a gummint mind to think it could work. 5Mhz speed limit? Nominal charge for slowdown crystals? !!! ________________________________________________________________________ < Tony Iannotti, "SysAdmin" cc:Mail: Tony_Iannotti@prenhall.com PTR Prentice Hall email: tony@prenhall.com 113 Sylvan Avenue phone: 201/816-4148 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 fax: 201/816-4146 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Fri, 26 Aug 1994, Al Billings wrote:
Forwarded from the com-priv mailing list:
typing skills examination and achieve no less than 40 words per minute to obtain a (temporary) novice license. This must be raised to 80 words per minute before a regular-status license will be issued. Novices will restricted to operating networked computers having speeds of less than 5 Mhz or operation of SLIP or dial-up connections of no greater than 2400 baud. (It is rumored that the FCC will make 5 Mhz replacement crystals available at a nominal charge to temporarily slow computers of novice operators).
participants (8)
-
Al Billings -
Brian Lane -
Hal -
Jason W Solinsky -
Jim choate -
rarachel@prism.poly.edu -
tcmay@netcom.com -
Tony Iannotti