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.

Ha Ha Ha...

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).

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.

> 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                   | 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who do we bitch to inorder to prevent this?

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."